Mike Hall, neonatologist for the defence was willing to. They just didn't call him to give testimony. I think this was a mistake in terms of now we have all this sniping in the aftermath and people saying it's a stitch-up.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Exactly. I've watched a few documentaries about the Allitt case and there too a chart was created showing her as the only constant presence in the suspicious collapses and deaths.
Besides, Letby was acquitted on two charges of attempt murder referenced on the chart presented in her case (3rd count on Child G and 1st count on Child H) and no verdicts were reached in respect of some of the others (2nd and 3rd counts on Child N and the counts on Child J and Child Q)..... so it's clear the jury haven't just gone "it's on the spreadsheet, she must have done it"
Up to 11 issues with the article itself, plus *seven* aspects of the prosecution case the article fails to mention......
Is there some way you can get them to publish your analysis as a response? I wish we could all shout as loud as the weirdos!!
I keep needing to come back here to regain my senses. I'm absolutely done with twitter. Tried having a go on Reddit/ Lucyletbytrials and my word! It's absolutely full of clueless twerps who haven't followed the case at all but are so adamant about Letby being innocent it's just infuriates me. Feel like people with sense are being outnumbered by the mass of random coming into the trial with a fully set mindset who just don't want to hear the truth.
I thought that the reason for the retrial was that at the first trial there was confusion about whether the baby was sedated - so wouldn’t pull / alter placement of tubes. However I think that it was later established that the baby was indeed sedated. I’ll try and find a link .
I’ve lived in Chester for 27 years and this case has caused a lot of trauma for many. I have a couple of colleagues whose children are fine but were in SCBU during LL ‘s employment- Although they were births at full term and weren’t there for long . They were very upset by the trial .
Honestly, this is why a detailed and properly cohesive look, bit by bit of how it all fits together in both documentary and drama form is needed and needed asap.
That's ridiculous. She could easily have harmed a baby with no one noticing. The nurses were busy with their own babies, it takes seconds to inject air into a baby, no one would have thought anything if they'd seen her with a syringe at the bedside because that's what nurses do. Same for insulin, seconds to shoot a bit into a bag. Unless there was a nurse watching her all the time, she would never have been seen. Add to that mostly she attacked when other nurses left the ward.
---
But it's neither here nor there whether you think she's innocent, fact is she's guilty after an extensive and careful and thorough investigation, two juries, two trials, two appeal hearings. Guilty as sin, an evil murdering witch who will never see the light of day again
---
Never mute you. It just makes me sooooo angry. How can anyone not think she's guilty absolutely baffles me.I must apologise. I don’t know why I’m not kinder to people simping for baby serial killers. I’ve always been this way and it’s a serious character flaw of mine. Must do better.
Should have known tattle wasn’t the place to be sarcastic too. Think I was being pretty tame anyway#asalwayspleasemuteme
Last edited:
Its like that on Mumsnet. Today they were trying convince people the post it note said " they went I killed the babies" when it clearly didn't. It's pointless trying to argue with them, they twist everything.
This is from the beautiful lady that goes by the name of docmum. Eloquent and insightful I’m sure you will all agree 
“The posts in recent days about the dire care from the CoCH has made it click as to what helped me come to terms with LL’s guilt before we heard everything in court the first time round. Because actually yes, some of the care was absolutely awful. But awful care happens in every ward in every hospital daily. Those of us that work in a medical setting will put our hands up and say that in every shift we attend we notice something suboptimal and that’s not an exaggeration. It could be a missed blood result, a drug not signed for, a porter attending too late to get a patient to a scan, a phone not answered. The list is endless because as we all know, the NHS is grossly underfunded and overused. Mistakes happen, usually as a result of human error and hospitals have teams of governance for this very reason. Staff are paid to attend monthly mandatory governance meetings with devoted ‘morbidity and mortality’ sessions to discuss what can be learned, even from ‘non-fault’ deaths. Doctors are taught to accept mistakes from university - they are taught in what is fondly known as a ‘tit sandwich’ method where someone senior will watch you do a procedure even as simple as taking blood and they have to tell you what you did well, what you could do better, and what to remember for next time. Even with a simple procedure you would be expected to find a constructive criticism in approach. Training and revalidation is based on discussing suboptimal care and lessons learned. Going back to this case, what stands out for me now is that things were so bad on the unit outside the scope of ‘accepted error’ in a health care environment. Babies are linear, fairly logical patients. The complications when they are born are essentially due to their prematurity, something genetic or in-utero complications, or a problem because of their prematurity ie brain or breathing complications, metabolic imbalance. Babies don’t come in with chest pain but forget to say they’d snorted 2g the night before. They haven’t smoked 20 a day for 40 years. They fit a certain number of logical patterns. There are of course always babies that break the rules, and may behave differently to anticipated but then let us factor in the staffing in hospitals. All patients in hospitals have the privilege of having a fresh set of eyes on them at most every 12 hours, someone who might interpret the data differently even if the previous nurse or doctor didn’t see it. This helps to safeguard the patients from the above mentioned ‘human error’. So what was it that made this unit have outcomes so much worse that what is expected even in the context of human error? It was the presence of one specific human at each extreme case. I remember a discussion last year about whether she could have just been a ‘bad’ nurse. Having someone as ‘unlucky’ as a LL, even if she was just an awful nurse, is basically statistically impossible because of all of the safeguarding measures around them - even in the most busy or deprived hospitals worldwide, individual healthcare staff members are protected from human error by the training, protocols and colleagues around them. The whole ‘lack of forensic evidence’ thing is exhausting. A serial killer is smart enough to know that hospitals incinerate their waste daily. A medical serial killer is also smart enough to choose causes of death that don’t have an identifiable clinical element to them - non specific bleeding, air emboli, hiding insulin in plain sight (which is undisputed by the defence). So what evidence is there? Evidence of times being changed in the notes, evidence of obsessional behaviour towards the victims. Evidence of the same person being in direct contact with the non specific cause of death. Speak to anyone you know who works in healthcare, and they’ll tell you of the absolute terror in realising you’ve left a handover sheet in your pocket - it guarantees a sleepless night until the following shift when you can take it in and return it to the confidential waste. It could jeopardise the career you’ve worked so hard for, just a single sheet of paper - not even a box full at your parents house. Ask the same people about memorable sick people. They most likely won’t remember a name, but they’ll remember what bed they were in and who else was there. They certainly won’t know their family members names two years on. Moving on to calls around a miscarriage of justice, let me say this. The day LL walked in to court, she was innocent until she was proven to be guilty. And she was proven to be guilty but not on all counts, as we well know. That courtroom heard evidence beyond what almost all of us could imagine, and the one positive from the NG verdicts or the hung verdicts is that the jurors did in fact consider every bit of evidence pointed to them for the guilty cases. Hats off to the jurors who felt there wasn’t the burden of evidence in some cases and voted NG because to me, that absolutely solidifies the guilty verdicts as well proven in court. Those that blame the jurors or the legal teams need to answer why she wasn’t found unanimously guilty on all counts if it was such a miscarriage of justice. The Judge, who knows certainly more than even the jurors pulled no punches in either of his sentencing remarks - why could he confidently instruct the juries as he did, and make remarks as he did if there were doubts? The man could barely look at her. The clickbait articles will pass, and are a sad reflection of society today. When the original trial was underway, you all know that I had occasional ‘what if’ moments, not doubting her actions but actually comprehending the scale of her actions. LL was an attractive, smiling, privileged white woman working in a secure public sector job. Yes, it is unthinkable that she could do what she is now guilty of doing. What attracts the social media fans? Being different? Having attention on Twitter/facebook? Or a naïve outlook on the world not comprehending that LL has a severe mental illness behind the once-shiny facade. That handsome doctor that delivered those babies, and held peoples hands during their troubles? That was Dr Shipman. That kind smiling nurse who hugged/cared for those peoples daughters or sisters, and was regarded as part of her patients families? That was Beverley Allitt. Here’s where LL shows even more of what kind of person she is beyond that exterior. She knows about the people supporting her online, something we haven’t seen with previous generations of serial killers. Let’s allow ourselves to be distracted by her disgusting shouting ‘I’m innocent’ on Friday, what else did we expect her to shout? But it wasn’t about the words she used, it’s about the shouting. She wanted the last word. She wanted the headline. She wanted to hurt parents more on the day when their recovery should be allowed to start. She couldn’t steal the headline about not attending court so she wanted to steal it in another way. She wanted it to be all about her - where have we seen that before? In every text message she’s sent that was released and in the post it notes - that’s where. And so if there was ever any personal doubt about the context of her messages or notes, please refer yourself to her ‘I’m innocent’ outburst. This outburst seeks to have gained her a possibility of sympathy from the press via her die hard fans.. but that’s what the press have craved for 18 months. Positive or negative headline, they wanted the clicks generated from a modern day female serial killer. And because there was no ‘smoking gun’ for the headline, they use the sensationalist social media-driven echo chamber for their own gain. We have a gutter press in this country, and the fans are mistaken if they think they’ll fight for anything to do with her freedom. In fact, in this case the silence is what is most deafening to those of us with a balanced judgement. The dignified silence from the court attenders in the thread who have explained the semantics of LLs behaviour, but upheld the dignity of the victims and their families. The relative silence of Judith, Dan and Mark considering that they probably all covered the biggest case of their respective careers. I’m so sorry that the families and the staff members have had to deal with this behaviour from the fans, it’s genuinely sickening - we can all have an ‘opinion’ but trying to disrupt court, people’s careers, or targeting the families simply is simply nonsensical. I’ll just leave it here. No matter on where you stand on the scale of 0-guilty with Lucy Letby, if she was released and back to work tomorrow I can guarantee not one person would leave their newborn or child with her. There may not be the smoking gun that I alluded to earlier, but when you understand the context of healthcare and the context of the courtroom in a case like this, there doesn’t need to be. She was proven guilty by 8 months of evidence, by people who considered the mounds of evidence so carefully that they didn’t return a verdict unless they were certain. Mistakes happened but any one of those nurses or doctors who recognised mistakes and stood up in court to discuss their role in these deaths are braver than most of us could ever be. It genuinely saddens me that we live in a society where we’d rather a trial by social media where we consider our own opinions/beliefs to be more important than the actual evidence that helped to convict a sadistic baby murderer.”
“The posts in recent days about the dire care from the CoCH has made it click as to what helped me come to terms with LL’s guilt before we heard everything in court the first time round. Because actually yes, some of the care was absolutely awful. But awful care happens in every ward in every hospital daily. Those of us that work in a medical setting will put our hands up and say that in every shift we attend we notice something suboptimal and that’s not an exaggeration. It could be a missed blood result, a drug not signed for, a porter attending too late to get a patient to a scan, a phone not answered. The list is endless because as we all know, the NHS is grossly underfunded and overused. Mistakes happen, usually as a result of human error and hospitals have teams of governance for this very reason. Staff are paid to attend monthly mandatory governance meetings with devoted ‘morbidity and mortality’ sessions to discuss what can be learned, even from ‘non-fault’ deaths. Doctors are taught to accept mistakes from university - they are taught in what is fondly known as a ‘tit sandwich’ method where someone senior will watch you do a procedure even as simple as taking blood and they have to tell you what you did well, what you could do better, and what to remember for next time. Even with a simple procedure you would be expected to find a constructive criticism in approach. Training and revalidation is based on discussing suboptimal care and lessons learned. Going back to this case, what stands out for me now is that things were so bad on the unit outside the scope of ‘accepted error’ in a health care environment. Babies are linear, fairly logical patients. The complications when they are born are essentially due to their prematurity, something genetic or in-utero complications, or a problem because of their prematurity ie brain or breathing complications, metabolic imbalance. Babies don’t come in with chest pain but forget to say they’d snorted 2g the night before. They haven’t smoked 20 a day for 40 years. They fit a certain number of logical patterns. There are of course always babies that break the rules, and may behave differently to anticipated but then let us factor in the staffing in hospitals. All patients in hospitals have the privilege of having a fresh set of eyes on them at most every 12 hours, someone who might interpret the data differently even if the previous nurse or doctor didn’t see it. This helps to safeguard the patients from the above mentioned ‘human error’. So what was it that made this unit have outcomes so much worse that what is expected even in the context of human error? It was the presence of one specific human at each extreme case. I remember a discussion last year about whether she could have just been a ‘bad’ nurse. Having someone as ‘unlucky’ as a LL, even if she was just an awful nurse, is basically statistically impossible because of all of the safeguarding measures around them - even in the most busy or deprived hospitals worldwide, individual healthcare staff members are protected from human error by the training, protocols and colleagues around them. The whole ‘lack of forensic evidence’ thing is exhausting. A serial killer is smart enough to know that hospitals incinerate their waste daily. A medical serial killer is also smart enough to choose causes of death that don’t have an identifiable clinical element to them - non specific bleeding, air emboli, hiding insulin in plain sight (which is undisputed by the defence). So what evidence is there? Evidence of times being changed in the notes, evidence of obsessional behaviour towards the victims. Evidence of the same person being in direct contact with the non specific cause of death. Speak to anyone you know who works in healthcare, and they’ll tell you of the absolute terror in realising you’ve left a handover sheet in your pocket - it guarantees a sleepless night until the following shift when you can take it in and return it to the confidential waste. It could jeopardise the career you’ve worked so hard for, just a single sheet of paper - not even a box full at your parents house. Ask the same people about memorable sick people. They most likely won’t remember a name, but they’ll remember what bed they were in and who else was there. They certainly won’t know their family members names two years on. Moving on to calls around a miscarriage of justice, let me say this. The day LL walked in to court, she was innocent until she was proven to be guilty. And she was proven to be guilty but not on all counts, as we well know. That courtroom heard evidence beyond what almost all of us could imagine, and the one positive from the NG verdicts or the hung verdicts is that the jurors did in fact consider every bit of evidence pointed to them for the guilty cases. Hats off to the jurors who felt there wasn’t the burden of evidence in some cases and voted NG because to me, that absolutely solidifies the guilty verdicts as well proven in court. Those that blame the jurors or the legal teams need to answer why she wasn’t found unanimously guilty on all counts if it was such a miscarriage of justice. The Judge, who knows certainly more than even the jurors pulled no punches in either of his sentencing remarks - why could he confidently instruct the juries as he did, and make remarks as he did if there were doubts? The man could barely look at her. The clickbait articles will pass, and are a sad reflection of society today. When the original trial was underway, you all know that I had occasional ‘what if’ moments, not doubting her actions but actually comprehending the scale of her actions. LL was an attractive, smiling, privileged white woman working in a secure public sector job. Yes, it is unthinkable that she could do what she is now guilty of doing. What attracts the social media fans? Being different? Having attention on Twitter/facebook? Or a naïve outlook on the world not comprehending that LL has a severe mental illness behind the once-shiny facade. That handsome doctor that delivered those babies, and held peoples hands during their troubles? That was Dr Shipman. That kind smiling nurse who hugged/cared for those peoples daughters or sisters, and was regarded as part of her patients families? That was Beverley Allitt. Here’s where LL shows even more of what kind of person she is beyond that exterior. She knows about the people supporting her online, something we haven’t seen with previous generations of serial killers. Let’s allow ourselves to be distracted by her disgusting shouting ‘I’m innocent’ on Friday, what else did we expect her to shout? But it wasn’t about the words she used, it’s about the shouting. She wanted the last word. She wanted the headline. She wanted to hurt parents more on the day when their recovery should be allowed to start. She couldn’t steal the headline about not attending court so she wanted to steal it in another way. She wanted it to be all about her - where have we seen that before? In every text message she’s sent that was released and in the post it notes - that’s where. And so if there was ever any personal doubt about the context of her messages or notes, please refer yourself to her ‘I’m innocent’ outburst. This outburst seeks to have gained her a possibility of sympathy from the press via her die hard fans.. but that’s what the press have craved for 18 months. Positive or negative headline, they wanted the clicks generated from a modern day female serial killer. And because there was no ‘smoking gun’ for the headline, they use the sensationalist social media-driven echo chamber for their own gain. We have a gutter press in this country, and the fans are mistaken if they think they’ll fight for anything to do with her freedom. In fact, in this case the silence is what is most deafening to those of us with a balanced judgement. The dignified silence from the court attenders in the thread who have explained the semantics of LLs behaviour, but upheld the dignity of the victims and their families. The relative silence of Judith, Dan and Mark considering that they probably all covered the biggest case of their respective careers. I’m so sorry that the families and the staff members have had to deal with this behaviour from the fans, it’s genuinely sickening - we can all have an ‘opinion’ but trying to disrupt court, people’s careers, or targeting the families simply is simply nonsensical. I’ll just leave it here. No matter on where you stand on the scale of 0-guilty with Lucy Letby, if she was released and back to work tomorrow I can guarantee not one person would leave their newborn or child with her. There may not be the smoking gun that I alluded to earlier, but when you understand the context of healthcare and the context of the courtroom in a case like this, there doesn’t need to be. She was proven guilty by 8 months of evidence, by people who considered the mounds of evidence so carefully that they didn’t return a verdict unless they were certain. Mistakes happened but any one of those nurses or doctors who recognised mistakes and stood up in court to discuss their role in these deaths are braver than most of us could ever be. It genuinely saddens me that we live in a society where we’d rather a trial by social media where we consider our own opinions/beliefs to be more important than the actual evidence that helped to convict a sadistic baby murderer.”
Last edited:
Honestly these people can make as much noise as they like. I take comfort in the fact she’s never getting out of jail, not ever. Anyone with half a brain can see she’s guilty of everything she’s accused of and more. duck them. She’s going to rot no matter how loud they shout, and it’s what she bleeping deserves.
If they were there and willing then yes they absolutely should have been called to provide expert medical evidence - this, like many others who followed the trial closely was something I was very much looking forward to. Any alternative medical accounts that the defence were to put forward that could explain these deaths.
But they didn’t.
I’ve skim read that article, a lot of the “experts” that’s don’t seem to be named regarding the air which I find interesting. The nature of air being injected is that dangerous they can’t “test” it so how can these experts find it so incomprehensible that it could cause death in a premature baby and it’s also taught in the training that air in the lines is a) possible and b) deadly as Letby herself admitting that during her evidence. She admitted to receiving that training and understanding the medical implications of air being injected. So who are these experts and why won’t they be named?
If I’d not followed the trial as closely as I did and I read that article I would probs be swayed. But it ignores so many things, also including her lies on the stand which basically ducked her own case. Honestly it’s so infuriating this is being allowed and I feel so much for the parents I really do. It’s bad enough they’ve lost their children, in the worst possible way but now it’s all over the news/docs basically making it a circus and saying the conviction wasn’t based on rit when it absolutely was not. There was a lot of evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
This is everythingThis is from the beautiful lady that goes by the name of docmum. Eloquent and insightful I’m sure you will all agree
“The posts in recent days about the dire care from the CoCH has made it click as to what helped me come to terms with LL’s guilt before we heard everything in court the first time round. Because actually yes, some of the care was absolutely awful. But awful care happens in every ward in every hospital daily. Those of us that work in a medical setting will put our hands up and say that in every shift we attend we notice something suboptimal and that’s not an exaggeration. It could be a missed blood result, a drug not signed for, a porter attending too late to get a patient to a scan, a phone not answered. The list is endless because as we all know, the NHS is grossly underfunded and overused. Mistakes happen, usually as a result of human error and hospitals have teams of governance for this very reason. Staff are paid to attend monthly mandatory governance meetings with devoted ‘morbidity and mortality’ sessions to discuss what can be learned, even from ‘non-fault’ deaths. Doctors are taught to accept mistakes from university - they are taught in what is fondly known as a ‘tit sandwich’ method where someone senior will watch you do a procedure even as simple as taking blood and they have to tell you what you did well, what you could do better, and what to remember for next time. Even with a simple procedure you would be expected to find a constructive criticism in approach. Training and revalidation is based on discussing suboptimal care and lessons learned. Going back to this case, what stands out for me now is that things were so bad on the unit outside the scope of ‘accepted error’ in a health care environment. Babies are linear, fairly logical patients. The complications when they are born are essentially due to their prematurity, something genetic or in-utero complications, or a problem because of their prematurity ie brain or breathing complications, metabolic imbalance. Babies don’t come in with chest pain but forget to say they’d snorted 2g the night before. They haven’t smoked 20 a day for 40 years. They fit a certain number of logical patterns. There are of course always babies that break the rules, and may behave differently to anticipated but then let us factor in the staffing in hospitals. All patients in hospitals have the privilege of having a fresh set of eyes on them at most every 12 hours, someone who might interpret the data differently even if the previous nurse or doctor didn’t see it. This helps to safeguard the patients from the above mentioned ‘human error’. So what was it that made this unit have outcomes so much worse that what is expected even in the context of human error? It was the presence of one specific human at each extreme case. I remember a discussion last year about whether she could have just been a ‘bad’ nurse. Having someone as ‘unlucky’ as a LL, even if she was just an awful nurse, is basically statistically impossible because of all of the safeguarding measures around them - even in the most busy or deprived hospitals worldwide, individual healthcare staff members are protected from human error by the training, protocols and colleagues around them. The whole ‘lack of forensic evidence’ thing is exhausting. A serial killer is smart enough to know that hospitals incinerate their waste daily. A medical serial killer is also smart enough to choose causes of death that don’t have an identifiable clinical element to them - non specific bleeding, air emboli, hiding insulin in plain sight (which is undisputed by the defence). So what evidence is there? Evidence of times being changed in the notes, evidence of obsessional behaviour towards the victims. Evidence of the same person being in direct contact with the non specific cause of death. Speak to anyone you know who works in healthcare, and they’ll tell you of the absolute terror in realising you’ve left a handover sheet in your pocket - it guarantees a sleepless night until the following shift when you can take it in and return it to the confidential waste. It could jeopardise the career you’ve worked so hard for, just a single sheet of paper - not even a box full at your parents house. Ask the same people about memorable sick people. They most likely won’t remember a name, but they’ll remember what bed they were in and who else was there. They certainly won’t know their family members names two years on. Moving on to calls around a miscarriage of justice, let me say this. The day LL walked in to court, she was innocent until she was proven to be guilty. And she was proven to be guilty but not on all counts, as we well know. That courtroom heard evidence beyond what almost all of us could imagine, and the one positive from the NG verdicts or the hung verdicts is that the jurors did in fact consider every bit of evidence pointed to them for the guilty cases. Hats off to the jurors who felt there wasn’t the burden of evidence in some cases and voted NG because to me, that absolutely solidifies the guilty verdicts as well proven in court. Those that blame the jurors or the legal teams need to answer why she wasn’t found unanimously guilty on all counts if it was such a miscarriage of justice. The Judge, who knows certainly more than even the jurors pulled no punches in either of his sentencing remarks - why could he confidently instruct the juries as he did, and make remarks as he did if there were doubts? The man could barely look at her. The clickbait articles will pass, and are a sad reflection of society today. When the original trial was underway, you all know that I had occasional ‘what if’ moments, not doubting her actions but actually comprehending the scale of her actions. LL was an attractive, smiling, privileged white woman working in a secure public sector job. Yes, it is unthinkable that she could do what she is now guilty of doing. What attracts the social media fans? Being different? Having attention on Twitter/facebook? Or a naïve outlook on the world not comprehending that LL has a severe mental illness behind the once-shiny facade. That handsome doctor that delivered those babies, and held peoples hands during their troubles? That was Dr Shipman. That kind smiling nurse who hugged/cared for those peoples daughters or sisters, and was regarded as part of her patients families? That was Beverley Allitt. Here’s where LL shows even more of what kind of person she is beyond that exterior. She knows about the people supporting her online, something we haven’t seen with previous generations of serial killers. Let’s allow ourselves to be distracted by her disgusting shouting ‘I’m innocent’ on Friday, what else did we expect her to shout? But it wasn’t about the words she used, it’s about the shouting. She wanted the last word. She wanted the headline. She wanted to hurt parents more on the day when their recovery should be allowed to start. She couldn’t steal the headline about not attending court so she wanted to steal it in another way. She wanted it to be all about her - where have we seen that before? In every text message she’s sent that was released and in the post it notes - that’s where. And so if there was ever any personal doubt about the context of her messages or notes, please refer yourself to her ‘I’m innocent’ outburst. This outburst seeks to have gained her a possibility of sympathy from the press via her die hard fans.. but that’s what the press have craved for 18 months. Positive or negative headline, they wanted the clicks generated from a modern day female serial killer. And because there was no ‘smoking gun’ for the headline, they use the sensationalist social media-driven echo chamber for their own gain. We have a gutter press in this country, and the fans are mistaken if they think they’ll fight for anything to do with her freedom. In fact, in this case the silence is what is most deafening to those of us with a balanced judgement. The dignified silence from the court attenders in the thread who have explained the semantics of LLs behaviour, but upheld the dignity of the victims and their families. The relative silence of Judith, Dan and Mark considering that they probably all covered the biggest case of their respective careers. I’m so sorry that the families and the staff members have had to deal with this behaviour from the fans, it’s genuinely sickening - we can all have an ‘opinion’ but trying to disrupt court, people’s careers, or targeting the families simply is simply nonsensical. I’ll just leave it here. No matter on where you stand on the scale of 0-guilty with Lucy Letby, if she was released and back to work tomorrow I can guarantee not one person would leave their newborn or child with her. There may not be the smoking gun that I alluded to earlier, but when you understand the context of healthcare and the context of the courtroom in a case like this, there doesn’t need to be. She was proven guilty by 8 months of evidence, by people who considered the mounds of evidence so carefully that they didn’t return a verdict unless they were certain. Mistakes happened but any one of those nurses or doctors who recognised mistakes and stood up in court to discuss their role in these deaths are braver than most of us could ever be. It genuinely saddens me that we live in a society where we’d rather a trial by social media where we consider our own opinions/beliefs to be more important than the actual evidence that helped to convict a sadistic baby murderer.”
100%.
She’s a bleeping pon of the lowest order and frankly instead of there being ‘deaths tacked on’ she will undoubtedly have done more than she’ll ever be caught for.
She’s Dennis Nilsen in a dress with a different perversion but ultimately the same result.
Well if your experts can’t stand up to scrutiny, then doesn’t that just say it all.
We love you Mama Doc 🩷This is from the beautiful lady that goes by the name of docmum. Eloquent and insightful I’m sure you will all agree
“The posts in recent days about the dire care from the CoCH has made it click as to what helped me come to terms with LL’s guilt before we heard everything in court the first time round. Because actually yes, some of the care was absolutely awful. But awful care happens in every ward in every hospital daily. Those of us that work in a medical setting will put our hands up and say that in every shift we attend we notice something suboptimal and that’s not an exaggeration. It could be a missed blood result, a drug not signed for, a porter attending too late to get a patient to a scan, a phone not answered. The list is endless because as we all know, the NHS is grossly underfunded and overused. Mistakes happen, usually as a result of human error and hospitals have teams of governance for this very reason. Staff are paid to attend monthly mandatory governance meetings with devoted ‘morbidity and mortality’ sessions to discuss what can be learned, even from ‘non-fault’ deaths. Doctors are taught to accept mistakes from university - they are taught in what is fondly known as a ‘tit sandwich’ method where someone senior will watch you do a procedure even as simple as taking blood and they have to tell you what you did well, what you could do better, and what to remember for next time. Even with a simple procedure you would be expected to find a constructive criticism in approach. Training and revalidation is based on discussing suboptimal care and lessons learned. Going back to this case, what stands out for me now is that things were so bad on the unit outside the scope of ‘accepted error’ in a health care environment. Babies are linear, fairly logical patients. The complications when they are born are essentially due to their prematurity, something genetic or in-utero complications, or a problem because of their prematurity ie brain or breathing complications, metabolic imbalance. Babies don’t come in with chest pain but forget to say they’d snorted 2g the night before. They haven’t smoked 20 a day for 40 years. They fit a certain number of logical patterns. There are of course always babies that break the rules, and may behave differently to anticipated but then let us factor in the staffing in hospitals. All patients in hospitals have the privilege of having a fresh set of eyes on them at most every 12 hours, someone who might interpret the data differently even if the previous nurse or doctor didn’t see it. This helps to safeguard the patients from the above mentioned ‘human error’. So what was it that made this unit have outcomes so much worse that what is expected even in the context of human error? It was the presence of one specific human at each extreme case. I remember a discussion last year about whether she could have just been a ‘bad’ nurse. Having someone as ‘unlucky’ as a LL, even if she was just an awful nurse, is basically statistically impossible because of all of the safeguarding measures around them - even in the most busy or deprived hospitals worldwide, individual healthcare staff members are protected from human error by the training, protocols and colleagues around them. The whole ‘lack of forensic evidence’ thing is exhausting. A serial killer is smart enough to know that hospitals incinerate their waste daily. A medical serial killer is also smart enough to choose causes of death that don’t have an identifiable clinical element to them - non specific bleeding, air emboli, hiding insulin in plain sight (which is undisputed by the defence). So what evidence is there? Evidence of times being changed in the notes, evidence of obsessional behaviour towards the victims. Evidence of the same person being in direct contact with the non specific cause of death. Speak to anyone you know who works in healthcare, and they’ll tell you of the absolute terror in realising you’ve left a handover sheet in your pocket - it guarantees a sleepless night until the following shift when you can take it in and return it to the confidential waste. It could jeopardise the career you’ve worked so hard for, just a single sheet of paper - not even a box full at your parents house. Ask the same people about memorable sick people. They most likely won’t remember a name, but they’ll remember what bed they were in and who else was there. They certainly won’t know their family members names two years on. Moving on to calls around a miscarriage of justice, let me say this. The day LL walked in to court, she was innocent until she was proven to be guilty. And she was proven to be guilty but not on all counts, as we well know. That courtroom heard evidence beyond what almost all of us could imagine, and the one positive from the NG verdicts or the hung verdicts is that the jurors did in fact consider every bit of evidence pointed to them for the guilty cases. Hats off to the jurors who felt there wasn’t the burden of evidence in some cases and voted NG because to me, that absolutely solidifies the guilty verdicts as well proven in court. Those that blame the jurors or the legal teams need to answer why she wasn’t found unanimously guilty on all counts if it was such a miscarriage of justice. The Judge, who knows certainly more than even the jurors pulled no punches in either of his sentencing remarks - why could he confidently instruct the juries as he did, and make remarks as he did if there were doubts? The man could barely look at her. The clickbait articles will pass, and are a sad reflection of society today. When the original trial was underway, you all know that I had occasional ‘what if’ moments, not doubting her actions but actually comprehending the scale of her actions. LL was an attractive, smiling, privileged white woman working in a secure public sector job. Yes, it is unthinkable that she could do what she is now guilty of doing. What attracts the social media fans? Being different? Having attention on Twitter/facebook? Or a naïve outlook on the world not comprehending that LL has a severe mental illness behind the once-shiny facade. That handsome doctor that delivered those babies, and held peoples hands during their troubles? That was Dr Shipman. That kind smiling nurse who hugged/cared for those peoples daughters or sisters, and was regarded as part of her patients families? That was Beverley Allitt. Here’s where LL shows even more of what kind of person she is beyond that exterior. She knows about the people supporting her online, something we haven’t seen with previous generations of serial killers. Let’s allow ourselves to be distracted by her disgusting shouting ‘I’m innocent’ on Friday, what else did we expect her to shout? But it wasn’t about the words she used, it’s about the shouting. She wanted the last word. She wanted the headline. She wanted to hurt parents more on the day when their recovery should be allowed to start. She couldn’t steal the headline about not attending court so she wanted to steal it in another way. She wanted it to be all about her - where have we seen that before? In every text message she’s sent that was released and in the post it notes - that’s where. And so if there was ever any personal doubt about the context of her messages or notes, please refer yourself to her ‘I’m innocent’ outburst. This outburst seeks to have gained her a possibility of sympathy from the press via her die hard fans.. but that’s what the press have craved for 18 months. Positive or negative headline, they wanted the clicks generated from a modern day female serial killer. And because there was no ‘smoking gun’ for the headline, they use the sensationalist social media-driven echo chamber for their own gain. We have a gutter press in this country, and the fans are mistaken if they think they’ll fight for anything to do with her freedom. In fact, in this case the silence is what is most deafening to those of us with a balanced judgement. The dignified silence from the court attenders in the thread who have explained the semantics of LLs behaviour, but upheld the dignity of the victims and their families. The relative silence of Judith, Dan and Mark considering that they probably all covered the biggest case of their respective careers. I’m so sorry that the families and the staff members have had to deal with this behaviour from the fans, it’s genuinely sickening - we can all have an ‘opinion’ but trying to disrupt court, people’s careers, or targeting the families simply is simply nonsensical. I’ll just leave it here. No matter on where you stand on the scale of 0-guilty with Lucy Letby, if she was released and back to work tomorrow I can guarantee not one person would leave their newborn or child with her. There may not be the smoking gun that I alluded to earlier, but when you understand the context of healthcare and the context of the courtroom in a case like this, there doesn’t need to be. She was proven guilty by 8 months of evidence, by people who considered the mounds of evidence so carefully that they didn’t return a verdict unless they were certain. Mistakes happened but any one of those nurses or doctors who recognised mistakes and stood up in court to discuss their role in these deaths are braver than most of us could ever be. It genuinely saddens me that we live in a society where we’d rather a trial by social media where we consider our own opinions/beliefs to be more important than the actual evidence that helped to convict a sadistic baby murderer.”
I love you docmum! Not just a cracking set of double Ds 
I think I’m going to take a leaf out of @MmmB777 book and stop reading these bull tit articles, because they just make me angry.
Fact is, it’s really easy to make a convincing argument when you only present one side of the evidence which is what has happened in this guardian article. Unfortunately for this so called journalist, when you look at the evidence critically and present both sides, your argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Any journalist that is willing to publish half a story has zero integrity. duck them, they should honestly be embarrassed.
Fact is, it’s really easy to make a convincing argument when you only present one side of the evidence which is what has happened in this guardian article. Unfortunately for this so called journalist, when you look at the evidence critically and present both sides, your argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Any journalist that is willing to publish half a story has zero integrity. duck them, they should honestly be embarrassed.
The only reason they wouldn't call him is that his testimony wouldn't have helped LL, or would have opened up avenues that would be problematic for the defence. This is the same for all witnesses and it's very telling that the only person (besides Letby) that Ben Myers put on the stand was the plumber. And I think he regrets at least one of those testifying...
That Guardian journalist clearly doesn't understand what the word "forensics" means. Besides all the examples already given on this thread, the digital evidence such as door swipe data, her Facebook and WhatsApp messages, and timestamps of her creating and editing medical records is all forensic evidence.
- Status