Thank you so much! This makes total sense.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I am not sure she is thinking straight if she is doing interviews whilst the Thirwall inquiry is ongoing. She was very cagey with her responses to the lawyers. She can't see that she is still being manipulated by Letby refusing her a visit. I bet she'll jump at the chance to visit even a few years down the line if she gets the chance. I wonder if she has contacted Letby's parents?Wow! She’s come a long way since sitting in the dark, not showing her face just after the verdicts. She must feel she will have the support of the public now. Anything to make her feel better for going above and beyond to support a baby killer
Jesus Christ…
I remember Lucy’s mum phoning me and asking could she meet me in the hospital. And she was crying inconsolably, saying, ‘Please, Karen, don’t retire. You’re the only one we would trust in this place’.”
Oh maybe the police force should recruit Rees and Powell given they are so good at identifying whether someone they work with every day is capable of murder or not
Challenged on why she believed Letby is innocent, Rees said: “The one person that knows her nursing team is the manager or the unit manager — not a consultant that visits a couple of times a week. They know the strengths and weaknesses. I trusted Lucy’s ward manager when she looked me in the eye and said ‘she’s [Letby] fantastic and she’s right by the book, she does everything right.’
“And I believed Lucy when she told me she had done nothing wrong. I will always recall her saying to me, ‘you’re the only person, Karen, that hasn’t asked me if I did it?’ Because I didn’t think she had.”
Even at the start I've never got the whole wholesome young normal looking girl in her photos thing , her eyes and there's something off about her smile that has always seemed quite sinister
Wow, that Karen Rees interview. That woman has some nerve. Absolutely unbelievable. 
She's right about Letby "not doing any anything wrong" and doing everything "by the book"
But if you think that means shes innocent then you are an idiot
Because none of the deaths were down to mistakes or errors made by Letby. I'm sure during the chaos of the collapses and deaths she also looked like she knew what she was doing because she was the one orchestrating it all.
She would not admit to having any sort of awareness of the handovers, despite having them under her bed, in different places and obviously taking them out of her pockets everyday to launder her uniform at which point she was aware. She said she didn't know how they ended up underneath the bed. I do think this was a calculated move on her part because if she had admitted awareness of them, then she would have been open for questioning about the organisation of them and how almost every single one in the charges came to be underneath her bed.Even if you could believe there was an acceptable reason for taking home all those handover sheets and somehow keeping them - there isn’t, but if there was - that still doesn’t explain why one was kept in pristine condition in a keepsake box, or at her parents (where she didn’t live for any of her nursing career?) in a box marked keep.
A few scattered between the bottom of her handbag, car door, coat pocket you could put down to being a bit rubbish at remembering to follow strict patient confidentiality rules. But 257?Nah, sorry. That’s 257 trophies.
When Letby was arrested, she did not know which babies the medical experts would deem to be unexpected collapses. Yet, in the Morrisons bag she had handovers related to babies A-N, that's 13 babies.
She switched to the Ibiza bag after her holiday. So before the holiday, at that point in time, there was 14 babies that would later feature in the charges, (A-N) that's a very high correlation. Handovers for 13-14 babies.
She actually had handovers for every baby that she could at this point because there wasn't a handover featuring baby K.
6 of those babies never died, so what gave Letby the knowledge to have these handovers together at this time, when the babies collapses weren't considered suspicious until much later. These handovers are separate from the other 220-odd.
There was 31 handover notes in total underneath the bed, in the Morrisons bag.
She then had the handovers featuring babies O, P, and Q, In the Ibiza bag, which she used when she came "back with a bang"
Yet she’s completely ignoring all the confidential paperwork found in her home that they would have had no idea she was doing, and stalking parents on Facebook? That’s hardly ‘doing everything by the book’. That alone should make these people sit back and think ‘ok, that’s doesn’t match with the perfect super nurse I thought she was’. These people are happy to just blindly ignore even the most obvious red flag behaviours.
There's a new redhanded podcast out, and they have decided that LL is innocent now and is a scapegoat for the consultants because apparently the consultants don't know what they are doing, don't provide good enough care and weren't contactable outside of their working hours. The podcast is stating that the evidence is now showing the first trial was skewed and only the babies who died when LL was there were included in the trial and the suspicious deaths where she wasn't there were removed from the charts to skew the original evidence.
I just can't. Because they are basically blaming the consultants and the hospital itself, and saying that it was the consultants who blamed LL initially and pushed towards her being charges when it was actually them who are to blame. But when the deaths were being brushed under the carpet, why would they have kept pushing for them to be investigated?! What motive could they possibly have?!
They're also saying the jury got it wrong because they weren't presented with the right evidence, and only the right evidence is coming out now and it's the right evidence that is being shown in the press conferences and only this new panel of 'experts' are right and all others who disagree are wrong
I just can't. Because they are basically blaming the consultants and the hospital itself, and saying that it was the consultants who blamed LL initially and pushed towards her being charges when it was actually them who are to blame. But when the deaths were being brushed under the carpet, why would they have kept pushing for them to be investigated?! What motive could they possibly have?!
They're also saying the jury got it wrong because they weren't presented with the right evidence, and only the right evidence is coming out now and it's the right evidence that is being shown in the press conferences and only this new panel of 'experts' are right and all others who disagree are wrong
seems they may also like to collate paper… Yeah they lack basic knowledge, they are working on bring new charges. If operation Hummingbird had found no further evidence of deliberate harm it would have disbanded by now. The fact they are still recruiting doesn't point to her being innocent.The letbyists are now saying that Hummingbird has stalled and that's why they are recruiting. As other people are distancing themselves and Cheshire Police will look stupid with that video.
People have been hoodwinked with the panel of experts report. They believe it contains new evidence but its just theories which aren't backed up by what really happened. People also seem to think the experts are impartial when they are not.
I'm surprised Karen Rees doesn't mention the handover sheets in her interview. She would not have known about them at the time she emailed the Letbys but now, on reflection, she should surely acknowledge Letby should not have done this.
She comes across as a typical cult member. She's quite unable to admit that Letby did anything wrong at all ever. Of course it's possible her own fate is bound up with Letby's.
She comes across as a typical cult member. She's quite unable to admit that Letby did anything wrong at all ever. Of course it's possible her own fate is bound up with Letby's.
Looking at the press conference.
Why did shoo decide suddenly there was no rash as a sign or embolism? He hasn't had this peer reviewed yet.
The new panel do not have a hametology expert. But the one the prosecution had , I think from GOSH said the disorder hadn't passed from the Mother.
The court of appeal also didn't find shoo's change of mind significant. He could not provide reasoning why he says why there is only a single type of mark diagnostic of air embolism . Is this different now?
Seems to be issues around Aerterail embolism and Venous air embolism. He says rash cant be caused by aerterial passing from venous. But yet there are cases of this and babies have a foramen ovale where it can happen.
Which is the link @Tofino couldn't open.
Ahhh but then the negative in me worries she will get a retrial or exonerated.
Why did shoo decide suddenly there was no rash as a sign or embolism? He hasn't had this peer reviewed yet.
The new panel do not have a hametology expert. But the one the prosecution had , I think from GOSH said the disorder hadn't passed from the Mother.
The court of appeal also didn't find shoo's change of mind significant. He could not provide reasoning why he says why there is only a single type of mark diagnostic of air embolism . Is this different now?
Seems to be issues around Aerterail embolism and Venous air embolism. He says rash cant be caused by aerterial passing from venous. But yet there are cases of this and babies have a foramen ovale where it can happen.
Which is the link @Tofino couldn't open.
Ahhh but then the negative in me worries she will get a retrial or exonerated.
Do you think here? Lucy was trying to blame the line that was put in? She goes against what all of the other staff viewed wity the rash.
An 'experienced nurse of 20 years', who the court hears was a friend of Letby, said: "I've never seen a baby look that way before - he looked very ill."
Letby agrees Child A looked ill. She disagrees with the nurse's statement of the discolouration, or the blotchiness on Child A's skin.
"I agree he was white with what looked like purple markings."
Letby explained to police mottling was 'blotchy, red markings on the skin'
"Like, reddy-purple".
Child A was "centrally pale".
In police interview, Letby was asked about what she saw on Child A. She said: "I think from memory it [the mottling] was more on the side the line was in...I think it was his left."
Letby tells the court she felt Child A was "more pale than mottled".
She says it was "unusual" for Child A to be pale and to have discolouration on the side", but there was "nothing unusual" about the type of discolouration itself.
He asks Lucy Letby why she said "blotchiness" rather than "mottling" in part of her police statement.
"I think they are interchangeable," Letby tells the court.
An 'experienced nurse of 20 years', who the court hears was a friend of Letby, said: "I've never seen a baby look that way before - he looked very ill."
Letby agrees Child A looked ill. She disagrees with the nurse's statement of the discolouration, or the blotchiness on Child A's skin.
"I agree he was white with what looked like purple markings."
Letby explained to police mottling was 'blotchy, red markings on the skin'
"Like, reddy-purple".
Child A was "centrally pale".
In police interview, Letby was asked about what she saw on Child A. She said: "I think from memory it [the mottling] was more on the side the line was in...I think it was his left."
Letby tells the court she felt Child A was "more pale than mottled".
She says it was "unusual" for Child A to be pale and to have discolouration on the side", but there was "nothing unusual" about the type of discolouration itself.
He asks Lucy Letby why she said "blotchiness" rather than "mottling" in part of her police statement.
"I think they are interchangeable," Letby tells the court.
There is quite a lot of other evidence that baby A had an air embolism which wasn't that widely reported and which the panel of experts have ignored. They found a line of air across a blood vessel on a X Ray and globules of air inside his brain. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of a blood clot blocking an artery. If the blood clot entered through the longline wouldn't it need to pass through the foreman ovale to the arterial blood?
That would depend on their PAs. They have so many other responsibilities, outpatient clinic work, teaching, research, on call rota etc. Would depend on how many PAs they were allocated for ward rounds, which I'm guessing would include the paediatric wards as well.
There's always a consultant available or on call. Usually the junior Dr's will review the patients and then do a round with the consultant and feed back on each patient and a plan is made. That's what happens on my unit.
- Status