Hammond is really embarrassing himself here. The story that Private Eye should be focusing on is the crappy management and back- covering that has gone on at CoCH by people who were more interested in preserving their jobs and reputations than addressing a massive increase in deaths and substandard care in their unit. If they can do it for a crappy borough council, why can't they do it here? I think it will turn out to be a grave error of editorial judgement, and i am getting close to cancelling my subscription over it.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
That is Janet isn’t it. FucksakeI’ve just seen this on Reddit. I pinched the photos. From Private Eye. Any guesses who it is?
I guess they have not been called due to their inability to answer the questions asked. And I expect this is the reason Myers wouldn’t have called her as a defence witness.
It literally has zero meaning if a nurse (or all of them for that matter!) think Letby is innocent. It’s not a miscarriage of justice because Letby’s colleagues don’t think she did the crime. You don’t determine someone’s guilt based on what Janet Cox or the like think ffs
View attachment 3191020View attachment 3191021
Its a very strong bet its Janet Cox. She overstates her relationship with Letby.That is Janet isn’t it. Fucksake
Last edited:
The latest article by Hammond is ridiculous. This is an extract where he tries to discredit the spreadsheet.
That was the whole point of the spreadsheet, to show that she was on duty for every unexpected collapse and no other nurses was. No one has ever said it proved she punched a baby. He is an idiot.
That was the whole point of the spreadsheet, to show that she was on duty for every unexpected collapse and no other nurses was. No one has ever said it proved she punched a baby. He is an idiot.
Probably not her if those qualifications are accurate and not made up though? Can't see our thick old Janet having a Masters lol
I wonder if Dr Phil will be publishing a similar critique of the staffing chart that was compiled as part of the Beverley Allitt case, the exact same sort of chart ?
Of course he won't
Lucy Letby’s defenders have failed | Georgia L. Gilholy | The Critic Magazine
Nowadays no high-profile serial killer is complete without their own deluded fan base. Even Britain’s most notorious baby murderer is no exception. 34-year-old Lucy Letby, an ex-neonatal nurse at the…
Hope the link works, this is a good article, surely anyone reading that wouldn't still continue to think she's innocent?
I can confirm this is definitely not Janet Cox, I do know who this awful person is, I have photos, life story and everything.... She is not from Chester.
Last edited:
Pretty certain it is not Janet Cox, there is someone active on Twitter who was a nurse at COCH, she used to be on FB and she has a vested interest in Letby's innocence.
She hates Dr Ravi and those answers sound just like hers.
This is excellent!! I do think SA and RG should get an exposé piece too though, lots of scandal and both easily discredited.Lucy Letby’s defenders have failed | Georgia L. Gilholy | The Critic Magazine
Nowadays no high-profile serial killer is complete without their own deluded fan base. Even Britain’s most notorious baby murderer is no exception. 34-year-old Lucy Letby, an ex-neonatal nurse at the…thecritic.co.uk
Hope the link works, this is a good article, surely anyone reading that wouldn't still continue to think she's innocent?
Yes that really is a good article. One of the best I’ve read actually.Lucy Letby’s defenders have failed | Georgia L. Gilholy | The Critic Magazine
Nowadays no high-profile serial killer is complete without their own deluded fan base. Even Britain’s most notorious baby murderer is no exception. 34-year-old Lucy Letby, an ex-neonatal nurse at the…
Hope the link works, this is a good article, surely anyone reading that wouldn't still continue to think she's innocent?
the moment the nurse puts "professionals" (inverted commas) you know where they are coming from
is that the Facebook page that got set up before the trial even started?
No, she used her real name on FB, kept banging on about datix, she has a Twitter account in her own name and another to spread her bile.
Telegraph reply to my complaint. It seems they still want to ignore Letby was designated nurse because mum's testimony doesn't identify her as being in the room at the time they walked in. Funny how they are happy to accept a mother's memory when it doesn't incriminate Lucy, eh?
-------------------
Re: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/23/lucy-letby-hospital-baby-faeces-inquiry/
Thank you for contacting The Telegraph concerning the above-referenced article.
Your complaint is under Clause 1 of the IPSO Editor's Code (Accuracy). You believe our article is inaccurate and misleading because we do not say that Lucy Letby was the designated nurse caring for Baby J on the day that the baby was found covered in faeces. You cite an article in the Guardian as evidence that The Telegraph article is inaccurate.
Both the mother and father of Baby J have given evidence to the Thirlwall inquiry in respect of this incident. This is the evidence they gave on 23rd September 2024:
Mother's evidence:
Q. Right, so tell us what you found when you came
in on the 15th?
MOTHER J: Yes, so I walked into Room 2 and our
daughter was in her hot cot at the time and she was just
in a small towel, just put across her bottom area, and
just over the stoma so the stoma bag wasn't on there and
just sort of loosely covered is the way I would describe
it and she has a Broviac line in place, so I just took
one look at her and was just -- well, I was just
disgusted really to see her in that situation and also
incredibly saddened being a mum and thinking: what's
happened here, and there were two nurses in the room at
the time and they could see that she was in that
situation and I just said, you know -- I think one of
them was pregnant and I knew the other one had children
and I said "You are mums, what would you do in this
situation? Why has she been left like this?" They
didn't really engage in discussion and we made
a complaint on that day. I think my husband then came
in shortly afterwards, saw her in that situation as well
and then we took the address they gave us --
Q. When you say made a complaint, Father J, who
did you complain to or speak to about it or was it you,
Mother J?
MOTHER J: I spoke to one of the nurses and said
that we wanted to see one of the Consultants about that
situation and that it was just unacceptable.
Q. Did you speak to a Consultant?
MOTHER J: Yes.
Q. Who did you speak with?
MOTHER J: Dr Saladi.
Father's evidence:
The first time we asked who had left our daughter in a towel, this faeces covered towel with nothing else on her. We never got an answer at the time. We never got an answer afterwards. It wasn't until our solicitor looked at the records that she discovered that the designated nurse on that shift was in fact Lucy Letby who was responsible for looking after our daughter when she was left in this particular state, so that was a big shock to us. It is something we have only found out recently.
As is clear from the transcript, the mother's evidence was her first hand account; the father's evidence is hearsay. We know from the mother's first hand witness account (which I have highlighted in bold for ease of reference) that neither of the nurses present could have been Lucy Letby as she is not a mother and was not pregnant. We also know from the transcript of the evidence given to Inquiry that the parents of Child J arrived at the unit at 8am and that there were no reported issues with the stoma bags:
Q. Back in paragraph 81 of your statement, in relation to your daughter being found in the towel, you say: "There was no record of Letby or other staff having issues with bags on the shift, however, on 15 December, at the handover from Letby's shifts, when I came in at around 8 am and found Child J in her cot ..." That's when you have given the evidence earlier about what you found
At the trial of Lucy Letby the jury heard that the handover from night shifts is at 7.30am. In other words, when the parents arrived at 8am and two nurses were present neither of those nurses was Lucy Letby.
Given the above, we believe the journalist has been scrupulously careful in her reporting and the use of the phrase 'Lucy Letby's unit' was accurate in all the circumstances. We therefore find no breach of Clause 1 of the IPSO Editor's Code. We do however thank you for taking the time to raise your concerns with us.
Kind regards
Yours sincerely
Editorial Legal & Compliance
Telegraph Media Group
-------------------
Re: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/23/lucy-letby-hospital-baby-faeces-inquiry/
Thank you for contacting The Telegraph concerning the above-referenced article.
Your complaint is under Clause 1 of the IPSO Editor's Code (Accuracy). You believe our article is inaccurate and misleading because we do not say that Lucy Letby was the designated nurse caring for Baby J on the day that the baby was found covered in faeces. You cite an article in the Guardian as evidence that The Telegraph article is inaccurate.
Both the mother and father of Baby J have given evidence to the Thirlwall inquiry in respect of this incident. This is the evidence they gave on 23rd September 2024:
Mother's evidence:
Q. Right, so tell us what you found when you came
in on the 15th?
MOTHER J: Yes, so I walked into Room 2 and our
daughter was in her hot cot at the time and she was just
in a small towel, just put across her bottom area, and
just over the stoma so the stoma bag wasn't on there and
just sort of loosely covered is the way I would describe
it and she has a Broviac line in place, so I just took
one look at her and was just -- well, I was just
disgusted really to see her in that situation and also
incredibly saddened being a mum and thinking: what's
happened here, and there were two nurses in the room at
the time and they could see that she was in that
situation and I just said, you know -- I think one of
them was pregnant and I knew the other one had children
and I said "You are mums, what would you do in this
situation? Why has she been left like this?" They
didn't really engage in discussion and we made
a complaint on that day. I think my husband then came
in shortly afterwards, saw her in that situation as well
and then we took the address they gave us --
Q. When you say made a complaint, Father J, who
did you complain to or speak to about it or was it you,
Mother J?
MOTHER J: I spoke to one of the nurses and said
that we wanted to see one of the Consultants about that
situation and that it was just unacceptable.
Q. Did you speak to a Consultant?
MOTHER J: Yes.
Q. Who did you speak with?
MOTHER J: Dr Saladi.
Father's evidence:
The first time we asked who had left our daughter in a towel, this faeces covered towel with nothing else on her. We never got an answer at the time. We never got an answer afterwards. It wasn't until our solicitor looked at the records that she discovered that the designated nurse on that shift was in fact Lucy Letby who was responsible for looking after our daughter when she was left in this particular state, so that was a big shock to us. It is something we have only found out recently.
As is clear from the transcript, the mother's evidence was her first hand account; the father's evidence is hearsay. We know from the mother's first hand witness account (which I have highlighted in bold for ease of reference) that neither of the nurses present could have been Lucy Letby as she is not a mother and was not pregnant. We also know from the transcript of the evidence given to Inquiry that the parents of Child J arrived at the unit at 8am and that there were no reported issues with the stoma bags:
Q. Back in paragraph 81 of your statement, in relation to your daughter being found in the towel, you say: "There was no record of Letby or other staff having issues with bags on the shift, however, on 15 December, at the handover from Letby's shifts, when I came in at around 8 am and found Child J in her cot ..." That's when you have given the evidence earlier about what you found
At the trial of Lucy Letby the jury heard that the handover from night shifts is at 7.30am. In other words, when the parents arrived at 8am and two nurses were present neither of those nurses was Lucy Letby.
Given the above, we believe the journalist has been scrupulously careful in her reporting and the use of the phrase 'Lucy Letby's unit' was accurate in all the circumstances. We therefore find no breach of Clause 1 of the IPSO Editor's Code. We do however thank you for taking the time to raise your concerns with us.
Kind regards
Yours sincerely
Editorial Legal & Compliance
Telegraph Media Group
'Scrupulously careful'?! Are they taking the piss?
This just sums up journalism for me in 1 sentence. They know exactly what they’re doing but they don’t care as long as it sells/gets clicks
I suspect the detail has come from Knapton directly. The way they state ‘we know from the trial the shift handover was at 7.30am’ as if this exonerates Lucy, when we also know from the trial Lucy would often stay late. Even on a different day for the same baby, Letby writes ‘10.30am:Lucy Letby messages Jennifer Jones-Key just before 10.30am: "Wow it turned manic - left at 9.15 but others still there."’
It might not technically breach the code, but I can see exactly what she is doing. I’m reflecting on a reply (just to make a point rather than it actually change anything).
---
It might not technically breach the code, but I can see exactly what she is doing. I’m reflecting on a reply (just to make a point rather than it actually change anything).
---
To be fair I agree. scrupulously careful to ensure nothing they write makes Lucy look bad.
- Status