Hospitals are really inconsistent with what they do in regards to events. Some is kept on house but maybe because the NMC were involved they used that to strike her off, if you read the hearings some you think are harsh. But I think there’s a culture of not wanting them to practice and using that as a reason. But also codeine is an opiate and stealing it is not good practice. But I do think after that they wanted her gone.Yes she was disciplined and had some restrictions to her practice or a caution( can't remember which)by by nmc for that, but not struck off and apparently then worked in a nursing home for a while...she was in custody for just 6 weeks, so horrendous as it must have been for her, it seems evidence came to light that she wasn't guilty!
I agree...I breaks me to think that some or all of these babies, despite their prematurity and the problems they did have they were pretty strong/fighters in their own way...hence the alleged repeated attempts of murder...you have explained it well...so sad
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Thanks for that...it's been puzzling me!! And that's what i was sort of thinking..but then going round in circles " wondering"
I also wasn't sure if the defence had to share their evidence...so that makes sense also..thankyou again!!
She wasn't struck off though?I know she was sacked from stepping Hill for stealing the medication. I think she was suspended for short time then went to work in a care home.
I get you though....I know each trust is different and had she not been arrested then would she have been sacked and referred to nmc?
I know she would in the trust I work in.
Last edited:
She was actually struck off permanently for that, rightly so I guess. She tried to appeal a couple of years after I think.
My comparison was more in relation to the witch hunt against her even before it transpired she had been stealing. I wonder if that’s part of the reason the media aren’t covering it too much at this early stage, maybe they’re also waiting until there’s more damning evidence. Or maybe people remember these cases and just aren’t that interested until later on in the trial. Which is sad really as it’s not getting much coverage at all.
Editing to add- crossposted with @Faith61 and thought she’d been struck off but maybe ‘just’ sacked. It is so long ago that I don’t remember all the details. It would have been interesting to know what ‘evidence’ they had against her. Presumably all circumstantial.
Last edited:
I’m so out of date in that area.
SE was qualified and had worked in the ward for several months, baby C was stable and SE seems to have felt well supported by MT.
I believe Baby C had a brain scan after the prolonged resuscitation attempt.
I really don’t want to get into the ethics of what was going to be for the best for Baby C.
It’s something the Registrar and Consultant seem to have been perplexed about, and wrestled with.
Another incredibly sad situation for this tiny baby and his parents.
Last edited:
Just double checked and RL was allowed to.work again with interim restriction to her practice...whether she was mentally able to carry on though, after all that, I don't know, as I say, I believe she did get a position in a nursing home..not sure how long that lasted or what she's doing now.
I understood that he was difficult to tube due to inflamed vocal chords and they ended up abandoning - that’s how I read xx it but I may be wrong . I didn’t see they had a scan.maybe she was good but supervised practice where I work is usually after x weeks supernumerary. That doesn’t make a compentemt nurse in that environment. Competence in NCU or ITU takes years. Not months as student, supernumerary and still in your supervised period
Last edited:
And Baby E.
Baby E is the one I dread hearing about the most. That little baby lost 25% of his blood volume and his mum walked in on him bleeding only to be shooed by LL away then told it was from his feeding tube. And LL made no reference to the blood in her notes.
Alleged to have injected him directly in to the blood stream with air. Awful, awful, awful.
What is likely to cause the inflammation of vocal cords making Baby C impossible to intubate? Is it something that just happens, or would something have happened to cause it?
I don’t think these 17 babies were her only victims, rather the ones they had enough evidence to prosecute on. I know other charges were dropped and investigations abandoned. Perhaps JB was one of these.
What an evil woman she is.
Wanting to be right in the middle of a family who's baby just died, who you had no relationship with. Why on earth would you want that.
Grief vulture at best, murderer at worst.
Wanting to be right in the middle of a family who's baby just died, who you had no relationship with. Why on earth would you want that.
Grief vulture at best, murderer at worst.
They were attempting to resuscitate using neopuff. The registrar attempted intubation but failed. When the Consultant arrived he did manage to intubate but resus still seemed to be failing.
Baby C was not fully ventilated but was receiving opt-flow at the time of the respiratory arrest.
I really can’t respond meaningfully to your comments about staff supervision etc. Sorry.
Iv never been on a thread where iv wanted a heart break reaction so much. It's horrendous. My heart goes out to all the families affected.MailOnline are reporting baby c lived for FIVE hours after they stopped full resuscitation. I haven’t seen the length of time reported elsewhere but I might have missed it as have been speed reading to catch up. I can’t imagine how torturous that must have been for the parents, it’s beyond traumatic to lose a baby anyway but these circumstances are just heartbreaking
Dr John Gibbs, a consultant paediatrician who had worked for 20 years at the hospital, told the jury at Manchester Crown Court: 'Surprisingly, while we were waiting for the two minister there were some signs of life.
'I hadn't been expecting that. I was not sure initially what to do, because we had stopped full resuscitation. We were only performing a token resuscitation to allow him to be christened.
'I'm not sure why his breathing – occasional gasps – and his heart beats re-started.
'It was five hours (later) when finally no heart beat was heard and there were no further gasping responses'.
By then Dr Gibbs had returned home, but he recalled a colleague, Katherine Davis, a paediatric registrar in the unit, calling him on a number of occasions.
'She called me – I can't remember how many times – to say 'Baby C is still showing breathing effort'.
I came with an open mind to this trial, but I trust believe she's guilty now.
She's completely obsessed for whatever reason.
I stopped following the case for a while, I found it upsetting particularly baby E and have come back and re read recent threads.
Has there been any focus on more into her out of work life/background/mental state? A theory of why she may of done this.
Has there been any focus on more into her out of work life/background/mental state? A theory of why she may of done this.
I've seen people talking about the defence statement 'a woman who says she's innocent'. I don't think it's as revealing as people believe. For legal reasons it might not be possible for him to state she's innocent; he's not meant to know, therefore he can't claim she's innocent in case that's incorrect. Perhaps someone with legal knowledge can clarify that?
This line of defence isn't creating any doubt for me. How do others feel about it? Of course the baby would have the potential to deteriorate rapidly, but that doesn't mean it's expected or likely. It's all about the wording - 'potential' doesn't mean a lot when so many doctors, nurses and independent medical experts have said the collapses were unexplained or surprising.
This line of defence isn't creating any doubt for me. How do others feel about it? Of course the baby would have the potential to deteriorate rapidly, but that doesn't mean it's expected or likely. It's all about the wording - 'potential' doesn't mean a lot when so many doctors, nurses and independent medical experts have said the collapses were unexplained or surprising.
People on this thread have discussed how hard it is to detect insulin poisoning though. It requires specific tests I think. It's not something that would have been obvious.
What a weirdo. Is she just an insensitive busybody? Whatever the explanation, it's making me angry and upset for the parents that just want to be left alone.
I don't buy that her designated baby was more unwell than child C. The babies in room 1 are 1:1 nursed. At least child C would have been since he wasn't doing well and they were discussing transfer. LL was in a room where she was looking after at least 2 babies, if one of her designated babies was actually this unwell, why wouldn't he have been placed on 1:1 even if they couldn't move him to a higher intensity room?
Why would they make that up? Maybe more unwell is the wrong phrase.. he was presenting with new and concerning symptoms that the senior wanted Letby to be more vigilant with. She asked her to increase obs and get a doctor in to review him- the latter part is recorded in notes so def happened. They were discussing transfer because he was on the cusp of the weight limit but it was a joint decision with the other hospital that keeping him there would be less risky and stressful. I imagine the other hospital used all their info about baby C to come to that decision. What I’m gathering from their evidence is that whether these babies are poorly or not or high risk - these crashes are not only sudden and unexpected but unusual in how they play out. It sounds like everybody got to baby C very quickly - I mean Letby was there herself (
) I don’t understand why staff shortages would cause very sudden cardiac arrest in this baby or make him unable to be resuscitated.
I think if he has witnesses they will be character witnesses (I don't believe character witnesses should be allowed, I think their bullshit tbh).Yeah...this will be very interesting to say the least...I keep thinking...has the crafty so and so got something massive up his sleeve!!! But then I think...his arguments up to press are pretty weak by just trying to discredit the witnesses and not much else. I don't know much about how a trial works so maybe he isn't going to put up much of a defence other than this ..then pull the proverbial rabbit out the hat when it's his time? Maybe someone here has an idea how this could pan out, if his defence on all the othwr babies is going to be the same?
If he does have something up his sleeve then I'll eat my words...!
Last edited:
Who's in ITU isn't based on who's more unwell. It's based on who needs equipment in ICU.
A baby can be extremely unwell and not need ITU, because that unwellness may not need a ventilator, or CPAP. They may however need a lot of antibiotics, and investigations to see where a source of infection is.
An ITU baby may also not be extremely unwell. They need to be in there because they need a ventilator for a while though, just because of their physiology of prematurity.
ITU doesn't automatically mean very unwell, and non ITU doesn't mean well. It means they need equipment in those rooms.
Yup, having to deal with a busy body who just wont duck off despite being told to by their seniors!! What the hell like.
- Status