Surely the specialist would know that these results could only happen if the baby was deliberately injected with insulin though and would highlight that in their report.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Also as I said earlier in the thread, we don’t have all of the information. We are looking at segments of reporting from the trial. There have been multiple days where we’ve had no reporting whatsoever. We’ve missed huge chunks of evidence, we really don’t know the full picture of any of it
Hdhdhhan
The reason they gave to justify the results xxx
Yes what reason are you putting forward that they justified the results?
They don’t already have that responsibility then? Seems wild
At the moment I think this ward was run so badly that if someone was murdering babies, it's going to be incredibly difficult to get a conviction. Still lots of testimony to come from both sides.
I’ve been reading ahead about Baby G because my head is battered trying to understand what happened to Baby F.
She had such a hard time
She had such a hard time
The reason I’m putting forward? I don’t need to put one forward I’m just wondering how the crazy levels were explained at the time hopefully I’ve made my point more clear this time?
I just wish people would explain their points not dance around it. If you think something just say it. I hate trying to drag info out of someone.
If you don't want to answer that's fine but I don't get the point of answering people's questions with questions.
But I will not get annoyed, everyone is free to communicate how they wish, it just melts my head a bit as I am a very direct person
If you don't want to answer that's fine but I don't get the point of answering people's questions with questions.
But I will not get annoyed, everyone is free to communicate how they wish, it just melts my head a bit as I am a very direct person
Honestly it was just meant in jest but seriously have you considered yourself a career as a defender lawyer, because if I was ever on trial for something I’d want you representing me
I’ve said what I think happened, I think they did ignore the results. Partly to avoid a scandal or an investigation and partly because baby F got better and went home. They were also dealing with a unusually high number of deaths, I bet they were all worried about how that looked on the unit. Even if the staff conceded they were of natural causes they would have still been worried.
Then they have a ‘accidental’ insulin poisoning occur, they probably thought duck! But Baby F survived and they moved on. You have to remember only the night before baby E died. I don’t really know what goes on after a death on a ward but I can imagine it isn’t plain sailing lots of paper work some sort of investigation etc etc, the baby who survived insulin probably wasn’t that high on their list of priorities at the time, because of everything else going on. Of course it shouldn’t have happened, they should have looked into it more, but an underfunded, Understaffed, over stretched ward, really do have a lot to deal with. We already know best practice hasn’t always been followed, so why is this so surprising. There really can be a underachieving unit who cut corners and a murderer.
Ok but you were the one to suggest there was another reason hence me asking
I'm not sure what's so hard to understand what @slingo16 is trying to say - basically the prosecution are standing up there and saying IN NO DOUBT this child was poisoned by insulin, it's so indisputable by the c-peptide levels etc etc etc - BUT - these blood results came back how long ago? And were left unnoticed for such a period of time that more babies were hurt.
If I'm understanding correctly, theargument question being raised here is how can they be so SURE now, when back then, it didn't get taken any further?
If I'm understanding correctly, the
I’m a builder hahahahaha and I’m way too thick to work in law but I’ll take that as a compliment thank you lolHonestly it was just meant in jest but seriously have you considered yourself a career as a defender lawyer, because if I was ever on trial for something I’d want you representing me
They obviously weren’t sure then, and they put it down as accidental and moved on. They arn’t detectives seeking out a poisoner. They are medical staff there to do the job of treating patients, which they did baby F survived. It’s only after the internal and external investigation happened and in hindsight that they became sure. I don’t know how much clearer that point can be made.
But the prosecution says that it can't be accidental so what 'accidental scenario' did they put it down to when it actually happened when apparently there is no scenario where it could have been accidental. This is the point that @slingo16 is making.
The hospital didn’t take it any further as the baby had made a fully recovery.
I don’t think they did, I think they just didn’t continue to investigate it. I assume that they put it down to an error in medication but never actually delved into it - massive error on their part
edited to add - I am also assuming (hoping) we will hear details of the internal investigations/concerns raised & what they did/didn’t investigate & why & then hopefully LL’s grievance too
Well that's why @slingo16 is interested in this point - if it was deemed 'accidental' at the time and they were willing to let it slide, how can we be assured of its absolute urgency now? Why did it not have the same urgency then if the insulin/c-peptide readings are such an absolute anomaly - even if it wasn't foul play suspected, surely readings of this level (of how rare they are we are being led to believe), would have warranted much further research?
- Status