Lucy Letby Case #7

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Order Thread by Most Liked Posts
J

just_nicole

I think today has shown that other members of staff keep up with the family,

first name terms for most of the children and the parents by the looks of the redacted info.(could be reaching on that, but it's how it reads to me)

And no need of having to explain who they are talking about to each other.

Unless obviously that's another detail that hasn't been reported 🙄
 
  • Like
Reactions: 16
IdeletedbutI'mbackagain

IdeletedbutI'mbackagain

Tofino said:
This is going to get really hard to follow if the media report different stuff.

Mail Online are reporting slightly different again and this bit chilled me to the bone, bearing in mind this was after child A. If she’s guilty we will definitely be hearing more from before child A

The colleague expressed sympathy that Letby was on duty at the time, adding: 'I’m sorry it happened when you were taking care of him. You’re not having a good run at the moment.'



Click to expand...
According to the BBC article she replied to that colleague saying she wasn't even supposed to be in... again shifting blame. The more detail I get the more guilty these texts make her seem.

"Her colleague messaged that Ms Letby was "not having a great run at the moment", to which she replied: "I was not supposed to be in either."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6
C

candyland_

The defence states that the prosecution made the timeline and they didn’t include collapses while LL wasn’t at work so I can only assume that they did happen at other times too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 11
W

Windowtothewall

Former_Antelopee said:
It was the parents she didn’t want to be around? Maybe someone asked her for help so she went into there, maybe asked them if the parents were there before she went?
Click to expand...
Letby says: "Don't mind being in [nursery room] 1 but don't want to have [Child B]."

The colleague offers to look after Child B, with Letby also present in the room. Letby agrees and says: "I think it'd be good for you."

She added, in another message: "...I can't look after [Child B] because I just don't know how to feel seeing parents..."

She also wasn't the baby B's designated nurse and was supposed to be in another room looking after 2 other babies. The baby's designated nurse was working - so wouldn't have needed LL to look after her patient. She also took this baby's handover sheet home. Why would she have the sheet if she wasn't the designated nurse and hadn't wanted to look after the baby in the first place?

To me, it seems like setting up the other nurse to be the designated nurse for baby B (that nurse is officially on the records) so in case of problems, the designated nurse would get into trouble. And the designated nurse would be held responsible by the parents.

She managed to swap the designation from her to the other nurse, while still attending to the baby. That makes no sense.

Also the designated nurse would have gotten into trouble over the handover sheet that LL took home. Because it wasn't LL's name on it so no one would have thought she had it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 9
W

Windowtothewall

bsh3113 said:
Those full text conversations provide a bit of a different picture. Just shows the importance of detail and context. Is the prosecution cherry picking bits to support their case because they don’t have actual evidence?
Click to expand...
Those texts are being provided by the prosecution... The media are just reporting on them in different ways. Where do you think they got the texts from in the first place? The prosecution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3
avabella

avabella

candyland_ said:
The defence states that the prosecution made the timeline and they didn’t include collapses while LL wasn’t at work so I can only assume that they did happen at other times too.
Click to expand...
That's one of my biggest questions, plus how many deaths happened when she wasn't there, and why they were deemed not suspicious either at the time or in retrospect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7
I’mThankyou_

I’mThankyou_

Though Mark is doing a fantastic job, and I wouldn't wanna be in his shoes. He needs to up his game here.
The cross reporting from the media is messing with my head and it can be taken in so many different contexts dependant on what angle the media want to play.
I forget his name, but the reporter who covered Stars case was excellent and his live reporting was in good detail, Mark give him a bell and get some pointers! I'd rather hear it from you in a unbias way
 
  • Like
Reactions: 14
MrsDimSum

MrsDimSum

Windowtothewall said:
Letby says: "Don't mind being in [nursery room] 1 but don't want to have [Child B]."

The colleague offers to look after Child B, with Letby also present in the room. Letby agrees and says: "I think it'd be good for you."

She added, in another message: "...I can't look after [Child B] because I just don't know how to feel seeing parents..."

She also wasn't the baby B's designated nurse and was supposed to be in another room looking after 2 other babies. The baby's designated nurse was working - so wouldn't have needed LL to look after her patient. She also took this baby's handover sheet home. Why would she have the sheet if she wasn't the designated nurse and hadn't wanted to look after the baby in the first place?

To me, it seems like setting up the other nurse to be the designated nurse for baby B (that nurse is officially on the records) so in case of problems, the designated nurse would get into trouble. And the designated nurse would be held responsible by the parents.

She managed to swap the designation from her to the other nurse, while still attending to the baby. That makes no sense.

Also the designated nurse would have gotten into trouble over the handover sheet that LL took home. Because it wasn't LL's name on it so no one would have thought she had it.
Click to expand...
But it was also reported that she was encouraged to look after Baby B to help the parents so it wasn’t another totally new face.

She being LL
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4
Ittybittytittyclub

Ittybittytittyclub

Am I right In reading that she had text a colleague saying LL didn’t want to be in the same room as baby B and then actually put herself in his room and administering food and oxygen despite being in charge of other babies in another room?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
I’mThankyou_

I’mThankyou_

avabella said:
That man did not miss a beat in Star's trial. Literally word for word, it was insane.
Click to expand...
He was fantastic, there was so much detail it'd take me all evening to catch up on his court reporting.
With Mark its taking me 20 mins.
I'm wondering if Mark isn't using short hand, Dave must've been to have the level of detail he did
 
  • Like
Reactions: 12
SwizzleMalarkey

SwizzleMalarkey

IdeletedbutI'mbackagain said:
According to the BBC article she replied to that colleague saying she wasn't even supposed to be in... again shifting blame. The more detail I get the more guilty these texts make her seem.

"Her colleague messaged that Ms Letby was "not having a great run at the moment", to which she replied: "I was not supposed to be in either."
Click to expand...
I don’t really see it as shifting the blame. I think it’s sounds like what you might say when you swap a shift with someone (in retail for example) and you get a nightmare customer or something goes wrong. Like a ‘can’t believe I’m stuck with this, I’m not even supposed to be in today’ type of thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10
C

candyland_

Ittybittytittyclub said:
Am I right In reading that she had text a colleague saying LL didn’t want to be in the same room as baby B and then actually put herself in his room and administering food and oxygen despite being in charge of other babies in another room?
Click to expand...
There is missing details from his reporting. There was more said about that on the bbc regarding her not wanting to be around them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
avabella

avabella

I’mThankyou_ said:
He was fantastic, there was so much detail it'd take me all evening to catch up on his court reporting.
With Mark its taking me 20 mins.
I'm wondering if Mark isn't using short hand, Dave must've been to have the level of detail he did
Click to expand...
It was like you were right there in the courtroom, at times absolutely heartbreaking with the level of detail and how much you could immerse yourself in the information. I think it made it really effective in piecing together the information and the arguments/evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.