It’s shocking. I can’t remember when it was said but it was quite late into the cases.Despite all the tragic deaths well outside the normal stats for a unit of the size that shook all her colleagues to their core! Mad to think she was still "bored" isn't it!!?
I've been re-reading a lot of the Wiki, and I have to say I have massive concerns about how that unit was being run, and I don't mean the staffing levels. It is claimed she was moved to non-clinical duties when one consultant became suspicious about the number of incidents when she was about, but this seems like a massive under-reaction; I mean we are not talking about a suspicion that she was nicking supplies or making off with NHS toilet roll. Then there was the lack of response to blood tests showing that two children had been given exogenous insulin on the basis that "they are okay now". That's a bit like not bothering to investigate a shooting on the basis that the victim pulled through. Oh, there is so much which bothers me and I'm sure that whatever the outcome of this trial, there will be some very difficult questions for the management to answer in the fullness of time.There was a big discussion about it on one of the early threads...quite a fair few admitted to being noisy themselves.
But...massive BUT...this was a nurse looking up the private life of a patient (family) and therefore it was highly unprofessional. That was never going to look good for her.
Messaging about a patient on social media...big no, no. Guilty or not. Personal devices can easily be accessable to others, if a phone is unlocked, stolen etc.
In my opinion, regardless of the verdict, 'invasion' of patients privacy (via personal devices) should be scrutinised across the board.
It sorta feels like they were doing everything to ensure they didn't get sued for unfair dismissal.I've been re-reading a lot of the Wiki, and I have to say I have massive concerns about how that unit was being run, and I don't mean the staffing levels. It is claimed she was moved to non-clinical duties when one consultant became suspicious about the number of incidents when she was about, but this seems like a massive under-reaction; I mean we are not talking about a suspicion that she was nicking supplies or making off with NHS toilet roll. Then there was the lack of response to blood tests showing that two children had been given exogenous insulin on the basis that "they are okay now". That's a bit like not bothering to investigate a shooting on the basis that the victim pulled through. Oh, there is so much which bothers me and I'm sure that whatever the outcome of this trial, there will be some very difficult questions for the management to answer in the fullness of time.
Yeah it would be interesting to know if the message was one of many along the same topic lines and is only significant because it relates to child N and/or specific incident, or if it’s a total one off and is significant for that reason too.I totally get that LL is the one on trial for this, and some of her actions have been mighty questionable - BUT - so have the others participating in that behaviour! So it's not just a one way street, that's what I just don't get about this case. Of course it's highly unprofessional to message a Dr about a patient on FB - but why didn't the Dr report this? Lots of things just feel 'off' about this case.
Absolutely this! If it was a genuine concern, why did they not call the police in at that stage?It sorta feels like they were doing everything to ensure they didn't get sued for unfair dismissal.
Which just sorta boggles my mind that that was even a concern when they were looking at the real possibility that she was murdering babies!!
It wasn't like they thought she was just nicking drugs from the cabinet, surely the babies lives should have been given more priority over any potential unfounded harm to Letbys career!??
Irrespective of the murder charges, that unit was an absolute shambles. I'm going to hazard a guess that a fair few of them were playing on their phones during their shift...that's not disputing how hard the medical staff worked but it just sounds like there was no one 'guiding the ship' and that weakness was taken advantage of.Yeah it would be interesting to know if the message was one of many along the same topic lines and is only significant because it relates to child N and/or specific incident, or if it’s a total one off and is significant for that reason too.
Similarly the on her phone at work a lot, unquestionably yes but from some of the accounts of her interacting with the nurses who took over children’s care, it sounds like she wasn’t the only one doing it.
Oh yes thanks for explaining! They must know what charges to go with to make sure she get's sent down for the max possible and doesn't get off on some. I just can't get my head around her failing 3+ times when she was a nurse. I just think she didn't intend death those times, that's why I was trying to analyse the charges more.If you kill someone you needed to have intended to kill them or cause them GBH, for attempted murder you have to intended wanted to kill them (no GBH - so actually quite tricky to prove sometimes that you didn’t just want to cause them GBH). Prosecution must feel confident they can prove the intention was to kill, or they’d have gone with a GBH charge instead (for context a s18 GBH - GBH with intent carries the same maximum sentence as attempted murder so often the preferred charge where you can’t quite prove they intended to kill, only that they intended to cause GBH). Hope that makes sense?
It's hard to sack someone in the nhs but it's common to move someone non clinical pending an investigation. If they noticed this pattern sooner (which they claim they did when they moved her to days) then she should have been moved to non clinical or suspended at that point.I've been re-reading a lot of the Wiki, and I have to say I have massive concerns about how that unit was being run, and I don't mean the staffing levels. It is claimed she was moved to non-clinical duties when one consultant became suspicious about the number of incidents when she was about, but this seems like a massive under-reaction; I mean we are not talking about a suspicion that she was nicking supplies or making off with NHS toilet roll. Then there was the lack of response to blood tests showing that two children had been given exogenous insulin on the basis that "they are okay now". That's a bit like not bothering to investigate a shooting on the basis that the victim pulled through. Oh, there is so much which bothers me and I'm sure that whatever the outcome of this trial, there will be some very difficult questions for the management to answer in the fullness of time.
Surely she cannot be cleared of every single charge as that would be madness and dreadful for all these families who have suffered so much and have had to listen to all this terrible information and have been challenged themselves about their own recollections etc.I’ve worked in some places that had awful practice that we had to change as managers etc when I went into a role but I didn’t start using it as a cover to kill people. Bad practice or not she’s an evil killer. I’m starting to think she’ll get off but on a technical factor rather than her being innocent. I’ll never not think she didn’t do it as it’s far too coincidental that similar things have occurred in her shift.
Crash in Chester might mean a delayed court today
The nmc also have strict guidance around the use of phones and social media platforms so that won’t go well either if she’s found innocent and try’s to get her pin back. Not that she will get it like
They also fail to mention how casual her mum was when she rang the police! She said something like “my daughter went missing yesterday” and then when she was asked to come down to the police station she said she was a bit busy and asked could she do it later. The operator was horrified and told her daughter was missing and she couldn’t wait…The latest episode of the Mail LL podcast has dropped last night. Tbh, a pretty brief one indeed. I’ll be up for a podcast once this has concluded for sure.
They go off on a tangent about the Charlene Downes murder for some reason…the guy says he got to know the family well etc…fails to mention that they knowingly pimped her out to older men mind.
The bitch is going down. Hopefully a whole life tariff.I’ve worked in some places that had awful practice that we had to change as managers etc when I went into a role but I didn’t start using it as a cover to kill people. Bad practice or not she’s an evil killer. I’m starting to think she’ll get off but on a technical factor rather than her being innocent. I’ll never not think she didn’t do it as it’s far too coincidental that similar things have occurred in her shift.
Crash in Chester might mean a delayed court today
The nmc also have strict guidance around the use of phones and social media platforms so that won’t go well either if she’s found innocent and try’s to get her pin back. Not that she will get it like
BA's tariff expired November 2021 but I don't think she can apply for parole unless she's found fit to be transferred to prison. Happy to be corrected ofc.The bitch is going down. Hopefully a whole life tariff.
BA’s 30 year tariff will be up soon. Can you be paroled from Rampton? Not that she’s going to get it.
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?