how many times does she have to be the only nurse with a baby at the very moment they suddenly experience an unexpected collapse before it’s more than just a coincidence?
how many times does she have to be the only nurse with a baby at the very moment they suddenly experience an unexpected collapse before it’s more than just a coincidence?Child H had periods of collapse and was quite unwell it sounds like but because they could be explained further collapses that couldn’t be explained were attempted murder?
The defence will rip this apart.
Even if she is guilty it’s going to be difficult to prove
It's very confusing wording ...Can someone explain this to me please? What do they mean the baby was not paralysed, do they mean not sedated for intubation?
and also the butterfly needles..
View attachment 1644749
And if that’s the case it’s going to cast serious doubts over LL's guilt for me.I think the defence will really shock us when they uncover other stats from the hospital with such high levels of negligence and failings. I’m expecting so many more cases that Lucy was nothing to do with, I think we’re gonna be really shocked..
Am I right I’m thinking the parents of that baby didn’t want a PM?And if that’s the case it’s going to cast serious doubts over LL's guilt for me.
Take the incident of that little baby bleeding out a 1/3 of its blood. A PM should have been carried out to determine exactly what happened. If he was murdered it could have been determined then.
TBH today so far it’s looking to me more like the hospital had massive failings
Surely - surely - if a hospital is concerned that there has been malpractice, there would be processes in place to override parental wishes?Am I right I’m thinking the parents of that baby didn’t want a PM?
You would like to think, I’m not too sure how that would workSurely - surely - if a hospital is concerned that there has been malpractice, there would be processes in place to override parental wishes?
I agree completely and I think that’s going to be a big part of the prosecution’s case but convicting someone of murder based on coincidences isn’t likely either.how many times does she have to be the only nurse with a baby at the very moment they suddenly experience an unexpected collapse before it’s more than just a coincidence?
Same with baby E. All very sketchy tbhI don't think she will be found guilty in baby H. They have no evidence other than she was there.
The large amount of gas seems to be a common theme for these poor babies. Which makes me think it is done purposely as it’s been said she was a senior nurse and even praised at times - I doubt she was incompetent at NG feeding for this to be an accident.An x-ray at 5.39pm revealed a "massive amount of gas in her stomach and bowels" and her lungs appeared "squashed" and "of small volume".
The prosecution say air had been injected into the NGT to give a 'splinted diaphragm'.
When these findings were discovered did they not think a large amount of gas was strange? What would they originally have put this down to? Surely they would have immediately questioned Lucy Letby’s practice even to account for a potential mistake? There seems to be so many red flags for the hospital that something was amiss and it was ignored time and time again.
Not to mention doing something for “show” would be illegal. The law states everything must be necessary and proportionate - they’d have had to build a case to demonstrate how it was necessary and proportionate before commencing an activity like this.The idea that a Police force who already are criticised for not dealing with jobs and not having enough police etc, underfunded, would waste precious time and man power doing something for show I don’t think is realistic.
I imagine that in any instance where there is murder and criminal activity on such a scale they have to consider that the perpetrator may have hid evidence, concealed it at her home address.
We still haven't really heard the evidence though, this is just the bare outline. They must have a whole lot more in way of records, notes etc that can back up their allegation, as I just can't see how they got this past CPS otherwiseSame with baby E. All very sketchy tbh
The prosecution say that the colleague who said she had been sat with Lucy at the time of one collapse was mistaken (probably unintentionally) and they have medical records to prove it. But that will follow in the evidence bit.I agree completely and I think that’s going to be a big part of the prosecution’s case but convicting someone of murder based on coincidences isn’t likely either.
I’m sorry I’m losing track a bit now as to which letter but she wasn’t with one of the babies reported yesterday and her colleague said she had been sat with her for a length of time bwforr the attack.
I think when we heard the initial prosecution opening we thought she had been at the bedside at the time or very recently before every collapse but now it seems she was actually just “on shift” I agree it looks really suspicious but I don’t know if it will lead to a conviction
What the law says and what actually happens are often very different things. With one baby I think baby I they are saying they are not even sure if LL or another nurse was with the baby while her designated nurse went off for a break?Not to mention doing something for “show” would be illegal. The law states everything must be necessary and proportionate - they’d have had to build a case to demonstrate how it was necessary and proportionate before commencing an activity like this.
They will have had substantial evidence and lines of enquiry to justify doing that.
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?