I listened to episode 3 of the Mail podcast and they said room 1 can take 3 babies and is a 1baby to 1nurse ratio. Room 2 is a 2 babies to 1 nurse ratio and rooms 3 and 4 can be anything up to four babies per nurse. So if Lucy only had two babies in room 3 then they can’t have been that understaffed that night? Sounds like room 1 was also fully staffed.
- 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 do find that people use the word 'dedicated to a job' to be a positive thing. But actually for a lot of people who are 'dedicated', they use work as a filler for for an emptiness/gap in their lives, dedicated to never being alone/bored etc rather than dedicated to the outcomes and their patients/clients.
I am always wary of working with people who get so invested in their jobs at the expense of any other personal development, because eventually it causes them to lose perspective. And as a manager I actively discourage people always working overtime or taking on the hard cases because they are too invested and wrapped up in it to do it justice. For my husband in the police, they will pull people up when they find they're getting obsessed with cases and not maintaining distance - because it's not healthy for the victims and the officers.They can even be strongly encouraged to take leave. It seems like the supervisor were trying to do the same with LL according to the messages shared - you need a break from ITU, to get away, shut off etc. So it was only a matter of time before she started failing at the job, irrespective of whether she is guilty of murder or not.
I am always wary of working with people who get so invested in their jobs at the expense of any other personal development, because eventually it causes them to lose perspective. And as a manager I actively discourage people always working overtime or taking on the hard cases because they are too invested and wrapped up in it to do it justice. For my husband in the police, they will pull people up when they find they're getting obsessed with cases and not maintaining distance - because it's not healthy for the victims and the officers.They can even be strongly encouraged to take leave. It seems like the supervisor were trying to do the same with LL according to the messages shared - you need a break from ITU, to get away, shut off etc. So it was only a matter of time before she started failing at the job, irrespective of whether she is guilty of murder or not.
I think it was the fact that this baby may have been deteriorating. ‘Grunting’, which is a sign of respiratory distress.
We don’t know what respiratory support the baby was having (if any), this may have needed increasing. Hourly obs may have shown a worrying trend and caught things early.
Although Baby C was in room 1 he was described as stable and seemed to be getting the required respiratory support.
To be honest this is what’s throwing me about the whole thing really. Cause they obviously expect the investigation to take so much longer, what are they looking in to though? If it was more murder charges there would likely be a complete ban on reporting this trial as it would prejudice her future trials.Do you think this means that whatever the verdict for the current trial they have other deaths that potentially they think she is responsible for? I’m unclear how it works but would the conclusion of the previous investigation be where we are now I.e they investigate then charge and now trial? It just seems strange the job runs until 2025? And I guess almost unthinkable that there’s more to come
But then what else would they be investigating? I really think if they have any other suspects then surely this trial wouldn’t be going ahead yet? Do they think maybe she didn’t work alone? It does seem weird to be spending the next three years on an investigation but some of you may have better explanations for why they’d be doing it.
Apologies if this has already been covered. I’m skimming before I start work.
if baby C was showing breathing effort and had a heartbeat then why would resuscitation stop? Surely that meant he was still was alive and should be treated. I’m confused!
if baby C was showing breathing effort and had a heartbeat then why would resuscitation stop? Surely that meant he was still was alive and should be treated. I’m confused!
It could also be that they are looking for more evidence on the current charges, to help the case. Or to be fully prepared for an appeal from her if found guilty. I imagine she will get a lot of organisations like Innocence Project etc appealing a Guilty verdict so the police need to be prepared and fully resourced to fight it.
Someone will probably explain this a lot better but from what I gather from yesterday, the consultant and registrar were v surprised that this happened and did thoroughly explore all options before deciding that it was extremely likely that the baby had been without oxygen for so long that too severe brain damage would be the result? I read it as though it did take them a while to conclude what they did because they were so shocked that baby started breathing again.
Ahh really I didn’t know they could still do that, it makes sense thanks
I don't think anyone is conspiring against her... lots of people are making the assumption that her designated patient was more unwell.. all we know is that the coordinator was concerned about a change of presentation in the other child, we don't know enough about them to claim that this child was more unwell than child C.
The shift supervisor said it, that's why people are referring to it. From the Independent.
The nurse, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, said she was more worried about the baby that Letby was tasked to care for in room three, and that in her opinion he was the “most poorly baby” on the unit.
I’m really not sure how it works but I’m just comparing this to Dr Shipman.
He was brought to trial, and convicted, for specific murders. I think investigations were still ongoing and many, many more suspicious deaths were uncovered although some would be very difficult to prove.
I don’t see why further murder/attempted murder charges couldn’t be brought against LL in the future. Maybe not pressed if she was already incarcerated.
Could be wrong.
I agree. I wonder if the prosecution have gone ahead with the clearer cut cases. And there are still investigations going on with less clearer cases that need a bit more reviewing.
I think LL (or anyone else, if applicable) could definitely have further charges brought against them.
I'm wondering if Dr Gibbs is the Dr G she was referring to as asking her questions after child Q? If so, he might be the other clinicians they refer to as agreeing with Dr Jayaram that her presence was suspicious?
The proseution say Lucy Letby was "worried" when she got home that night.
She texted a doctor at 10.46pm and asked "do I need to be worried about what Dr G was asking?"
The doctor sought to put her mind at rest and told her that Dr G was only asking to make sure that the normal procedures were carried out. She replied that after Child Q had collapsed she (LL) had walked into the equipment room and Dr G had been asking the other nurse who was present in the room (when Child Q had collapsed) and how quickly someone had gone to him because she (LL) had not been there.
The proseution say Lucy Letby was "worried" when she got home that night.
She texted a doctor at 10.46pm and asked "do I need to be worried about what Dr G was asking?"
The doctor sought to put her mind at rest and told her that Dr G was only asking to make sure that the normal procedures were carried out. She replied that after Child Q had collapsed she (LL) had walked into the equipment room and Dr G had been asking the other nurse who was present in the room (when Child Q had collapsed) and how quickly someone had gone to him because she (LL) had not been there.
I think resus had been attempted for 40 minutes which failed.
The Consultant was perplexed when later Baby C took some ‘gasping’ intermittent breaths and had a weak heartbeat, he said this was highly unusual and not part of a natural disease process.
The prolonged lack of oxygen would cause brain death and he thought only the brain stem was trying to still function but would probably be in the process of dying too.
That’s how I understand it anyway.
Poor baby.
He referred this baby to the Coroner.
I would expect they will go through her whole career with a fine toothed comb, and more might come to light if she is indeed guilty. Im sure they had to press on with these cases, for the families to get some closure too. If she is guilty and she is putting these families through the torture of a trial knowing she has committed these crimes she is an unspeakable human, the word evil is reserved for the likes of her.
I think in the past it’s led to mistrials and essentially the actual ‘culprit’ evading justice. If LL was convicted now and then faced another trial in 12 months for more deaths I guess it would be very easy (and very understandable) for the jury to convict because it fits. But actually there could be another explanation (or murderer) who never faces justice because she’s already been found guilty. I doubt that’s the case here but I guess we don’t know.
I don’t know if anyone remembers/followed the horrendous serial rapist in Manchester about three years back. All of his trials were kept out of the press as they would prejudice the next ones against him. And that wasn’t necessarily to protect him it was because there’s a chance he’d just have got charged with all the rapes reported simply because he’d done it before, but that could have meant if there was another attacker they’d never have been brought to justice.
I got the impression with LL they’ve spent years building the case, to then charge her all at once in one trial. And if that’s the case I can’t work out why they’d still investigate for three years. But maybe that’s fairly standard now.
Editing to add just seen the post above (whilst I was writing this) about her potentially appealing. And I think that makes sense. Also I guess they may expect enquiries/leads from the press this trial will get and need someone to investigate them.
Heartbreakingly, brain death occurs within minutes without oxygen. The baby had profound brain damage and was highly unlikely to survive regardless of the breathing effort/heartbeat.
It was kinder to stop.
Do you think it would help answer other parents and families questions regarding the deaths or illnesses of their babies if she was involved in their ‘care’?
I’m not suggesting that an investigation would continue solely for that but could it have some contribution to the reason?
It’s the same old argument from the defence.. Trying to blame the staffing levels. None of it explains sudden collapses.
Couldn’t agree more. It also means both most recent witnesses have been able to say things like ‘yes we’ve wanted more staff for years, we still do!’ E.g. it’s so obvious it can’t explain what happened to these babies because staffing levels have not been wildly different for this time period or even these particular nights.
I imagine defence will have an expert witness that tries to imply the bile was obviously something about to cause baby Cs death but how on earth can they explain it as a worsening picture when it’s so obviously a)something fairly common eg doesn’t lead to totally unexpected collapses and b) was so obviously improving and lessening
It’s starting to get frustrating. They’ve all said all NHS departments want extra staff.. it wasn’t just their unit. It’s not an explanation for over 17 babies going from doing well to collapsing within minutes of Letby involving herself in their care.Couldn’t agree more. It also means both most recent witness have been able to say things like ‘yes we’ve wanted more staff for years, we still do!’ E.g. it’s so obvious it can’t explain what happened to these babies because staffing levels have not been wildly different for this time period or even these particular nights.
I imagine defence will have an expert witness that tried to imply the bile was obviously something about to cause baby Cs death but how on earth can they explain it as a worsening picture when it’s so obviously a)something fairly common eg doesn’t lead to totally unexpected collapses and b) was so obviously improving and lessening
- Status