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
Thanks for that...it's been puzzling me!! And that's what i was sort of thinking..but then going round in circles " wondering"The defence would have had to share their evidence and experts testimony with the prosecution. So the prosecution will have prepared their case accordingly. Tbh I don't think there there will be a huge, big smoking gun because he would have at least alluded to it during her character sketch in the opening or in the way he was questioning the prosecution's experts. I think his witnesses will just give evidence on all the points he is raising currently during the cross examination - because the jury need to know he didn't just pull out alternative causes for death, from thin air. I doubt there will be anything that he isn't already covering.
Also any smoking gun would have been shared at some point in the 6 years or at least since she was arrested in 2020 - and we know they've increased charges since then, not reduced them. Means they've found more evidence of wrong doing, rather than being swayed by anything the defence have had.
That's why Rebecca Leighton's defence got her charges dropped. If LL had something similar, that would have happened here too.
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.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.
She was actually struck off permanently for that, rightly so I guess. She tried to appeal a couple of years after I think.Rebecca Leighton had taken medication from the hospital for a friend, which can't have helped the police opinion of her when they found it during their search. They automatically had something incriminating. She was still suspended for that even after the murder charges were dropped. However you'd really hope that her defence could have given reasonable doubt over how easily the bags could have been injected by someone else.
I'm still waiting to hear the defence but I'm struggling to see how they could suggest this was anybody else, given the nature of how the babies deteriorated and suspected causes of death.
I’m so out of date in that area.It’s a hard one. Working on itu we wouldn’t give a supervised nurse a sick patient that could deteriorate the baby was borderline being sent to Liverpool based on his weight. It sounds like the staffing was low and maybe using a supervised nurse to take their own patient which happens but isn’t right - deeming her competent because she was a student there I don’t buy - a newly qualified might be good but if they are still supervised. If like Lucy you are an experienced nurse then if your patient is stable you could ask someone to keep an eye on your patient to support another nurse. So I don’t find that all too strange. What I find awful is they tried to intubate the baby and failed and told the family that in his best interest let him go as he would have potentially have brain damage, but then he started to breathe and had a heartbeat and they let him go. We prolonge life in patients with hypoxic brain injury as it can take a year for the brain to recover - not necessarily humane in some instances but a baby… I don’t like that and so traumatic for the parents he started to breathe again and had a heartbeat.
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.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.
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.
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 periodI’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.
And Baby E.Letby was the only member of staff present at all babies ABCD deaths and near deaths. In my mind, there is a mixture of all this in these incidents of- compelling evidence of foul play, compelling evidence of her behaving unnaturally and suspiciously both at the scene and away from it, compelling evidence these babies were doing well and on an upward trajectory before interventions from LL, compelling evidence the babies would have otherwise survived. compelling evidence of air embolism, compelling evidence of recovery from whatever was causing them to crash when away from Letby (eg not a pervasive problem). I personally feel this paints an extremely firm picture. Appreciate others won’t.
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.This stood out to me too because they (this baby) were actually referred to in the opening statements and they were called JB. I thought it was interesting that they included this information.
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
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.You wii o
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
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'.
She's completely obsessed for whatever reason.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.
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.Yes but equally those doctors have years more experience than Letby so how come she could murder these babies and nobody is picking up on it? Nobody at any time said they suspected the babies had been injected with insulin for instance and yet it was a medicine they must have been familiar with and it’s side effects.
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.But she had only done so 'partly'. The rest of the process was carried out, unbidden, by Letby.
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 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?
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...!
Who's in ITU isn't based on who's more unwell. It's based on who needs equipment in ICU.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?
Yup, having to deal with a busy body who just wont fuck off despite being told to by their seniors!! What the hell like.I would have hated to be the Senior in charge that night!
So, so distressing for the parents too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?