So we just stand by and let the guilty crew theorise that she watched a TV PROGRAMME for ideas on how to kill babies, but anyone critically analysing the given information so far is deemed a scapegoat theorist? Okkkkkk
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
So she watches a few minute trailer and uses the info to go an attempt to murder a baby? Feels a bit far fetched for me.
I’m more hopeful about the jury because they are getting paperwork, scans of records etc so it should be easier for them to follow. They probably have a transcript of the text messages in chronological order with dates and time stamps. It’s the bloody media that are the problem!
It’s defeated me in the wiki today. I tried to collate the text messages and find some kind of order but it was too hard with the way the news articles have cherry picked it. So I’ve just had to put the links there instead.
The timelines from medical records seem to be flowing much better as Mark at Chester Standard is reporting the exact times, and we’ve started on baby B now. I don’t know why he didn’t do the same with the messages though.
I think critically analysing her watching a TV PROGRAMME with exactly the same method of killing babies she has been accused of is not really in the same vein as victim blaming by saying a bereaved mother is misremembering.
Only one of the above has been entered into as 'agreed facts' by both the prosecution AND defence. She did watch a TV programme and the prosecution felt it relevant to the timeline of the crime. So they have critically analysed it already to decide it's relevant.
Not sure I've seen where the prosecution or defence have said the mother misremembered as an agreed fact? Or in fact mentioned it anywhere?
can I just take a minute to say how brilliant the wiki is and how much of a good job you’re doing updating it!
Yes I do think it should be that’s why I said it’s annoying.
I thought that too. If I've had a tough shift, sometimes it is difficult going back and seeing the parents again. Bereavement care can be hard and if you are someone who overthinks every interaction it can become draining very quickly. Constantly thinking about what to say, how to phrase it and whether or not it is appropriate. I think this thread alone highlights how different everyone is and there is no 'one fits all' in terms of bereavement care. The training I have received focuses heavily on communication and compassion. I'd personally always enter the room with a smile, not a beaming, teethy grin, but a warm smile as opposed to being completely expressionless. I can understand her texts to her colleague and the apprehension over seeing the parents of baby A the next day. I'm a worrier and have felt the same on a few different occasions, sat at home before a shift ruminating. However, once I've got into work, I've felt better about it and got on with my shift. Which again, is why I don't find it that strange that she spoke to a colleague about not wanting to care for baby A's sibling, but then doing so once on shift.
Sorry crossed wires. It’s been a loooong day.
Unless every murderer is born with some special knowledge of how to kill, it's safe to say they were inspired in some manner. Or researched it. Or looked it up. I guess it's easier if the BBC includes it in your favourite programme. Saves making google searches.
this looks like the messages presented differently again!? God love that poor mum blaming herself 
Attachments
thank you! I’ll get frustrated if we have lots more days like this though. It had been quite a simple copy and paste job once the sections were sorted.
I’m just glad people are finding it useful. It does make it easier to go back and find something (if the media report things clearly that is!)
But she’s a nurse. She (and the people she worked with) would have known how to murder a baby without having to watch a programme or research it. She references watching the show but the episode including that information hadn’t been aired yet. Only the trailer. And there is no evidence she had seen that anyway.
The child was prescribed what has been described as “a tiny dose of insulin” which is surely important and we have not yet been told if they’d been given any insulin? and if so who administered the medicine? Was a record kept? If it wasn’t administered then why not?
is it common knowledge in that field of work that insulin sticks the TPN bags or is this something that they could have been doing for a while and not realising?
You reckon she was inspired by a 4 minute trailer that we don’t even know for certain she ever watched the trailer as there hasn’t been confirmation about that - or even that episode as she spoke about watching it before that episode was out.
I think someone said it was initially online prior to being aired on TV.
the report about the mum going back to the room to cry and blame herself is just utterly heartbreakingthis looks like the messages presented differently again!? God love that poor mum blaming herself
It really is so devastating. I can’t imagine their pain and trauma reliving all of this not just for the next 6 months but I’m sure the past 7 years have been torture. Losing anyone is difficult but to lose a child is just unthinkablethe report about the mum going back to the room to cry and blame herself is just utterly heartbreaking
It's just yet another weird correlation is all. We know she watched the show because she mentioned it to a colleague (a colleague who said they would never watch it as they had enough of that kind of thing at work), not necessarily that episode but it is a possibility. IF she is guilty it could have given her the idea to try and kill a baby or make a baby very ill that way.
I don't think that's an outlandish conspiracy theory rather just an explanation as to how she chose her MO.
Was she just an awful nurse 
Was she too busy on her phone to do the job properly and is this the worst outcome 
Was she too busy on her phone to do the job properly and is this the worst outcome Because that is backed up by some facts. The fact there was a trailer shown a week before of a show she herself said she likes and admits to watching, with the same murder technique she used being discussed. The fact the prosecution have included her watching the show as relevant to the timeline. And a reasonable consideration that if someone regularly watches the show as she does, they've likely seen a preview for it. However, even if she didn't watch the preview and that assumption is wrong, there are still a lot of babies after the show aired who collapsed in her care from the same problem. There's no way you can just dismiss an alleged murderer watching a video with a specific murder technique as irrelevant. It may be circumstantial, and the defence can tear it down, but it talks to the timeline and a possible motive.
Now if i just assumed there was a trailer, because of course tv shows have trailers that are shown before it airs, and I just assumed that the trailer must have had the exact footage of her alleged murder technique - that would be far fetched for sure.
- Status