it's better than most of their theories
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Letby was very strange, aside from all the harm which the sympathisers forget. Taking home all the 257 handover sheets and deliberately storing them in various places. These were clearly important to her. Keeping her first handover sheet when she was a student in a special rose patterned box. Stalking parents on Facebook, some she didn't actually know and then looking them up on the anniversary of the baby's death as well as in the middle of the night on Christmas day (dates that would have particularly sad significance for them). A very strange and ghoulish woman which people overlook when they are singing her praises.
They are confusing real life with a soap/ twisty fiction novels.
What I find fascinating is there's all these people who say that the evidence to prove her innocence is massive (which it's not) yet ignore the fact that if there was so much evidence to prove she was innocent why did her defence not produce it in the first place.
I saw this earlier on X. Pre trial the defence pathologist produced reports for the murdered babies but they weren't referred to at the trial. There were also defence reports by an endocrinologist and radiologist which agreed with the prosecution.
Listening to this week's Double Jeopardy podcast they said that the defence would be explaining to the CCRC the reasons for the trial strategy. No wonder Letby dug in her heels over waiving privilege.
I liked this week’s episode although I think they (esp Tim) take the “new” evidence a bit too seriously and Tim was a little critical of Shannon and Chase flouncing. He said (paraphrasing) they aren’t defence experts but have a duty to the courts so shouldn’t matter what other experts are saying. It’s like the penny has not quite clicked with them what kind of camapign this is. The defence experts very much see themselves as Team Letby, not impartial experts for the courts.
But overall it was a good episode.
I did like his/their criticism of McDonald though. Strong words about how he has conducted this appeal.
They took another opportunity to say how much they respected Neena Modi - seemingly oblivious to the fact she was head of the RCPCH at the time of the College's report into the deaths. The RCPCH has subsequently expressed profound apologies for their part in the shambles.
Enjoyed this in the report.
But, but her counsellor told her to write she did it and that she's evil!
The latest article from Peter Hitchens is mostly about the former Prince Andrew. But Letby gets a mention of course because the article is about the nasty police doing investigations. It seems he thinks someone should be found guilty before there home is searched and they are arrested 
It’s revealing that this is at the heart of Hitchens innocence campaign for Letby.
Some of my favourite quotes:
The only thing I do know is that he has not been charged with, or convicted of, any actual crime in a court of law. And therefore, under English law, he is presumed innocent.
So why was he arrested at home at breakfast time on his birthday?
Why was he taken away under entertainer, held for hours and then released late at night, in time to be photographed in the back of a car looking suitably miserable?
Ask yourself what it must be like to have your home invaded by grim-jawed strangers, poking into every corner and sucking their teeth as they stick their noses into your private existence?
I am reminded of the police who appeared in the garden of Lucy Letby’s tiny suburban semi, erecting a tent and digging about the place. What did they expect to find?
It’s revealing that this is at the heart of Hitchens innocence campaign for Letby.
Some of my favourite quotes:
The only thing I do know is that he has not been charged with, or convicted of, any actual crime in a court of law. And therefore, under English law, he is presumed innocent.
So why was he arrested at home at breakfast time on his birthday?
Why was he taken away under entertainer, held for hours and then released late at night, in time to be photographed in the back of a car looking suitably miserable?
Ask yourself what it must be like to have your home invaded by grim-jawed strangers, poking into every corner and sucking their teeth as they stick their noses into your private existence?
I am reminded of the police who appeared in the garden of Lucy Letby’s tiny suburban semi, erecting a tent and digging about the place. What did they expect to find?
Hitchens has been writing about this as far back as 2012. I’m starting to wonder what it is he’s so worried about!
Probably because you get arrested before you get charged...thats how it works you thick b
Yeah he's an idiot. Preserving a scene and evidence is what the police do when their is suspicion that a crime has taken place. If they didn't do this there would be more unsolved crime.The latest article from Peter Hitchens is mostly about the former Prince Andrew. But Letby gets a mention of course because the article is about the nasty police doing investigations. It seems he thinks someone should be found guilty before there home is searched and they are arrested
It’s revealing that this is at the heart of Hitchens innocence campaign for Letby.
Some of my favourite quotes:
The only thing I do know is that he has not been charged with, or convicted of, any actual crime in a court of law. And therefore, under English law, he is presumed innocent.
So why was he arrested at home at breakfast time on his birthday?
Why was he taken away under entertainer, held for hours and then released late at night, in time to be photographed in the back of a car looking suitably miserable?
Ask yourself what it must be like to have your home invaded by grim-jawed strangers, poking into every corner and sucking their teeth as they stick their noses into your private existence?
I am reminded of the police who appeared in the garden of Lucy Letby’s tiny suburban semi, erecting a tent and digging about the place. What did they expect to find?
Interesting thought process. So one would therefore assume that if someone is charged with, then convicted of actual crimes in a court of law and have then had appeal court judges uphold the original court decisions that should surely make them guilty?
Unless it's Lucifer of course.Well her guilty verdict doesn’t count as she was arrested at 6am in herInteresting thought process. So one would therefore assume that if someone is charged with, then convicted of actual crimes in a court of law and have then had appeal court judges uphold the original court decisions that should surely make them guilty?
looks like her own nan
I saw this on Vinted, thought of you fellas 
