You should have a read of some of the NMC hearings, some of the tit people do and end up with conditions on practice, like @Faith61 said it comes down to who's on the panel but also what you've done to reflect, if you seem sorry. If somehow she were found NG, I reckon the NMC would 100% have her struck off for it because of this trial.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Was meaning the babies parents listening to bm
We might be at crossed purposes?
Exactly this. It works both ways because it has to with the system that we have.
12:33pm
Mr Myers refers to the case of Child C.
He says Dr Evans identified no cause for the collapse in his report, but identified air embolus in evidence.
He says a number of things are "wrong and unfair" about this case from Letby's perspective.
He says if Child C was 1g lighter, he would have been treated at a different hospital.
He was very premature, poorly and had pneumonia when he died, and had black bile aspirates in the final 24 hours of life.
He says the medical experts refused to acknowledge Child C was more poorly than they said he was.
He says Letby is being blamed for something when 'on the evidence she wasn't even in the room when alleged harm was done.'
Mr Myers refers to the case of Child C.
He says Dr Evans identified no cause for the collapse in his report, but identified air embolus in evidence.
He says a number of things are "wrong and unfair" about this case from Letby's perspective.
He says if Child C was 1g lighter, he would have been treated at a different hospital.
He was very premature, poorly and had pneumonia when he died, and had black bile aspirates in the final 24 hours of life.
He says the medical experts refused to acknowledge Child C was more poorly than they said he was.
He says Letby is being blamed for something when 'on the evidence she wasn't even in the room when alleged harm was done.'
I’m sorry you and your family went through that, sounds rough.
You’ve hit the nail on the head with the BIB. I can see it from both sides of the coin. I get there are a lot of frustrations, even I’ve thought “what a fool” but I know that he’s doing what he has to do even if it doesn’t sound nice.
Aww I wanna join the gang! Sadly I live in North Devon so it’s too far to go again really especially because my friend I stayed with is going away now for a couple of weeks (inconsiderate), so can’t really pay a hotel as well as petrol.Ah fab write up, I now know who you were, theres a few of us who go alot so we usually know who’s who we’ve become friends and we go for lunch and get trains togetherwe laugh at how geeky we sound!
Was I sat next to your mum by any chance?
12:35pm
Mr Myers says there were "failures by the neonatal unit", and he should have gone to a tertiary unit for investigation, and there was no examination by a consultant at an earlier stage, or a sufficiently early response to the black bile aspirates, and there was a "general failure" to document things properly.
He says that was "circumstantial evidence" of sub-optimal care.
Mr Myers says there were "failures by the neonatal unit", and he should have gone to a tertiary unit for investigation, and there was no examination by a consultant at an earlier stage, or a sufficiently early response to the black bile aspirates, and there was a "general failure" to document things properly.
He says that was "circumstantial evidence" of sub-optimal care.
No I understand you, my heart aches for them for many reasons. But I am trying to explain how there cannot a fair justice system without BM doing things as he is because the *actual* rum won’t admit to the crime they committed - as well as trying point out how what he’s saying has a place in the wider justice system. The parents will understand that and should have the appropriate support, if anything I’d say it has been harder for them listening to NJs facts rather than the defence ‘fiction’.
Oh he’s got it in for Sandie! Yesterday he was awful about her over and over and over he’s at it again. He knew she came across well so he’s gunning for her! I’d be livid if I was her
Sorry, just catching up, but I can't believe BM is still wanging on about babies in NNUs are basically gonna die anyway... It's absolute bull. I've worked adjacent to NNUs in 4 counties for 8 years now and do you know how many babies we've lost in that time (although granted I'm not on the units, so I don't see everything)? Five (and they do stay with you, I remember their names and light candles for them on baby loss day). I've seen 22 weekers go home, it's bloody ridiculous. I hope the jury aren't taken in by this rubbish.
The parents in the Bev A trial complimented James Hunt for his sensitive handling of the case. He did all the same things BM is doing now, discredited the insulin results, said the units were incredibly badly run, said the children were all acutely unwell.
Anyone that was there, was her nursing colleague friend sat with her parents still?
I would like to know if she’s still supporting her after listening to the prosecution Closing statement
i am glad we have another week where we will hear judge remarks before jury sent out as it breaks up this part so they are not hearing defence before they deliberate.
Have faith everyone jury will get this right I am sure x
I would like to know if she’s still supporting her after listening to the prosecution Closing statement
i am glad we have another week where we will hear judge remarks before jury sent out as it breaks up this part so they are not hearing defence before they deliberate.
Have faith everyone jury will get this right I am sure x
I understand. I really do. It's just so difficult hearing his pish. (Which I understand is what he is employed to do). Good job I'm not a barrister because I'd be rit!
She was, everyday ever
12:41pm
Mr Myers says the prosecution case was to minimise the problems for Child C.
In cross-examination, Letby said she could not recall if Child C had prior issues.
Mr Myers says Letby was 'manoeuvred' into saying that was the case, and the defence do not accept Child C had no prior issues.
He says one of the notes had been put in the wrong patient's file, which was 'poor record keeping'.
"Imagine if it was found Lucy Letby had done that? 'Plausible deniability'."
---
12:48pm
The note recorded bile on a blanket and black-stained fluid for Child C.
He says nurse Yvonne Griffiths hasn't signed for a 9am reading on June 12, and something was entered for noon and not signed.
He says bile on a blanket and black fluid is recorded in the nursing note at 6.30pm, but is not noted on the fluid chart.
He says a radiograph was taken at 12.36pm. Dr Evans, Dr Bohin and Dr Andreas Marnerides had all regarded the image as a 'suspicious event' of harm.
He says Letby was not on duty. Dr Anne Boothroyd recorded 'marked gaseous distention of the stomach'.
Mr Myers says the jury should take this as "proof" the experts can "get it wrong".
He says if this event happened when Letby was on duty, Letby would be accused of causing it.
12:54pm
Mr Myers says futher bile aspirates recorded are a concern for Child C.
Dr Sally Ogden had confirmed that could be serious, Mr Myers tells the court.
He says when cross-examined, Dr Ogden said it was "a worrying sign", and agreed it could be a sign of some gut obstruction.
Mr Myers says on all the evidence, Child C 'merited closer care and attention than he received'.
Dr Gibbs said, in cross-examination, intestinal obstruction 'could be one explanation'. He agreed bilous vomits were a 'red flag' for such an infant.
12:56pm
Mr Myers says Child C's bowels did not open throughout.
He says Dr Bohin was 'firmly against' suggestions Child C was not doing well, and that it was not relevant he did not leave intensive treatment unit.
He says she had the "gall" to imply that where nurses recorded dark bile, it "could have been blood".
BM: "How is that better?...What a thing to say - she wasn't there."
He says it is an "extraordinary dismissal" of the evidence of "experienced nurses".
---
1:02pm
Mr Myers says Dr Bohin, for Child Q, bilous aspirates could indicate gastroenterology problems.
He asks why that could not be highlighted as a problem for Child C.
Mr Myers says it was a "lack of care" that was a potential factor that led to Child C's collapse.
He says Professor Owen Arthurs was asked about the radiograph image for Child C on day three of life on June 12.
He says if Child C had not opened bowels, it could be indicative of an obstruction.
Mr Myers says Prof Arthurs was not aware the bowels for Child C had not opened, and there was no clinical record they had.
Mr Myers says the prosecution case was to minimise the problems for Child C.
In cross-examination, Letby said she could not recall if Child C had prior issues.
Mr Myers says Letby was 'manoeuvred' into saying that was the case, and the defence do not accept Child C had no prior issues.
He says one of the notes had been put in the wrong patient's file, which was 'poor record keeping'.
"Imagine if it was found Lucy Letby had done that? 'Plausible deniability'."
---
12:48pm
The note recorded bile on a blanket and black-stained fluid for Child C.
He says nurse Yvonne Griffiths hasn't signed for a 9am reading on June 12, and something was entered for noon and not signed.
He says bile on a blanket and black fluid is recorded in the nursing note at 6.30pm, but is not noted on the fluid chart.
He says a radiograph was taken at 12.36pm. Dr Evans, Dr Bohin and Dr Andreas Marnerides had all regarded the image as a 'suspicious event' of harm.
He says Letby was not on duty. Dr Anne Boothroyd recorded 'marked gaseous distention of the stomach'.
Mr Myers says the jury should take this as "proof" the experts can "get it wrong".
He says if this event happened when Letby was on duty, Letby would be accused of causing it.
12:54pm
Mr Myers says futher bile aspirates recorded are a concern for Child C.
Dr Sally Ogden had confirmed that could be serious, Mr Myers tells the court.
He says when cross-examined, Dr Ogden said it was "a worrying sign", and agreed it could be a sign of some gut obstruction.
Mr Myers says on all the evidence, Child C 'merited closer care and attention than he received'.
Dr Gibbs said, in cross-examination, intestinal obstruction 'could be one explanation'. He agreed bilous vomits were a 'red flag' for such an infant.
12:56pm
Mr Myers says Child C's bowels did not open throughout.
He says Dr Bohin was 'firmly against' suggestions Child C was not doing well, and that it was not relevant he did not leave intensive treatment unit.
He says she had the "gall" to imply that where nurses recorded dark bile, it "could have been blood".
BM: "How is that better?...What a thing to say - she wasn't there."
He says it is an "extraordinary dismissal" of the evidence of "experienced nurses".
---
1:02pm
Mr Myers says Dr Bohin, for Child Q, bilous aspirates could indicate gastroenterology problems.
He asks why that could not be highlighted as a problem for Child C.
Mr Myers says it was a "lack of care" that was a potential factor that led to Child C's collapse.
He says Professor Owen Arthurs was asked about the radiograph image for Child C on day three of life on June 12.
He says if Child C had not opened bowels, it could be indicative of an obstruction.
Mr Myers says Prof Arthurs was not aware the bowels for Child C had not opened, and there was no clinical record they had.
I honestly don’t think the medical professionals that are being accused of being incompetent or negligent will lose any sleep over this. She looks as pathetic as they come, the other nurses, the doctors etc all know what went on in the hospital, how she behaved etc. They know they’ve done nothing wrong so hopefully it’s just water off a ducks back
Why wouldn’t her little support minion have given evidence for the defence? She’s obviously supporting LL if she is turning up with LL’s parents every day. Perhaps she wasn’t credible enough?
Agreed x lol
You have really described everything so well. I do hope the jury can see things like you have. I have read this mornings CS write up and he sounds worse today than yesterday. I think he was just warming up then. He think he knows more than expert witnesses (Professor Myers) which is absolute arrogance. He didn't need to bring any of his own experts because he knows enough himself. The truth is he probably couldn't find any to discredit the prosecution experts so he's having to put all the hats on himself. The "poor victimised Lucy" act is absolutely sickening me.Soo yesterday wasn’t as bad as it sounds written up- at all!
•BM was too gushing too OTT going on and on about how good the jury are thanking them etc but it went on so long it almost came across as insincere/ too rehearsed. I felt like I needed a sick bucket
•when he was saying the prosecution say everything leads to guilty he was throwing his arms around trying to get an Oscar i think, everytime he mentioned LL he did this poor LL face and pointed at her. He’s been army, author, barrister and I’m guessing actor next, it was very theatrical and kinda too OTT- again came across to over rehearsed and not Authentic.
•the bit about the prosecution shouldn’t have asked LL about staffing pressures etc, you could tell he was narked. He wasn’t happy she’d answered it and he had to basically say she doesn’t know what she’s on about and then told us there was staffing issues etc. he went on and on and on about so many sick babies extra children brought in extra this is in direct correlation etc. no it’s not! There’s a ratio of staff to needs, they were never shown to my knowledge to not have enough staff!
•about her remembering pieces of evidence, he said ‘there’s little else to do in prison’ there were a few laughs here. Granted yes BUT that doesn’t explain why she doesn’t remember the rest or forgot things from 2 weeks ago but suddenly after all these years now remembers somethings that happened 7 years ago that she hadn’t remembered 2,3,4 years later in police interviews
•he said her treatment in cross exam was (in the most over exaggerated voice, tone and action ) ‘BADDDD’ yet he ate the witnesses alive in cross exam, who’ve done nothing wrong, they aren’t in court suspected of murder.
•he said that the fact everyone seems to think the babies were doing brilliantly boggles his mind, then he said something basically saying they could’ve all died they were soooo sick that’s why they were there. But some of those babies were ready to go home!
•defence Said we are the only people who will stand up for LL-no one else will. No because you brought a plumber, where’s your expert witness’s, character witness’s etc that’s no one’s fault but his! Well hers…
•she ‘dared to defend herself’ no she was rude arrogant, self righteous sometimes snappy, absolutely I wanted her to defend herself and tell the truth but she did not IMO she changed what she said every sentence.
•when he said there were months in which they could’ve raised the alarm, if they were right it was a failure and staggering failure in care WAIT WHAT so one second he’s saying she’s done nothing wrong, then said well if she has they haven’t stopped it continuing and reported it… sorry what. She’s either guilty or not you can’t have answers for both, to try and make the prosecution wrong for both this was really clutching at straws for me.
•then he basically said if air embolism worked so well why change it up to insulin etc and if she was so good why did some not die WTF this didn’t go down well, really clutching, he came across awfully! Like she’s not stupid if she did the exact same thing over and over it would be noticed she covered her back and changed them to make it less suspicious…
•saying the list of similarities wern’t all similar some were similar because parents had just gone home, he was saying the opposite for all the others- but yes of course because again it would be soooo obvious!
•notice board was really pointless. Do murders not have notice boards, or perhaps theirs have skulls and Satan pictures on?! I’m sorry if one of your only examples for being nice is a notice board I’m sorry it’s not looking good!
•the she dared to have a social life before the arrest- the problem he failed to point out is SHE WASNT ALLOWED to speak to any work colleagues, then eventually a few, but she ignored it all and carried on yet clearly lied to the jury to get them to feel sorry for her- that was proved FACT with the socials.
•he said about her messages to colleagues were normal, others did it too, I wouldn’t say moaning about not being in room but colleague gets to etc is normal. I certainly don’t think talking about confidential babies etc is normal. And as for many staff doing it 2 wrongs don’t make a right- no one should’ve had their phone even on them! Let alone being used.
•the collection of paper, IMO he wasn’t impressed with how she explained she collected them so he’s tried to soften the edges. He also failed to mention that yes she had 257 but the ones relevant to these cases were in a bag of just around 30 for safe keeping under her bed. They may have been less than 10% of the total but they were around 50% of the ones under the bed! Some wern’t the correct dates- no but it still had the names to search on fb.
•moaning about air embolism research being on pigs and rabbits, hmm I wonder why that could possibly be…. Hmm surely there wasn’t a lack of parents wanting to sign their babies up to have air embolisms inserted for research
The microphones kept messing up some awful ear hurting stuff and some where it kept repeating the last bit he said like a rap- literally everyone was laughing- I felt like Matilda ‘shut him up shut him up’ and off went the sound
Sorry for the biggest ramble ever
What is her excuse for the confession note found at her home? In the middle of the podcast and I’ve missed that bit somehow ! X
- Status