They seem to forget that it’s the police that investigated the potential (at the time) criminal aspect and that CPS agreed they had enough evidence to charge her with murder/attempted murder for 17 babies. Nobody who has said they think it’s a cover up/scapegoat situation has ever been able to explain how they think the hospital could get away with this. Or do they think the police are in on it too?
- 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 think cover ups to happen, obviously they do. I’ve got first hand experience of them happening at a previous job (not to me and I wasn’t involved).
But the amount of work that would have to be involved in this to cover up is absurd. I don’t doubt that some babies at that hospital may have experienced substandard care, there were clearly things that weren’t right. But unless it was planned from the start how would they make it so LL was always on shift for all of these rare, unusual, never seen before, inexplicable events. How do they ensure her swipe card data matches, how do they get medical records at her home, how do they force her to be texting people about the babies, how do they get her Facebook search history to tie in so perfectly with the cases discussed in this trial? If we were talking about ONE baby, ONE event then a cover up could be plausible. But we’re talking about 17 babies, 22 charges, all with enough evidence that the CPS are satisfied a conviction is possible.
If it was a cover up, what a massive stroke of luck that the nurse they chose to pin it on was so forgetful she had test results of one of the babies hidden under her bed, had Facebook stalked multiple families within hours of these babies having these awful events, was always on shift. They should buy a lottery ticket.
But the amount of work that would have to be involved in this to cover up is absurd. I don’t doubt that some babies at that hospital may have experienced substandard care, there were clearly things that weren’t right. But unless it was planned from the start how would they make it so LL was always on shift for all of these rare, unusual, never seen before, inexplicable events. How do they ensure her swipe card data matches, how do they get medical records at her home, how do they force her to be texting people about the babies, how do they get her Facebook search history to tie in so perfectly with the cases discussed in this trial? If we were talking about ONE baby, ONE event then a cover up could be plausible. But we’re talking about 17 babies, 22 charges, all with enough evidence that the CPS are satisfied a conviction is possible.
If it was a cover up, what a massive stroke of luck that the nurse they chose to pin it on was so forgetful she had test results of one of the babies hidden under her bed, had Facebook stalked multiple families within hours of these babies having these awful events, was always on shift. They should buy a lottery ticket.
A million times this. Also if we accept the reports into failing trusts with unsafe culture etc are true and lead to deaths, why does that mean that we then DON’T believe the very same kind of reports and investigations that showed that there is NO evidence to say that that’s what happened in this case.
Like you say, it cannot make sense that it played so perfectly into their hands. It’s so obvious to me that we’re seeing a gradual picture unfold. We’re focusing just on these cases but at the time they’re treating so many other babies and families in between all this and yet they still felt something was amiss and eventually connect dots.
And lastly, who gains? Who wins anything by saying we missed a serial killer amongst us? That they failed to stop her and families went home without babies, they will live with that forever. Who is absolved? They are having their practice gone over with an unimaginably fine tooth comb in a hugely public way with a defence lawyer essentially accusing them of letting babies die (how do you stomach that after a 35 minute resus that has lived with you for years), of deciding to pin it on an innocent woman and constant accusations of incompetence. Delays happen, mistakes happen, procedures are complex, people are strained but those things can’t cause cardiac arrests and deaths and serious life threatening collapses in multiple babies just dealt with by the same one nurse right beforehand! Who just happens to have all this other suspicious activity which miraculously helps to pin a hospital unit magically causing babies to practically spontaneously die on her.
I will say as I've said before professionals are birds of a feather and they stick together and alot of them will not admit when they've got something wrong. Still camp unsure but it's not looking good is it.
Dan has just started up 
Toady agree , I did point out if this was NHS blame culture, which I firmly DO believe happens as it does with all institutions, you could argue this just highlights the issues at the hospital.
But they are still very insistent on this is what it is, but a hell of a lot of charges and on one nurse.
I find it worrying how she was on her phone all the time and no one pulled her up on that, which to me it shows its somewhat possibly normal for staff there to be messaging etc while at work.
There’s sticking together though and there’s a large scale conspiracy between 3 huge organisations (police, nhs and cps) involving hundreds of individuals, and 22 serious charges of murder and attempted murder. Each of the three is so understaffed and underfunded they can barely communicate internally, let alone organise a cover up between them. There’s reasons why I think the evidence might not hold up in some cases, but having worked for two of the three organisations, I just cannot fathom a coverup of this scale* is possible.
*not to say coverups haven’t happened before, but on this scale the chances are vanishingly remote
Agree and I think if there has been some “nothing to see here” mentality.. it was from whoever rejected the consultant’s concerns and told them/him not to make a fuss
there will undoubtedly be questions asked about all of that at a later date but there is ultimately only one person here that decided to use her responsibility and duty in such a vile way and cause so much harm.(there’s nothing ugly about it
)---
there are incredibly strict rules around photography. Hospitals have a medical photography department but usually you have to book a few days before so not feasible here. If you’re thinking of taking a personal photo it is occasionally allowed with the permission from patient/relative but must have no identifying features and be deleted as soon as it has been used as required (so in a teaching presentation or similar). In the emergency situation it’s unlikely to be something to have thought of - at least not until there was reason further down the line to think this was a possible AE.
That’s so strict isn’t it! I guess looking back it’s easy to say take a picture - I just can’t get my head around that if it was something genuinely never seen before, you’d want to document it.(there’s nothing ugly about it
---
there are incredibly strict rules around photography. Hospitals have a medical photography department but usually you have to book a few days before so not feasible here. If you’re thinking of taking a personal photo it is occasionally allowed with the permission from patient/relative but must have no identifying features and be deleted as soon as it has been used as required (so in a teaching presentation or similar). In the emergency situation it’s unlikely to be something to have thought of - at least not until there was reason further down the line to think this was a possible AE.
I recall my arms & legs looking like this most of my childhood - it was cold, I was slender, and we did have heaters that were gas in every room, unvented, no less. My grandparents had pot-belllied stoves fueled with wood sometimes, but mostly coal. Rural, low socio-economic region of WV in the 1950’s 1960’s. My legs & arms are normal now. I do have autoimmune disease.
Dan’s report for today:
Lucy Letby: Baby boy given 'noxious substance', nurse trial hears
A baby boy's heart stopped after he was given a "noxious substance" or injected with air, jury told.
www.bbc.co.uk
I feel like shouting at Ben sometimes. There is no way there will ever be research done in to air being injected into babies.Dan’s report for today:
Lucy Letby: Baby boy given 'noxious substance', nurse trial hears
A baby boy's heart stopped after he was given a "noxious substance" or injected with air, jury told.www.bbc.co.uk
In fact, if Lucy is found guilty, I bet they will use some of this information in the future if it were to happen again.
I know Ben's job is to formulate defence arguments and so needs to come up with some kind of counter reasoning for every point, but I must admit I do find myself cringing when after working on multiple large scale medical trials he appears to not gauge when and why there is evidence lacking for certain unusual medical occurrences, "Dr Evans says most likely the cardiac compressions resulted in air moving from one side of heart into lung. Mr Myers puts it to the medic that he has no empirical evidence to back up these claims, Dr Evans says it would not be ethical to carry out such research on babies."
I'm sure he does this for a reason, if only to create a sense of unease and irritation, but it often appears that it ends up more advantageous for the prosecution. Again, as I mentioned many comment moons ago, I am not at all well versed in the inner workings of the court, so this could be a complete imbecile of a comment.
I'm sure he does this for a reason, if only to create a sense of unease and irritation, but it often appears that it ends up more advantageous for the prosecution. Again, as I mentioned many comment moons ago, I am not at all well versed in the inner workings of the court, so this could be a complete imbecile of a comment.
Ben suggesting there should be a case study to back it up 
what the hell, why would anyone make a study on AE in babies.
Is it correct LL was qualified since 2011?
what the hell, why would anyone make a study on AE in babies.Is it correct LL was qualified since 2011?
let’s just say there’s some interesting drawings in notes from things I’ve seen and tried to describe - drawings help but wouldn’t be a help with the rash I don’t think
Yeah... does he even realise what he's saying???Ben suggesting their should be a case study to back it up
Is it correct LL was qualified since 2011?
unless it is like some strange tactic to try trip people up? I don’t understand why he would say that when it sounds ridiculous. I just find it a bit telling that, that was his argument back. imagine if you were a qualified nurse and innocent and that was your defence argument
I think he does know what he’s saying and is just relying on the jury not thinking about the reasoning as to why there aren’t any case studies involving air being injected into babies. I find it almost insulting to the jury tbh!
- Status