The collapses seem to happen in clusters, particularly towards the end of the month. I’ve often wondered if they matched up with her period. I’m not saying women get crazy hormones and kill people but they could certainly amplify whatever was going on in her head.
- 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 guess if a lot on here can’t wrap their heads round LL being responsible, then would be even harder for her colleagues to. I’m sure there’s a lot of them that have massive regrets over this and are beating themselves up, not that it makes it any better. Even with suspicions there must be procedures, the fact she was moved to days after a while and then to admin must show you can’t just say “oh we think you did this so you’re fired”. The internal investigation would ofc take time too, not to mention that the causes of death weren’t picked up on straight away either. And the consultant that had suspicions was told not to make a fuss. There obvs were a lot of staff that knew something wasn’t right, but didn’t necessarily know what was actually going on, never mind suspect the kitten heel sparkly bonmarche top wearing senior band 6 nurse Lucy, remember she ignored some of their concerns about babies needing help. and insisted on doing things her way too. It sounds like the chiefs at the top have a lot to answer for, didn’t one of them leave after this, and rightly so?
Also the only person there every time was LL. So potentially some only saw one or two of these incidents and were also treating how many other patients at the same time and in between.. so we definitely have the benefit of hindsight but yes this is why those that did think it was odd and perhaps down to LL should have done more but it’s the nature of these crimes that they’re very hard to prove until a pattern arises.
It’s that old saying hindsight is a wonderful thing. Also think that report shows unfortunately why LL wasn’t stopped sooner
Attachments
Yes I know people have said they had concerns, but we’ve heard nothing in terms of actually voicing concerns, surely with all the common symptoms in such a short space of time, the situation needed throughly investigating in august 2015.
I've just caught up. The description of the rash/mottling that the nuse gave today is probably the clearest description we have heard so far.
I find it interesting that Myers is trying to get everyone to admit they only categorised the rash after speaking to each other in the years after the arrest. It appears that most witnesses have denied this and apart from baby A, most documentation has noted the unusual rash presentstion etc. Be interesting to see if the jury do buy this version of events or not.
I can see why he is doing it, as none of them have gone into detail about the rash in the police interviews, but they do all mention it and it being unusual, so he might have a battle to convince the jury it was due to them gossiping/discussing the case after LLs arrest. Especially as we are only on baby D with another 13 cases to discuss, yet every witness has stated the rash was unusual etc. Some (like Doctor giving evidence from Switzerland yesterday) don't even work there anymore and haven't for ages, so it's unlikely they would also have colluded to try and dupe the defence.
I find it interesting that Myers is trying to get everyone to admit they only categorised the rash after speaking to each other in the years after the arrest. It appears that most witnesses have denied this and apart from baby A, most documentation has noted the unusual rash presentstion etc. Be interesting to see if the jury do buy this version of events or not.
I can see why he is doing it, as none of them have gone into detail about the rash in the police interviews, but they do all mention it and it being unusual, so he might have a battle to convince the jury it was due to them gossiping/discussing the case after LLs arrest. Especially as we are only on baby D with another 13 cases to discuss, yet every witness has stated the rash was unusual etc. Some (like Doctor giving evidence from Switzerland yesterday) don't even work there anymore and haven't for ages, so it's unlikely they would also have colluded to try and dupe the defence.
We have had one example where they voiced it. I know it is very hard to fathom but how Charles Cullen was able to get away with potentially 400 murders doesn’t change the fact he was guilty. How nobody noticed shipman with hundreds of victims doesn’t change that he did it. How most people including a few parents didn’t think Bev A had done it let alone have suspicions, doesn’t mean she didn’t do it. See where I’m going fella, but there are countless more examples.
Going to share a few relevant pages on this topic from the journal I read as I realise 360 pages is overwhelming to most but there is lots of insight into why investigations are hard and why often lots of people die before people are caught
Attachments
Babies A, C and D were all referred to the coroner I think. So even if as a doctor you thought these collapses were unusual (and at that stage I don’t think they would ever have suspected deliberate harm) the coroners complete a PM and diagnose a cause of death and they didn’t come back as anything unusual at that stage.
We talk about confirmation bias and I do believe the pathologists will never have considered deliberate harm because the babies were born in the hospital and never left. I’m still wondering when we are going to hear from the expert pathologist(s). I wonder if any of the original pathologists will be on the defence, defending their original findings. Or if we will never hear from them.
We talk about confirmation bias and I do believe the pathologists will never have considered deliberate harm because the babies were born in the hospital and never left. I’m still wondering when we are going to hear from the expert pathologist(s). I wonder if any of the original pathologists will be on the defence, defending their original findings. Or if we will never hear from them.
Baby A’s death at post-mortem, at the time, was ruled as ‘unacertained’. I have no idea how many pms come back with this result, any of you fellas know?, and if it should have raised further suspicions. Would it have done if this baby died at home? We know this baby was prem, and in hospital, so, I’m imagining, suspicion of foul play would be lower.
I’m trying to work out why, at this point, or further along the line, a Coroner did not ask the police to investigate, which is within their power.
I’m trying to work out why, at this point, or further along the line, a Coroner did not ask the police to investigate, which is within their power.
Sorry this was a key one I should have added fellas. There is loads more on the topic though if you look at the page numbers you could jump to that general area in the journal and find more.
I know I get that they wouldn't jump to murder but honestly as a nurse I just can't believe thst nothing was done sooner. We're not even talking about 20/30 years ago this was so recent and more is expected of nurses than blindly following orders.
I think to me it doesn't say anything about the nurses as such although we have seen some shoddy and unsafe practice, but it raises massive red flags about the state of the ward that none of these clinicians kicked and screamed when there'd been so many incidents.
I’ve been wrong about a few things last few days, so lost some confidence in answering questions like this. But at the minute we are hearing from the prosecution, anything that a prosecution witness has said that the defence don’t challenge can be read out as agreed facts, the witness (I think) only has to be called to court if the defence wants to challenge them. Maybe at this point the defence have nothing they want to question the pathologist on regarding these babies , so therefore their evidence isn’t needed yet, same with radiologist. Thought they both would have been called by now. There is something I read in the wiki today about some relevance of the pathologist and a particular baby further along, maybe he won’t be called until that baby. Unless the pathologist and radiologist do all their baby bits later in one go, which makes no sense. Or perhaps as you said, the original pathologist won’t be called as defence agree with their findings, and it’s only an original pathologist from a baby later on they will challenge. Hope this makes sense
If it would have been at home it would of triggered an immediate investigation.
Unfortunately regardless of what side of the argument people fall, either guilty or not huge failures have occurred for it to get to Child Q. Hard to identify or not, it shouldn't have gone on for that long
Maybe it was unacertained but still natural causes suggested therefore not explained, but at the same time not suspicious
But you never have to suspect murder to raise concerns. We don't get many patient deaths but as a loose comparison if we started having a massive number of seclusions to normal I wouldn't automatically think one of my colleagues was a sicko who loved locking patients in a cell, but I'd be asking what training needs weren't met and were people too burnt out to anticipate issues and what can we do as a team to reduce these incidents. It seems to me like the culture on the ward probably didn't support those questions, or people were just too run ragged to notice anything.
I kind of agree. Watching the BA tapes today one doctor was suspicious because one of the first child's PM came back as him having had a heart attack. The doctor was so suspicious of that he raised concerns and started joining the dots.
With the unascertained I'd love to know how many exactly were termed like this. Why didn't it raise suspicion? I suppose because there was nothing to argue about in the same way you'd argue it wasn't a heart attack.
I guess we have seen one person did definitely raise concerns and they just didn’t suspect harm. Unfortunately, it happens. Yes it could be down to the culture almost, she was definitely friends with some of them. Lots of posters here think there is no evidence yet to convict her so I don’t see why it’s such a done deal that her colleagues should have already have put their necks on the line. Unfortunately it happens extremely regularly in these cases. It’s part of the nature of it being an incredibly easy crime in some respects, utterly unthinkable but easy.
Ok, but being unacertained should surely raise a bit of curiosity, if nothing else.
Maybe,
Would all these hospital deaths have gone to the same Pathologists and Coroner fella?
If so, I think I’d be starting to smell something was a bit ‘off’.
- Status