- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I’m confused as to the dates. She wouldn’t do her first shift in as a student 2010 and qualify in 2011. Is that maybe her first shift on NNU, as you have to go round all areas as a student but usually choose where to do your management/final placement. Could be from the first time she had her own caseload/wrote the handover- that’s a milestone that some would keep a memory of (not me). Was it simply the first handover sheet she was able to squirrel away? The first time she deliberately harmed someone? Or the first time she successfully killed a child? It’s probably the latter and just the thought of it’s given me a horrible feeling in my very bones.
Would child nursing be a three year course? But she wouldn't have done all the placements in NNU.
It was very weird how she a pristine unfolded handover sheet. She must have printed that off specially to keep.
It’s what Chester Standard reported but I guess there could be mistake with the dates? Oh just realised it doesn’t say first shift, just student. But I’m sure it was reported first shift somewhere and I think I’ve been confused on this before! I’ll check.
---
Dan reported first day on unit, so maybe not first as student
And I had forgotten this. 99 found from being a student
---
I wonder why she asks if it was the original. Did she make copies? Or was she just stalling as she had no response.
Last edited:
Think this is really disrespectful towards the babies and their families. The police are telling people their baby was attacked and charges are likely to follow and then you have Mark Mcdonald and Peter Hitchens making out its a conspiracy to keep Lucy in prison. There must be strong evidence of deliberate harm for a second trial.
This. Ben Myers definitely won't have had the option of refusing to represent Letby. The Bar Standards Board has a handbook for barristers that explains how they're supposed to operate. They can't decline a case unless they're genuinely unavailable, or the rate they're being offered is unreasonably low. If they're not already busy and they're being paid fairly, they have to accept the work. Myers was presumably approached on Letby's behalf because he has so much experience as a defence barrister in serious high-profile cases, including cases where the chances of acquittal are slim to nonexistent. It's his profession, so he does the best he can with it. To Mark McDonald it seems more like a media opportunity than a job. I always think there's something quite seedy, disturbing even about lawyers who are so clearly chasing fame. If anything is going to hurt clients' interests, surely it's their lawyers rushing to be on TV every three seconds and rushing to give an opinion when there's no way they can have had time to even familiarise themselves with the basic facts.
Thanks, that makes more sense. She would have had other placements but that must have been her first day on that NNU. Am I correct there has only been mention of suspected harm on other NNU wards and not regular children’s wards or clinics? So those tiny babies were her goal all along, unlike Allitt who just went for anyone she could get at. Usually you request your final placement in the speciality you want to work because it’s a long placement and you get more responsibilities to prepare for working there as a newly qualified.
Fully agree with this. Mark McDonald is of the Akhmed Yakoob ilk of lawyers - as if MM made a bloody SPAG error in that tweet too. Thick bleep. I'm glad Letby's attracting on these loons and chancers - she deserves every bit of misdirection, false hope and confusion she'll receive from these pricks. I hope she gets her hopes raised and dashed over and over again. She's pathetic enough to plead not guilty, drag those families through trials and launch appeals - she deserves to feel the pain of not being taken seriously, feeling under informed, ignored and out of control. If she'd robbed my child of living their life I'd hope she was tortured by disappointment and rejection every second of her miserable life. She got her ego stroking supply from her 'grievance' and used and manipulated an entire staff cohort as well as leading Mummy & Daddy up the garden path in regards to house deposits. She deserves to be let down and manipulated by this no mark, trying to make a name for himself.
This is the time I wish there was Death Penalty... ((((Hugs))) to the victims and families
---
d-bags as Mark McDonald and Peter Hitchens, they are just NOISEMAKERS in a stadium full of cheering audience... Nobody hears them...
---
I feel the police will not listen to the
d-bags as Mark McDonald and Peter Hitchens, they are just NOISEMAKERS in a stadium full of cheering audience... Nobody hears them...
Not really. These new cases are nothing to do with him. She would have been represented by a solicitor at the interview, not him. It’s only becomes something he’s involved in when’s she’s charged & it hits the crown court.
this is why people have an issue with his credibility. He’s driving his nose in here & releasing statements attracting media attention when he has no business to.
From Josh Swash
I bet I know how
I bet I know how
Hearing Mr Moore the coroner, he is very compelling. I feel a tone of contempt towards the hospital and he’s absolutely insistent that they should have been told about the concerns over Letby and how this would have changed the coronial process. He had seen the RCPCH report but the redacted version!!!! Which doesn’t surprised me but it’s just astounding how far they went to hide / protect Letby. I need to read his section of the transcript.
also a non-exec director Rachel Hopwood was announced in a meeting by Ian Harvey as Children’s Champion and she knew nothing about it!!
---
Had to go pick this bit out. He speaks so clearly.
The failure to disclose is to mislead the coroner and mislead the court.
Anyone going on about ‘but it meant the post mortems/inquests were unbiased’ needs to give their head a wobble. It’s literally in the judicial process to have ALL the information.
The original post mortems are essentially worthless.
I’ve said since the trial started I think the pathologists had questions to answer. I was quite scathing of them, thinking they were making assumptions that there could have been no deliberate harm so therefore biased themselves. But now we’ve finally heard from them and the coroner I take it back and can see they weren’t given the information needed to trigger police / forensic post mortems. I feel like this alone should be criminal when it’s coming from a professional capacity. It’s very clear this information was deliberately withheld on multiple occasions. Not sure if there are any applicable charges for that though.
Last edited:
I’m astounded by this. One of the things that’s always kept in mind when documenting anything, especially if there’s an unexpected death is “how would this read to the coroner? What if I’m questioned on this in years to come- is there enough to detail that I can explain my part?” Because it’s scary going to coroner’s, they have to pick apart and question everything that led up to that point. To withhold or falsify information is criminal and you will absolutely get dragged if you are found to be remiss in your actions or omissions. Aside from this, it’s probably why nurse of the centuryHearing Mr Moore the coroner, he is very compelling. I feel a tone of contempt towards the hospital and he’s absolutely insistent that they should have been told about the concerns over Letby and how this would have changed the coronial process. He had seen the RCPCH report but the redacted version!!!! Which doesn’t surprised me but it’s just astounding how far they went to hide / protect Letby. I need to read his section of the transcript.
also a non-exec director Rachel Hopwood was announced in a meeting by Ian Harvey as Children’s Champion and she knew nothing about it!!
---
Had to go pick this bit out. He speaks so clearly.
The failure to disclose is to mislead the coroner and mislead the court.
View attachment 3304983View attachment 3304984
Anyone going on about ‘but it meant the post mortems/inquests were unbiased’ needs to give their head a wobble. It’s literally in the judicial process to have ALL the information.
The original post mortems are essentially worthless.
I’ve said since the trial started I think the pathologists had questions to answer. I was quite scathing of them, thinking they were making assumptions that there could have been no deliberate harm so therefore biased themselves. But now we’ve finally heard from them and the coroner I take it back and can see they weren’t given the information needed to trigger police / forensic post mortems. I feel like this alone should be criminal when it’s coming from a professional capacity. It’s very clear this information was deliberately withheld on multiple occasions. Not sure if there are any applicable charges for that though.
was praised for her excellent documentation- covering herself.This has turned me into a stalker I swear, I did some googling on the elusive Mr. Cross. This is from the prospectus of King’s School Chester. He’s had fingers in a lot of pies. Also doesn’t look very well here.
Last edited:
I also thought Mr.Moore came across very well, I think Mr.rheinberg today will back up his evidence too, that the trust withheld information from them. In the transcripts he said if they were aware someone was implicated they would have phoned police there and then and if Mr,Rheinberg wouldn’t have he would have himself.Hearing Mr Moore the coroner, he is very compelling. I feel a tone of contempt towards the hospital and he’s absolutely insistent that they should have been told about the concerns over Letby and how this would have changed the coronial process. He had seen the RCPCH report but the redacted version!!!! Which doesn’t surprised me but it’s just astounding how far they went to hide / protect Letby. I need to read his section of the transcript.
also a non-exec director Rachel Hopwood was announced in a meeting by Ian Harvey as Children’s Champion and she knew nothing about it!!
---
Had to go pick this bit out. He speaks so clearly.
The failure to disclose is to mislead the coroner and mislead the court.
View attachment 3304983View attachment 3304984
Anyone going on about ‘but it meant the post mortems/inquests were unbiased’ needs to give their head a wobble. It’s literally in the judicial process to have ALL the information.
The original post mortems are essentially worthless.
I’ve said since the trial started I think the pathologists had questions to answer. I was quite scathing of them, thinking they were making assumptions that there could have been no deliberate harm so therefore biased themselves. But now we’ve finally heard from them and the coroner I take it back and can see they weren’t given the information needed to trigger police / forensic post mortems. I feel like this alone should be criminal when it’s coming from a professional capacity. It’s very clear this information was deliberately withheld on multiple occasions. Not sure if there are any applicable charges for that though.
How on earth did he end up a constable from a high ranking position. Following his police career it's been said by one of the consultants, I think, that he started at COCH in quite a lowly position and quickly rose to the senior position. It all seems a bit odd.I’m astounded by this. One of the things that’s always kept in mind when documenting anything, especially if there’s an unexpected death is “how would this read to the coroner? What if I’m questioned on this in years to come- is there enough to detail that I can explain my part?” Because it’s scary going to coroner’s, they have to pick apart and question everything that led up to that point. To withhold or falsify information is criminal and you will absolutely get dragged if you are found to be remiss in your actions or omissions. Aside from this, it’s probably why nurse of the century
This has turned me into a stalker I swear, I did some googling on the elusive Mr. Cross. This is from the prospectus of King’s School Chester. He’s had fingers in a lot of pies. Also doesn’t look very well here.
View attachment 3305012
Rachel Hopwood sounds like she had the measure of TC etc at the time. She’s in essence saying she had the definite vibe that the announcement of her as Children’s Champion was a throwaway comment aimed at appeasing the paediatricians. She says it never seemed meant as a serious thing. She had no forewarning of the appointment. Basically it was lip service to shush the growing disquiet.
- Status