That's not true. We've had loads of people on here who didn't think she was guilty, but as the trial progressed, and the evidence kept coming, it was blindingly obvious she was guilty. Some of the NGs decided as things went on that she was damn well guilty, others didn't. The simple fact is most of us on here who've followed the trials all the way through know she is guilty, the evidence is too strong against her. When the post mortem were done, they had standard post mortem because the pathologists weren't aware that foul play was suspected. If they had known at the time, then a forensic post mortem would have needed to be done.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
It’s hard to debate when the trials are over and everyone’s mind is made up. If you’d been on here earlier when the original trial was ongoing then you’d have more of a balanced discussion. We’ve all been over it a million times since then.
Yes disregarded because they weren’t forensic pathologists. The actual pathologist and coroner for those babies have testified in the inquiry what should have happened and didn’t. There is even written evidence from a hopsital boss deliberately withholding information about Letby from the coroner.
I find it strange you want the insulin tests disregarded because it wasn’t forensic but happy to accept pathology that wasn’t forensic (that the actual pathologists said should have been if they had been given all the information).
A forensic pathologist testified during the trial.
@Whythough Just some extracts from the coroner and also the deliberate withholding of information by the hospital to the coroner.
They sent the redacted RCPCH report to the coroner.
They sent the redacted RCPCH report to the coroner.
Personally think nurses that deem it ok for tiny premature babies who can’t breathe independently to be left to self correct shouldn’t be working 
And some more comments from the coroner
and the pathologist for baby D
I think anyone still referring to the original post mortems not finding deliberate harm as somesort of ‘gotcha’ for reasonable doubt are now just showing they either haven’t read what the actual pathologists said/coroner have said in the inquiry or they are deliberately ignoring it because it doesn’t fit their preferred narrative that Letby is innocent.
Myers could have called these pathologists to try and support Letby’s case and he didn’t because
would have come out within minutes of cross examination and devalued any of their original findings.
People seriously need to wake up and stop finding excuses for a serial baby killer.
and the pathologist for baby D
I think anyone still referring to the original post mortems not finding deliberate harm as somesort of ‘gotcha’ for reasonable doubt are now just showing they either haven’t read what the actual pathologists said/coroner have said in the inquiry or they are deliberately ignoring it because it doesn’t fit their preferred narrative that Letby is innocent.
Myers could have called these pathologists to try and support Letby’s case and he didn’t because
would have come out within minutes of cross examination and devalued any of their original findings.People seriously need to wake up and stop finding excuses for a serial baby killer.
Fair enough I'm obviously very late the these discussions
Can you explain the mechanics of your "scapegoat" argument?Fair enough I'm obviously very late the these discussions
I also find it how to stomach that a nurse didn’t know what an air embolism was or how dangerous it can be. I’m not in the medical field at all and I know this
Are you a neonatal nurse, qualified in speciality who knows about the very specific anatomy and pathophysiology of newborns? No. Did I say a newborn who wasn't breathing would be left?Personally think nurses that deem it ok for tiny premature babies who can’t breathe independently to be left to self correct shouldn’t be working
No. I said its not uncommon to watch for a few seconds to see they self correct.
She absolutely did know what an AE is. Think she thought by pretending she didn't it would cover her against the evidence to support AE. I mean, she even put in a datix about a missing plug being a risk for AE, plus she had received documented training about the risks of AE. She knew but lied.
A few seconds yes. Would you leave a 25 weeker who was intubated for 30 seconds?
If a 25 weeker was desaturating I'd increase the oxygen look for chest rise and go through the DOPE mnemonic and ask for help
Nope I’m not but I know who I would and wouldn’t want looking after vulnerable babies. Perhaps you shouldn’t have used it as a defence for Letby when the specific scenario we were talking about was exactly that for baby K. An extremely vulnerable baby that couldn’t breathe for themselves with the breathing support dislodged. So we aren’t talking about an ok time to see if a baby self corrects. Hope that helps.
Just for reference.
Someone else in government speaks up
Someone else in government speaks up
I have though. That she was ultimately blamed for systematic failings, poor medical care, poor staffing, poor training and supervision.But your views have been listened to and then countered with actual evidence that was discussed in depth at the trials.And unless I missed it (in which case I apologise), you still haven't answered who she has been scapegoated by.
People on here don't see that and that's fine.
I'm really curious about what you think of the shift pattern data - that the unexpected collapses and deaths happened at night when Lucy was on nights, then happened in the day when she was on days, but stopped when she was on holiday and finally taken off the ward? That's nothing to do with nursing practices, pathology data or anything else - it's a proven solid fact.
Also the whole point is that these were unexpected and unexplained collapses, over and above what you might expect of a premature baby unit. She wasn't charged with every single death and adverse event to happen on that ward over two years precisely because they had plausible alternative explanations - exactly the kinds of things you've already raised in your comments. The Hummingbird team looked at everything that happened and the cases that went to trial are the ones that stood out because they were unexpected collapses/deaths given the state of the baby at the time (virtually all of them were expected to progress in a positive direction - hence their death/collapse being unexpected), and there wasn't a plausible alternative medical explanation (hence being unexplained).
If you are genuinely unconvinced then it's really worth going back in depth over as much of the evidence/reporting from the trial as you can find, as a lot of this was addressed at the time and found to be lacking. Plus also Lucy herself and her defence didn't do anything to counter these arguments - they brought no expert medical defence, and Lucy herself admitted on the stand that the insulin babies had been harmed by someone based on the evidence - just not by her.
Yes but Lucy didn't do anything, she just quietly watched the sats going down.
I think she’s guilty. But people keep saying the deaths stopped once she was suspended, but is it true that at the same time she was suspended they no longer took high dependency babies and were down graded? So this is why? Just wanting to clarify.
- Status