- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Another post where we need a
reaction! No way the timing is a coincidence. Little more here.
Lucy Letby inquiry hears specialist doctor ‘felt misled’ by bosses
The Thirlwall inquiry is expected to sit until early 2025
Gang of 472892964848
is yesterday’s transcript worth reading?
ducks sake, the NG nutters are completely mad. They will twist anything, they don't seem to understand professional responsibility. Why do they imagine that it's so likely that all these hundreds of people are lying and the convicted murderer is the one telling the truth? It's baffling
Hmm in all honesty not really. It’s not crucial. Mostly the people involved with the (can’t remember the acronym!) report accept that they should have abandoned the report and accept their failures on the whole. They’re definitely not fessing up to who said what and how sympathetic they were to Letby.
They were told they shouldn't have interviewed a potential murderer but recognised they were in over their depth and gone to the police. In my opinion they were obviously lying about how much they could remember and what they told Letby. Best mate forever,Hayley, was there suggesting a grievance and taking an emotionally distraught Letby home.
can’t wait to hear what Ian Harvey has to say about that too as my money is on him!! (Or instructed by him at least).
There was also a pathologist today but the news articles are all running with Hawdon. Probably because her report has been mentioned so much as a reason for doubt, but the pathologist(s) that returned natural / prematurity causes have questions to answer!! I’m really hoping for them to come out with similar stuff to Hawdon.
---
Pathologist finds ‘clear cut’ pneumonia on one of Lucy Letby’s victims
archived 12 Nov 2024 20:27:11 UTC
She’s a bleeping disgrace.
Must have pained her to add this in though. The pneumonia was never in dispute.
Last edited:
It’s up!
Sarah fails to mention that air in the great vessels was seen on an X Ray.can’t wait to hear what Ian Harvey has to say about that too as my money is on him!! (Or instructed by him at least).
There was also a pathologist today but the news articles are all running with Hawdon. Probably because her report has been mentioned so much as a reason for doubt, but the pathologist(s) that returned natural / prematurity causes have questions to answer!! I’m really hoping for them to come out with similar stuff to Hawdon.
---
View attachment 3266421
Pathologist finds ‘clear cut’ pneumonia on one of Lucy Letby’s victims
archived 12 Nov 2024 20:27:11 UTCarchive.ph
She’s a bleeping disgrace.
Must have pained her to add this in though. The pneumonia was never in dispute.
View attachment 3266432View attachment 3266433
I’m going straight for the pathologist!
Will come as a shock to nobody that they send the files to Hawdon in a total state and clearly lots missing 
what a shitshow
---
Yeah that’s not a very long or detailed investigation is it
what a shitshow---
Yeah that’s not a very long or detailed investigation is it
Last edited:
I’ve finished the pathologist already. I’ll do a summary…
---
So she only did the PM for baby D and also pathology on the placenta for twins E & F (but that was before baby E died and she didn’t learn about baby E’s death until the trial). Her colleagues performed the other PMs.
Apart from being defensive about the pneumonia (which is unnecessary anyway as it’s not in dispute) I think she came across fine. They were not ever informed these were sudden and unexpected deaths, and certainly never told suspicions about a nurse being present at all. I do actually believe this as there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of it and she wasn’t challenged on it too much. But the KCs basically hammered home that had she known, then forensic pathology and police would have been instructed. And the entire post mortem process takes a different course once forensics and police are involved.
So given the truthers want the insulin tests thrown out because it’s not forensic test then I have no doubt they will now want to throw out the original pathologist reports too 🫠
Ian Harvey (definitely the most accountable for the entire gigantic duck up) contacted her after Hawdon’s report but again, he left out lots of important info. She wasn’t told RCPCH had done a report, didn’t see it, no idea they had suggested a forensic review of the deaths. Didn’t know Hawdon had also suggested forensic review.
The pathologist said had she known more, she would have told them someone independent would have needed to review their original PM reports and also again, any suggestion of suspicions and it would have changed the course of their involvement.
But even when she did go back to him, she also informed him there comments were not a full review.
THIS is really, really good news. I love they haven’t waited for an inquiry to do this:
This is where she gets defensive about the pneumonia and it was with Mr Baker KC on behalf of baby D’s family.
He makes me chuckle here “you can take my word for it”
and here’s a few defensive responses but ultimately she concedes because of the context and clinical importance put on Hawdon’s comments
---
Crapton must have really struggled to do a pro-Letby piece today. Thank god the pathologist said ‘there was clear cut pneumonia’ so she could use it in her headline.
---
So she only did the PM for baby D and also pathology on the placenta for twins E & F (but that was before baby E died and she didn’t learn about baby E’s death until the trial). Her colleagues performed the other PMs.
Apart from being defensive about the pneumonia (which is unnecessary anyway as it’s not in dispute) I think she came across fine. They were not ever informed these were sudden and unexpected deaths, and certainly never told suspicions about a nurse being present at all. I do actually believe this as there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of it and she wasn’t challenged on it too much. But the KCs basically hammered home that had she known, then forensic pathology and police would have been instructed. And the entire post mortem process takes a different course once forensics and police are involved.
Ian Harvey (definitely the most accountable for the entire gigantic duck up) contacted her after Hawdon’s report but again, he left out lots of important info. She wasn’t told RCPCH had done a report, didn’t see it, no idea they had suggested a forensic review of the deaths. Didn’t know Hawdon had also suggested forensic review.
The pathologist said had she known more, she would have told them someone independent would have needed to review their original PM reports and also again, any suggestion of suspicions and it would have changed the course of their involvement.
But even when she did go back to him, she also informed him there comments were not a full review.
THIS is really, really good news. I love they haven’t waited for an inquiry to do this:
This is where she gets defensive about the pneumonia and it was with Mr Baker KC on behalf of baby D’s family.
He makes me chuckle here “you can take my word for it”
and here’s a few defensive responses but ultimately she concedes because of the context and clinical importance put on Hawdon’s comments
---
Crapton must have really struggled to do a pro-Letby piece today. Thank god the pathologist said ‘there was clear cut pneumonia’ so she could use it in her headline.
Last edited:
The truthers are frantically spinning at the moment, completely ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that if Hawdon or pathologists had been given full information, this would have significantly changed reporting in both the Hawdon review and pathology, and that neither Hawdon nor pathology should have been preparing reports, it should have been passed to the police. Harvey must sure be looking forward to his day at the inquiry, I can't wait to see how he tries to wriggle himself out of this. If he turns up.
I don’t know if they are ignoring it or just showing just how completely and utterly dumb they actually are.
Having spent a few minutes on X (I don’t know how some of you tolerate it so regularly!) they seem to think Hawdon shouldn’t have known the suspicions because then that would have made her biased. Like you say, they missed the point in that what she said was she wouldn’t have done the reports at all!
Also they are sharing the telegraph article as if this is a slam dunk ‘pathologist said baby D died of pneumonia’ when even if you read the full telegraph article, that isn't what was said at all.
The reading comprehension of that lot is something else.
Spot on. And we all knew baby D had pneumonia but they don't seem to understand that dying with pneumonia is completely different to dying from pneumonia. It's like they can't pick up subtle changes to language. Probably because they are all a sandwich short of a picnic
They are all intellectually and aesthetically challenged. That’s as polite as I get
- Status