A patient died in my trust and the family were VERY derogatory online, they set up FB pages, arranged marches and slagged off lots of professionals. I remember checking their social media at times even though I had nothing to do with the patient at all, never even met them. I just wanted to see what was being said about the care. I can see why you'd want to check if you were directly involved, especially if you needed to see them again later that night.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
you said ‘the fact they didn’t do’ ! That is why you are suggesting it is wooly. You’re claiming it as fact and you have zero idea.
Happy to clarify that - should have been the fact it appears they didn't advise her to.
However I stand by my claim that it would be very unusual for someone to go against the advice of their lawyers and plead not guilty if they'd been told to plead guilty.
Not really sure why you're jumping on my posts tbh, I haven't said anything controversial here.
Honestly happens more often than you’d think (although granted I’ve never defended a multiple murder case!!) but I’ve had a fair few clients go against my advice. I wish it was unusual though, would make life easier!!
Speculating - obviously - but could she have been looking them up on FB to see photos of the babies? We’ve heard she may have had a photo of twins after they’d passed on her phone (still to be clarified) so could this have been something she was actively checking for?
Quite a few of my friends who’ve lost babies, either through stillbirth or shortly after birth will at times set their profile picture or cover photo to a picture of the baby after it has passed (not a graphic photo, but one of the baby being held, swaddled or in a moses basket etc). Especially around anniversaries, birthdays, Christmas, wave of light etc - times when you would reflect and share memories. Could she have been looking for this?
Disclaimer: we lost my nephew at 7 months old, so I do have a slightly higher than average number of friends who have experienced stillbirth or death of a baby/young child through baby loss support. I’m not suggesting all bereaved parents share pictures of their babies who have died or that I’ve just got loads of friends who have been through it like it’s a common occurrence. But those friends do tend to share the pictures at important times in their babies life.
Quite a few of my friends who’ve lost babies, either through stillbirth or shortly after birth will at times set their profile picture or cover photo to a picture of the baby after it has passed (not a graphic photo, but one of the baby being held, swaddled or in a moses basket etc). Especially around anniversaries, birthdays, Christmas, wave of light etc - times when you would reflect and share memories. Could she have been looking for this?
Disclaimer: we lost my nephew at 7 months old, so I do have a slightly higher than average number of friends who have experienced stillbirth or death of a baby/young child through baby loss support. I’m not suggesting all bereaved parents share pictures of their babies who have died or that I’ve just got loads of friends who have been through it like it’s a common occurrence. But those friends do tend to share the pictures at important times in their babies life.
I also wondered if perhaps she had searched them in later years to see if they'd went on to have further children?
Oh God maybe, I know loads of people in the profession do this but it just honestly gives me the creeps and makes me want to delete all my social media
She mentioned Child B looking like their mother at one point
I've had a fair amount of professional connection with murder cases, though not this high profile, and IME it's unusual.
In terms of evidence I would want to see to convince me of guilt, I would want:
- clear proof that someone definitely tampered, intentionally, with the babies' medications or in other ways, in order to cause their death;
- clear proof that that someone was definitely LL and could not feasibly have been anyone else.
I await the evidence that shows that. To me it won't come in the form of facebook searches.
Me too, I’m probably even worse than you .. I’m a nursing assistant on a mens mental health unit and I’ve looked up current patients, former patients, their wives/partners, their family members …. I just get too curious. I know I shouldn’t and it isn’t fair on them, it’s unprofessional and inappropriate etc but SO many staff do do it , I know I’ve also been looked up by patients to as have had a few try to add me, I must try and stop doing it x
I ‘jumped’ on your first post because you were claiming a fact about the defence you literally had no idea on, and using that ‘fact’ to suggest the prosecution evidence must be woolly. Your replies to mine didn’t really make sense. That’s all. I still don’t understand your view because Lucy pleading not guilty tells us nothing about what the defence advised her. I’ve responded to lots of posters, it’s nothing personal
I'm in a profession where there is a (very very high!!) chance of people I encounter searching for me - me and most of my colleagues all have our Facebooks locked down but our names also muddled up so a lesser chance of anyone finding us. Not because there's anything to hide, just because we know they'll do it (because we do it too!!)Oh God maybe, I know loads of people in the profession do this but it just honestly gives me the creeps and makes me want to delete all my social media
IME based on my own experience the fact she pled not guilty suggests her defence know the case against her is not foolproof. That's my opinion.
I know people who still use their maiden name at work (although I think that’s more due to then being known as that in the professional world) but on Facebook use their married name but also will work for them being able to avoid being found on personal social media
My opinion is, if you don’t want people to be able to search/see you on social media you can easily set your preferences on the site not to allow it.
I think ultimately if you don’t want people to be able to snoop it’s entirely within your control. If you allow your social media to be public to all and sundry you can’t control who looks at it.
I work in a job where I KNOW that clients will look me up. So I make sure I’m fully private.
I think ultimately if you don’t want people to be able to snoop it’s entirely within your control. If you allow your social media to be public to all and sundry you can’t control who looks at it.
I work in a job where I KNOW that clients will look me up. So I make sure I’m fully private.
Jinx!
Christ I am so nieve. I am keeping my maiden name at work, was going to change it but I deal with a lot of weirdos and I'd be damned if I have them looking me up!!!
Just to state, I obviously have EVERYTHING private but I don't even want people to see my profile pics.
I’m really interested to see more people from those that lean undecided and innocent, put forward a way that gives explanations for everything at once rather than separately. So you have to say all the times she was there, that also events were odd and out the norm and totally unexpected, unusual and uncommon symptoms and similar to each baby, medical experts that can say bowel was filled with air/ insulin poisoning, creepy Facebook, conspiring docs/hospital bosses/nurses, parents misremembering or been police interviewed by morons that have told her they think Lucy murdered their babies etc… like how it all adds up as the big pic. I’m not really interested in how everyone uses Facebook themselves 
Like how many of the 24 charges can you get through saying - this was incompetence- this the baby clearly had a death sentence- this could have been someone else, this could be a doctor making it fit… like in totality it’s a hell of a lot of “I’m just saying what could have happened”
The pleading guilty thing is nonsense. There’s a lady on trial for murdering her neighbour. Decapitated. This lady is pictured carrying out suitcases from the deceased home. Hired a car and drove it to the location the body was found. Motive was financial of which there’s lots of evidence. She’s still pleading not guilty. Guess what - me being the naughty jury member I am (joke!) also thinks she’s guilty
Like how many of the 24 charges can you get through saying - this was incompetence- this the baby clearly had a death sentence- this could have been someone else, this could be a doctor making it fit… like in totality it’s a hell of a lot of “I’m just saying what could have happened” The pleading guilty thing is nonsense. There’s a lady on trial for murdering her neighbour. Decapitated. This lady is pictured carrying out suitcases from the deceased home. Hired a car and drove it to the location the body was found. Motive was financial of which there’s lots of evidence. She’s still pleading not guilty. Guess what - me being the naughty jury member I am (joke!) also thinks she’s guilty
It has occurred to me this afternoon that I don’t know why any of us are even bothering to argue anything coming out of court at the moment. Being agreed facts, even the defence and prosecution are not wasting energy on arguing with each other so why are we
There is going to be a lot of evidence that the defence have not agreed as fact so it will be interesting to see where that goes.
(Just as an example, there was cctv evidence of Savannah Brockhill hitting star. Savannah and her defence claimed she was doing ‘the claw’ from the mask as a play thing. But all the other evidence surrounding it - Google searches about covering bruises etc, suggested that it was most likely true that she was hitting her.)
- Status