I do this for this very reason. I don’t use FB but on other sites I’m my married name but at work retain my maiden name. It provides me with some anonymity to clients.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
It's too early for me to say either guilty or innocent because the evidence hasn't even really started to be presented yet. So how could I say one way or the other.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
We haven't even scratched the surface yet have we?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.)
No that’s totally true but also it’s not really a big deal either if some people do think one or the other or change their mind as it goes on as we’re not on the jury.
That's not how it works though, why would you explain at once things that happened months apart? That's not what the jury should do either, they should look at each piece of evidence and decide whether that means she killed those babies. So far we hadn't had that evidence, if it comes I'll happily sit in the guilty camp. At the moment I'm undecided.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
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
I think she's guilty, be it incompetence or malice, but I wouldn’t be able to convict her right now on coincidence alone. There would still be that doubt in my mind, "what if she's innocent and just incredibly unlucky" and I couldn't bare to send someone to prison as a multiple child murderer if I had any doubt.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
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
That said, I imagine by Child H plus I'd be more than happy to convict her purely on the sheer number of coincidences.
Is when someone gives evidence is it still agreed facts??
If so why do they do it that way and not like with others where they just do a statement? Is it not witness evidence? Is this evidence say someone giving more context and can be asked questions?
If so why do they do it that way and not like with others where they just do a statement? Is it not witness evidence? Is this evidence say someone giving more context and can be asked questions?
To be fair, these two cases are very different and there’s a lot more concrete evidence (such as carrying heavy cases) that this woman is guilty, whereas at the moment (based on snippets of evidence) this case is mostly circumstantial. I’m just curious and not trying to be argumentative in anyway, but could you hand on heart and with good conscience convict Lucy at this stage if you were a juror? Would there not be any element of doubt for you? And again, I’m not saying I think she’s innocent - at this stage I’m completely on the fence.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
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
The statistics as we know them are skewed at the minute.
She may well have been on shift for every one of these deaths, but how many of those shifts were additional/above her actual percentage of working hours?
How many collapses/deaths was she *not present* for?
For example, in any one month there was 10 collapses and 10 deaths and she was present for them all, that looks incredibly incriminating.
If there were 100 collapses and 100 deaths and she was present for 10 of them, it seems much more likely.
(I know these aren’t accurate numbers. It’s just as an example)
She may well have been on shift for every one of these deaths, but how many of those shifts were additional/above her actual percentage of working hours?
How many collapses/deaths was she *not present* for?
For example, in any one month there was 10 collapses and 10 deaths and she was present for them all, that looks incredibly incriminating.
If there were 100 collapses and 100 deaths and she was present for 10 of them, it seems much more likely.
(I know these aren’t accurate numbers. It’s just as an example)
I don’t know if this is the case for all so far but I think with some of them (like the analyst) they are brought in to talk through the evidence even though it’s all agreed. So the jury are hearing it explained by the person who did the work, as they are the expert. Defence were able to question about Facebook but it didn’t even sound like a proper cross examination. It is a bit strange compared to other cases I’ve followed but I’m guessing it’s because it’s such a huge case and huge volume of evidence with medical reports etc.
regarding the Facebook thing,I'm a teacher and I've got very close to parents throughout the time the child was in my class and some have tried to add me on fb during the year but I say no,not until the child is leaving so I can keep in touch. I would never search a parent for no reason, and not so many times! if she was so very concerned and felt so strongly about the children I feel she would have also bonded with the parents beforehand to be able to have a 'private' way to message them? not just searching?
I hope my gynecologist looks me up he was a hottie , hi babeThe majority of people I know have their settings set up private anyway so they’d only get a profile photo. I think it’s just human nature for some people to be a bit nosey or ‘socially curious’I wouldn’t be that freaked out about someone looking me up in social media but if I found out her car tracking was showing her going past my house or workplace every day then I may find that a bit too far
. Don't even need to make proper introductions as he's already seen my fanny.
I am undecided and for these reasons: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
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
•We haven’t yet seen the evidence that shows the babies all had unusual/uncommon symptoms - I want to hear from medical experts to clarify that and why it wasn’t picked up at the time.
•She was there for every case - we need to see statistics on her overtime and also clarify she was the only one who could have been there, they mentioned about the swipe cards in and out and I’d like to see how certain they are she was always the last one with the baby.
•They are saying air embolism now but that wasn’t mentioned at the time by the coroner - why? Will need to hear more from expert witnesses.
•The insulin poisoning is the one that could tip me towards guilty as someone must be responsible for that - so need to hear who else had access to that bag and any possible explanations.
•I don’t find the Facebook thing creepy at all. I think that’s personal opinion/subjective
•I don’t think the hospital were conspiring or there is some big cover up, but it seems they could be to blame for incompetence in many of the cases.
•I don’t think the parents misremembered necessarily. LL may have meant it nicely and it came across wrong or she may have said it as a brag in a horrible way. But people say cruel, heartless and tactless things every day. It doesn’t make them murderers.
For me there are too many variables, too many unknowns and too many questions to say she is guilty yet. I’m firmly ‘unsure’ until we’ve seen the case put forward on both sides.
Thanks for answering. But I think still with what we’ve heard so far people are theorising on innocence (not saying that’s wrong!) all based on what we’ve heard so far but on individual things at a time. And if we haven’t had enough evidence (I know we’ve not had the actual evidence yet but we’re all using the same knowledge that we’ve heard so far) then we wouldn’t be talking at all I guess. I’m just interested to see even with what we know so far, how it’s theorised around as a big picture rather than well maybe her comments mean she’s nice but also someone else removed a breathing tube and the blotching that lots of people thought strange was also normal and the nurse that thought it was odd what was happening was mistaken and.. like it would be interesting to have a bigger summary than the Facebook searches are innocent concerned nurse ones. But not address the other bits and bobs or address them separately but never all at once so you can see just how many parts of the picture we’re saying ‘well maybe this happened..’ to.
Thanks for replying x
Maybe able to question the Facebook as they didn’t state whether she searched anyone else as they didn’t go any further. I guess jsut wanted to clarify for the jury more than question what was found
So who is going to be the dock about these baby deaths?
Attachments
Things I'd want to see if I was a jury member
Details of other non suspicious collapses who was there surely premature babies do pass naturally away. LLs working pattern did she pick up overtime , her history and conduct at university and early days of working at CoC. Medical evidence , forensic evidence is there any evidence of LL tampering with things. Witnesses I want to know what her colleagues thought of her.
Details of other non suspicious collapses who was there surely premature babies do pass naturally away. LLs working pattern did she pick up overtime , her history and conduct at university and early days of working at CoC. Medical evidence , forensic evidence is there any evidence of LL tampering with things. Witnesses I want to know what her colleagues thought of her.
Thanks. See I think I’ve heard quite a lot already about those things but I appreciate there will be more to come. Still that reads to me like she had to be the unluckiest and worst nurse in history! But I appreciate others will have different opinions. I’m also not sure why knowing the others shifts matters all that much. There’s only 7 occasions where a different person was there for all of it so that feels like the key bit because how ever much Letby was there, she was there for all of this and when she wasn’t there it all stopped. I am just not sure it would have got that far or that defence wouldn’t already have mentioned it as it would be quite huge. I also doubt that the nurse that was there for 7 of the cases was there for both insulin poisonings and has some how evaded suspicions. Thank you so much though you have made interesting points and I appreciate we can think differently!I am undecided and for these reasons:
•We haven’t yet seen the evidence that shows the babies all had unusual/uncommon symptoms - I want to hear from medical experts to clarify that and why it wasn’t picked up at the time.
•She was there for every case - we need to see statistics on her overtime and also clarify she was the only one who could have been there, they mentioned about the swipe cards in and out and I’d like to see how certain they are she was always the last one with the baby.
•They are saying air embolism now but that wasn’t mentioned at the time by the coroner - why? Will need to hear more from expert witnesses.
•The insulin poisoning is the one that could tip me towards guilty as someone must be responsible for that - so need to hear who else had access to that bag and any possible explanations.
•I don’t find the Facebook thing creepy at all. I think that’s personal opinion/subjective
•I don’t think the hospital were conspiring or there is some big cover up, but it seems they could be to blame for incompetence in many of the cases.
•I don’t think the parents misremembered necessarily. LL may have meant it nicely and it came across wrong or she may have said it as a brag in a horrible way. But people say cruel, heartless and tactless things every day. It doesn’t make them murderers.
For me there are too many variables, too many unknowns and too many questions to say she is guilty yet. I’m firmly ‘unsure’ until we’ve seen the case put forward on both sides.
Sadly maternity services are hiding a lot of poor practice and tragedies, many of which will never be uncovered. I can't find the post now bur I'm sure someone posted the stats saying there was a higher rate of stillbirths at the hospital around the same time- I think that's curious.
- Status