Sorry it’s linked not far above my post. It’s the daily mail online xI must be blind I can’t see any news outlet name or anything on 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:
It’s the Daily Mail. Someone posted the link earlier. So you can read the full article.I must be blind I can’t see any news outlet name or anything on it
It doesn’t, you’re right, but I suppose it casts some doubt on her guilt.
I don’t know about anyone else but my head is scrambled without decent reporting. I’m finding it hard to follow. 🫤
Is this the same guy putting the lines in? I can't keep up.. I use telemetry all the time straight to who needs to see it. Asking for help seems quite foreign to some people though.
Honestly the thought that all of these medical professionals are lying under oath in a court of law all to prove they had a serial killer in their staff as opposed to just holding their hands up and admitting they were a failing hospital is mind boggling. 
Could you point me to the part that is catty and sarcastic please?
Who is saying they are lying?Honestly the thought that all of these medical professionals are lying under oath in a court of law all to prove they had a serial killer in their staff as opposed to just holding their hands up and admitting they were a failing hospital is mind boggling.
Nope. I’m trying my best to not be catty or sarcastic anymore, and I’m trying to keep an open mind.
The idea that LL is being used as a scapegoat to put all the blame on her for a failing hospital has been put forward a lot over the threads.
Thank you that’s really helpful!
Ooh, perhaps we'll get some decent testimony now ...but that doesn't really sound like mottling does it? I'm not convinced this matches with the other witness statements.
Someone really does need to make it make sense, because it doesn't. I still won't decide until I deliberate with myself at the end...
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone saying it must mean she’s innocent (far too early on in the case to know whether she’s innocent in my opinion) but it’s a very weak foundation to try and build on if she’s guilty. It also makes for a weak conviction if they do rule guilty, because as others have said there’s too much potential for it to be overturned if it’s not strong enough.
This is awful but from what we’ve seen so far I wouldn’t be surprised if her colleagues have (even subconsciously) gone along with all this instead of holding their hands up and admitting they made failings which contributed to deaths. Even if it’s not necessarily been their fault? Not saying that’s definitely happened but can’t rule it out I guess. I also think given how much time has passed, it would be very normal for them to have convinced themselves of certain things. Which again makes it harder to know if she’s guilty or innocent.
Edited to add: this is where accurate descriptions, notes, photos at the time it happened and then evidence of reporting up the chain would have removed any doubt for me personally.
On another note. Just thinking about a long term friend and colleague I have.
I’d be incredulous and gutted if I thought she could do this. So sad.
(Nothing to do with guilt or innocence)
I’d be incredulous and gutted if I thought she could do this. So sad.
(Nothing to do with guilt or innocence)
As one theory yes, that's different to people saying they think these people are lying- seems a bit of a goady post to further whip up issues in the thread.
This is a discussion thread. I have no intention of whipping up issues. Thanks.
Oh god can we not go there again?! No one - literally no one - has mentioned ‘scapegoat’ at all. All I see is theories, hypothesises, ideas, discussions. Most likely everyone is on the fence. Where, if you want to be pedantic about it, we should all really be as we know nothing in the big scheme of things.
Gonna email a mod to get the word scapegoat starred out, sick reading it as a low key criticism to anyone not brandishing a pitch fork
I appreciate it might cast doubt for some but I think the general attitude or reason for doubt is that they are all remembering it retrospectively in order to divert attention from their own failings which I can’t get on board with personally. And whilst we might even have experience of that happening in other scenarios, even personal ones, this is a murder trial in a court of law with grieving parents watching on not a work tribunal or such. I personally feel this is now a lot of meeting of minds in order to twist this mottling to fit a narrative as it’s now several
Witnesses and at some point people have jointly decided to explain this mottling in this way on purpose or have been persuaded to do so. The mottling is all being described very similarly, it was fleeting and the medics were in a cardiac arrest situation. I personally do not see any reason for them to decide to bend the truth on it, there aren’t really any backs being covered at this point. And ultimately their description links up with the very clear finding of air in both these babies- that’s not up for debate from the defence. How it got there will be but we are going to have to hear it looks deliberately administered a few times over the course of this trial and they’re all going to have just had intervention from LL. sorry that was a tangent to your original post! It’s not aimed at anyone it’s just my ramblings! Xx
I was answering someone’s question.Oh god can we not go there again?! No one - literally no one - has mentioned ‘scapegoat’ at all. All I see is theories, hypothesises, ideas, discussions. Most likely everyone is on the fence. Where, if you want to be pedantic about it, we should all really be as we know nothing in the big scheme of things.
Gonna email a mod to get the word scapegoat starred out, sick reading it
The scapegoat theory has been discussed. I don’t know why you’re so offended by my post, I’m discussing in the same way everyone else is.
I have no interest in getting into these little spats that seem so common on these threads. You clearly enjoy it, please leave me out of it.
I understand child A & B were twins, but thought we had moved onto Child B, but witnesses still giving evidence on Child A? Can see how this is going to go on for 6 months at least.
- Status