Exactly! I just think people are jumping so quickly at a guilty conviction, none of it yet as told me she has definitely murdered these babies, it can all be explained. We need medical proof, innocent until proven guilty 100%When I'm stressed not in a good place , I would look up an ex , a teenage friend I had fallen out with more to see how they were doing. I sometimes ruminate on the past and how things have gone. I've also looked up my best friend's ex as he was a fool !!! Some people are really nosey (I'm one of these) scary to think my nosiness could be brought in court
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
She was actively searching for those parents hours after the deaths. You don’t just randomly type in a few letters and a patients parent comes up. She was seeking them out each and every time. Both the mother and father in some cases.
And where’s your proof that this was a trophy? She hasn’t been found guilty of anything yet and context is everything. The defence haven’t even had their say. I think some people on here just enjoy the witchhunt.
But why deny if there was a reasonable explanation? Like "I look all the parents up because I worry about them afterwards and want to make sure they are okay". Just seems more straightforward than lying to the police to me.
Exactly this - they have to be virtually certain of the guilt, so if there’s any reasonable doubt they have to find the defendant not guilty
Yeah because she was upset and wanted to check in on them maybe? I don’t know what a murderer would gain by facebooking someone. Jobs done, they don’t care about them as people so why would they after they have killed their child? She might of been feeling sad and thinking about it and wanted to see if they put up a nice little tribute to the baby on their page. That’s caring… that’s all it is. But again I could be completely wrong, like I said I really believe in innocent until proven guilty only because I can’t imagine how wrecked I’d be if nobody believed me and I was totally innocent. You can never say it won’t happen to any of us, would we then want the public to judge us based on speculation? Absolutely not
But she also searched for the parents of babies who didn’t die or weren’t harmed in any way. So it doesn’t prove anything apart from that she is nosy/curious about her patients.
To be honest she would know their names off by heart as she had nursed that family. I'm not saying it's right but it's a pattern for her to randomly search people up. The prosecution admitted she searched multiple people up who had no collapses or incidents.
I get your point, but i beg to differ.
Attachments
No it has been claimed no one was prescribed insulin and this is why it cannot be a medication or human error
Yes, I was going to mention the pot plant argument in the context of reasonable but eh, don’t mention the pot plant 🪴
It could still be human error no? Someone going to get a different medication but accidentally picking up and giving insulin instead of what they were meant to get?
Actually we don’t know this. the reporting doesn’t give details about any of the families searched and not on the indictment. We don’t know what the medical history is of those other families she searched or how often she searched for them. (And how long after).
She is asked whether Letby searched on Facebook for the parents of children other than those listed in the charges.
Ms Hocknell confirms that is the case. "There are a lot of searches for different people."
I agree, I don’t think true crime shows help either - it’s easy to watch them and feel you understand how murderers work and apply it to other scenarios.
This is why it's so troubling they need hard forensic medical evidence. The case at the minute throws up so much doubt. If you knew it would be a shorter sentence maybe but she's going to go away for life. I couldn't say she was definitely guilty and send her to prison for the rest of her days based on the prosecutions current case.
I just think it’s vulgar that a baby died and her first thought was to search them on Facebook when she new they were still in hospital. There was no need to see how they were doing online and then it’s even more strange considering she was texting saying that she didn’t want to see the parents (Baby A).
That is not human error that is negligence at the very least. You would check your medication against the chart at least twice and a lot of medications in paeds require two checkers. In NICU it is two but I can’t speak for all trusts across the country
The ‘denial’ is being laboured a lot - but the fact is, like everything with the prosecution case so far - the most sensational part has been drip fed.
What was the actual question she was asked and what exactly was her answer?
In what other context of the interview did she answer?
Q - ‘did you search for parent A on Facebook?’
A - ‘no’
Is very different to;
Q - ‘did you search parent A on Facebook on 24th June at 9.08am’
A - ‘I can’t remember’
What was the actual question she was asked and what exactly was her answer?
In what other context of the interview did she answer?
Q - ‘did you search for parent A on Facebook?’
A - ‘no’
Is very different to;
Q - ‘did you search parent A on Facebook on 24th June at 9.08am’
A - ‘I can’t remember’
Is that what they asked her?
- Status