Sweeper2000
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2022
- Messages
- 2,074
- Reaction score
- 5,507
Or even emphasis from the prosecution on the irregularity of her doing so whereas in other similar events he did.
The only thing she was instructed to do by her senior, in relation to Baby C was to stop going into the family room where his parents were with him, and to go back to her own designated baby. Baby C's father believes that it was LL who came in with a ventilated basket and said "You've said your goodbyes now, do you want to put him in here".@ColourPurple
“She wasn't even supposed to be there with the parents. It's not really a case of her finding herself in an unavoidably awkward situation and not knowing what to say. She deliberately put herself in that situation, presumably because that's where she wanted to be, rather than looking after her designated baby.”
Wait, so I remember asking this at the time this info was presented. was this something ll took on herself then and wasn’t asked to retrieve and place in the cold cot by her senior or acting senior? thats new info to me.
It's that she wasn't even meant to be there. It wasn't her role to be offering them anything, and she had been told more than once to leave them alone.I don’t remember any testimony from Other staff saying her offering the cold cot was unusual or even outside of guidelines?
I don't think it needed anybody else's testimony to explain how inappropriate it was.I don’t remember any testimony from Other staff saying her offering the cold cot was unusual or even outside of guidelines?
Imagine having a therapy session, and the therapist who is responsible for another patient in the next room keeps coming in and trying to give you therapy. They're not your therapist, and they're neglecting their own patient to keep coming in and intruding on your session. It's completely inappropriate. You having therapy in that room is nothing unusual! But that therapist's behaviour is completely over the line.
MOO
Okay, I guess our therapy experiences have been different. Imagine that you've worked really hard to get to a point where you're ready to start talking about something incredibly painful with the one person who you've worked up to this point with. And then their colleague, who you don't know and haven't built a relationship of trust with wants to talk to you about very private things. Without them being your therapist. Just busting through the door and wanting to sit in or ask you questions about your trauma.I would think the other therapist fancied me!!![]()
![]()
It was a joke.Okay, I guess our therapy experiences have been different. Imagine that you've worked really hard to get to a point where you're ready to start talking about something incredibly painful with the one person who you've worked up to this point with. And then their colleague, who you don't know and haven't built a relationship of trust with wants to talk to you about very private things. Without them being your therapist. Just busting through the door and wanting to sit in or ask you questions about your trauma.
It wouldn't matter how good a relationship I had with my therapist, but that would freak me out so bad and break my trust in their practice irrevocably. You wouldn't see me for the dust. I'd be gone.
MOO
i did actually take a negative from that situation. Now I’m surprised that that also wasn’t pointed out by the prosecution. I remember there was an occasion where the P was stating that the evidence indicates a certain level of voyeurism was going on, is this that case?
if it is I’m wondering it if was just Nick KC including the cold cot incident within that statement. Eta no that was baby i with the condolence card and the quote is “voyeuristic tendencies”.
'Her voyeuristic tendencies drove her to look up her mum on the internet. She inflicted pain on Baby I on more than one occasion and ultimately succeeded in killing her.”
![]()
Lucy Letby 'revelled in killing baby and sent card to family'
Neonatal nurse Lucy Letby was so excited at her success that she interrupted the parents of (Baby) I as they bathed the dead infant, Manchester Crown Court heard.www.dailymail.co.uk
We're well over 50 pages now on this thread..... does anyone know how/who creates a new thread? Just think it makes sense to do asap in case this discussion gets a flurry of activity.@sillybilly ?
So nothing from Mel T about the cold cot or verbal acknowledgement of LL involvement in the situation?
Nothing here from MT. She talks about the process of what was offered to the parents, IMO, as if she handled it herself. It was her responsibility, after all:So nothing from Mel T about the cold cot or verbal acknowledgement of LL involvement in the situation?
I find her behavior with the parents of this baby beyond disturbing. If I was on the jury, this would convince me to vote guilty for this baby. I’d then apply this to every other baby death. In my mind, if I’m convinced that she did one, she did them all.Exactly - she wasn’t supposed to be there or wanted so why WAS she there ?
It can only be a macabre “ vested interest “ in Baby C
JMO
I find her behavior with the parents of this baby beyond disturbing. If I was on the jury, this would convince me to vote guilty for this baby. I’d then apply this to every other baby death. In my mind, if I’m convinced that she did one, she did them all.
We're well over 50 pages now on this thread..... does anyone know how/who creates a new thread? Just think it makes sense to do asap in case this discussion gets a flurry of activity.
I just reported on a post to (politely) ask for one, so, hopefully, soon.The mods normally create one. I hope we do hear some news today to get a flurry of activity though .