I thought about incompetence too, but would she have been used as a poster girl and would something have not been brought up before 2015 considering she graduated in 2011? How often do you see incompetency in your area and does anyone do anything about it?I’m new to this thread and just read part of the wikis. I still am not sure if I think she did it or not. I’m a nurse but for adults so not familiar with NICU nursing at all. I am not sure if this has already been brought up, but re the air embolus after connecting the fluids, I wonder if this could have happened by her not priming the giving set the fluids went through which would have then pushed air in to the blood stream? Incompetence but but possibly a mistake? still I can’t think of how the other things might have happened. I wonder if she was just an incompetent nurse who made loads of mistakes? Either way it is so awfully sad and I can’t believe so many babies died/were killed by her
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
But Lucy told police she'd made a specific request for the bags to be kept & checked later. There was no record of this happening. It's possible that no records were kept of her request, but even then you'd think that someone would remember her raising the issue? This is especially true when babies started dying. I can't imagine it would be forgotten about.
She was also one of the more experienced/qualified nurses on the ward.
Perhaps because there was no record of it no one wanted to confirm that she did because then it looks bad on the hospital that they didn’t check them now that these allegations came to light. I guess we’ll never really know the truth with a lot of the detail because it’s “he said, she said” it’s hard to get the facts. I read something earlier on another group that said the notes that she did write could also be falsified if she did murder them which is another interesting theory.
That’s true, I didn’t realise she’d graduated in 2011. I wonder what she was like before 2015 and if any other concerns were raised.
i work in an adult ICU and to be honest I rarely see incompetence unless it is with new/inexperienced staff members, in which case they are flagged up and the individual is spoken to and sent for more training or supervision.
it does make me wonder whether or not this happened with her. I suppose as she’d been qualified atleast 4 years before the first alleged murder she would have been considered experienced so people would have trusted her.
Makes me feel sick
I’m sure I read she had also done extra training for the most sickest babies. I think if she claimed it was incompetency on her part they’d expect some evidence of where she raised with management she needed extra training? But then again that may be manslaughter rather than murder?
Yeah that's a point. It's so confusing. A lot of things also suggest that notes weren't very thorough on the ward, but we'll see where that goes.
Does anyone else think it’s strange that one of the doctors thought ‘Where’s Lucy?’ when he was concerned that she was alone with a baby? It just sounds strange to me. To get to that point of worrying about staff being alone serious concerns should have been raised and interventions should have been in place.
See Lucy doesn't keep a record of something - suspicious.
Someone else doesn't record something Lucy says she said - must not have happened.
It just feels to me things are being forced to fit abit. Is it really a coincidence that stillbirths were sky high that same year she's alleged to have murdered the babies? Why are the new experts more credible then the ones who initially stated causes of death to be things like pneumonia? If the prosecution are calling that note a confession, what else are they going over the top about? One baby it is said she never had any contact with the IV bag shes meant to have poisoned?? Prosecution claim she was getting away with these murders via all these different means and then turned around and decided she would physically attack a baby, to what keep under the radar? They claim its not possible its a coincidence she was there at all these deaths and collapses but then we have a baby she wasn't even present for 'Oh she must of done something beforehand then'. Honestly not arguing but do things like this not make anyones eyebrows raise just a little?
Someone else doesn't record something Lucy says she said - must not have happened.
It just feels to me things are being forced to fit abit. Is it really a coincidence that stillbirths were sky high that same year she's alleged to have murdered the babies? Why are the new experts more credible then the ones who initially stated causes of death to be things like pneumonia? If the prosecution are calling that note a confession, what else are they going over the top about? One baby it is said she never had any contact with the IV bag shes meant to have poisoned?? Prosecution claim she was getting away with these murders via all these different means and then turned around and decided she would physically attack a baby, to what keep under the radar? They claim its not possible its a coincidence she was there at all these deaths and collapses but then we have a baby she wasn't even present for 'Oh she must of done something beforehand then'. Honestly not arguing but do things like this not make anyones eyebrows raise just a little?
I do think it's odd that she had been qualified so long before these happened, I've known nurses go from brilliant to tit because they've lost their passion, you don't become a serial killer overnight tho.
Burnout can make nurses with lots of experience make silly mistakes, and if many nurses were making these mistakes they may have all been covering them collectively.
Burnout can make nurses with lots of experience make silly mistakes, and if many nurses were making these mistakes they may have all been covering them collectively.
This is what I really cannot get my head around. For a higher ranking senior Dr to go on record saying he rushed in when he realised she was on her own with the baby, and make out like he 'caught her in the act' just feels like such a reach to me? It's definitely something that needs explored more.
Nope. I could go through it all and say why but I’ll be accused of “sniping”
. But no my eyebrows are well and fully not raised by anything there. I will say though I think maybe the bag one it might be useful for you to look at the wiki to get a better understanding of what the evidence shows happened xIt just makes me raise my eyebrows a bit and if I’m not mistaken there was another handful of babies that collapsed after this.
Is caught her in the act a quote? I’ve not seen that said anywhere. Perhaps the people that did raise concerns can’t win because it seems that when they did, it wasn’t right or wasn’t good enough for people to believe there were concerns and if they did nothing at all that’s also unbelievable. Why do you think the doctor has given evidence to say that’s how he felt about Letby? Is he saying that to incriminate her and what would be his motive for that?
Absolutely this!!
I know I've said it before, but you have done amazing with the Wiki page. Its so easy to follow! Thank you!I’ve just looked and she has 5 pages. I know the Harry and Meghan wikis have multiple pages too. Just hope we don’t need a new page every week for the next six months
I need to rethink how I organise it now
I've just read and re-read the Wiki regarding the insulin incident and I can't get my head around it. If the babies condition continued whilst LL wasn't there - what can be gleaned from that? I'm at a bit of a loss regarding the timings and bags.
I wonder if they will go further into what concerns were raised at that point, because she was still allowed contact with babies, even after the esteemed Dr was worried enough to dump his paperwork to go and find her? If you're convinced someone is hurting/potentially killing babies, do you report it to your line manager and then be satisfied that they get moved to days?
If he's the senior medic and things were going to tit on his ward, it makes sense for him to place that blame at someone else's door rather than his own I guess.
No, not a quote. He did go on to say he saw her standing over baby and not reacting to the monitor/machine.
I wonder if they will go further into what concerns were raised at that point, because she was still allowed contact with babies, even after the esteemed Dr was worried enough to dump his paperwork to go and find her? If you're convinced someone is hurting/potentially killing babies, do you report it to your line manager and then be satisfied that they get moved to days?
If he's the senior medic and things were going to tit on his ward, it makes sense for him to place that blame at someone else's door rather than his own I guess.
I have agreed with 99.9% of what you’ve said in these threads!
It doesn’t completely add up for me.
I don’t know if I’m coming from my view point, because I don’t want to accept the alternative could be true.
But I do work for the NHS, and I do know it’s failing and I’ve seen people lose their jobs so that my trust can be ‘seen to be doing something’.
I have first hand, been the victim of my ‘face not fitting’ and having allegations put towards me that simply were not true, because that organisation had decided they wanted me gone. Ok I wasn’t accused of murder, but I was accused of things I simply wouldn’t do, because my conscience would never let me.
It just seems really off to me. But I will follow closely, and am prepared to be proven wrong.
I saw a post up thread where a PP had quoted an article where LL apparently looked at people crying in the public gallery ‘expressionless’. This is all that’s going to be reported, the stuff that can be misinterpreted.
They won’t mention if she’s sat there looking broken, or looking over to her parents for reassurance.
If she’s guilty, then yes she is more likely to have no remorse, and have no empathy to the victims families.
If she is innocent, she may be absolutely petrified by how any of her actions may be interpreted, so therefore is trying to refrain from showing any emotion.
I think I understand what you’re saying- that for each baby, you want to understand how, out of all the possibilities that could have lead to their death, did they decide on it being a deliberate act of harm?
Because in each instance, I doubt there is 100% conclusive proof it was deliberate harm or murder. And I bet that in each case individually, the (hospitally doctory) investigators first thinking would have been ‘ok, which, out of all the scenarios, is the one that best explains it?’ And that that might have been the most statistically common one, before anyone thought that was any harm being done. Which is what I imagine her defence will argue? That there is another, perfectly logical, perfectly plausible cause of death- even if it’s from the doctoring/nursing communities experiences (clinical experience would be a better term!!) or from world wide stats (babies often die of XYZ when ABC).
And even if you add in the fact that LL was the common denominator, the first port of call would be to hypothesise the most explainable reason. Which wouldn’t involve murder or deliberate harm.
But if you look at the cases through the lens of maybe there was foul play, you might start to take note of the other possibilities as to the reason for their deaths/crashes.
And if you are looking for harm done and you find an explanation for that that would be A reasonable explanation (reasonable as in ‘this is legitimately something that could have happened to explain that death/crash’) then despite the lesser statistical probability of it being the case- someone investigating it through that lens might say ‘hold up- THATS why this baby died/crashed.’
So I think I would like to know what the thing was that made the lens go from ‘she’s involved in all these incidents’ to ‘she’s the reason for all these incidents?’
I get that the fact there are explanations in all the cases put forward by the prosecution that there was foul play, and that that alone might be their biggest argument(she was there for all of them and in all of them A reason they died was foul play).
But the defence can say ‘oh, but these other reasons why they could have died are much more likely.’
So how are the prosecution going to prove it beyond reasonable doubt?
Nb. The insulin being no accident thing does somewhat throw a spanner in the works of my thinking- but the defence will argue why it can’t be 100% proved as definitively a deliberate act of harm by LL I guess.
She’s obviously got the means and opportunity, but what is the motive?
Also, I think I’ve confused myself.
We have a second wiki page now, Yel kindly set one up quickly. Apparently page 1 had 27000 words! (Mostly Mark Dowling’s 
). I’ve put sections child I to Child Q on page two with links between the two so hopefully it’s still easy to navigate.
). I’ve put sections child I to Child Q on page two with links between the two so hopefully it’s still easy to navigate.
It doesnt have to be one or the other though (Lucy is bad or the other staff are bad).
It’s suspicious that LL’s notes are missing important info because she has been linked to these babies‘ deaths both by her being there and the statistical probability that she is the common denominator.
You'll need a best published wiki author award at the end of all of this!We have a second wiki page now, Yel kindly set one up quickly. Apparently page 1 had 27000 words! (Mostly Mark Dowling’s
Thank you for your dedication!
- Status