Have I used it as defense? Just an explanation as to why she may not have intervined.
I've said all along I'm not 100% sure she's guilty. Not that she's 100% innocent
- 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've said all along I'm not 100% sure she's guilty. Not that she's 100% innocent
You’re not explaining HOW she was scapegoated. As in, who specifically blamed her, what was covered up and by who, how scapegoating got past police investigation etc. what is your evidence she was made a scapegoat?
Saying things like systematic failings, poor medical care, poor staffing etc is too general. You could say that about every hospital in the UK unfortunately!!
People disagreeing with you are being very specific with supporting evidence but we are not getting anything in return.
That didn't cause the collapses. You have three babies being poisoned with insulin. One triplet with a severely non accidental liver injury and his brother dies the next day for no known reason.
Yes the unit was downgraded so all sick babies would have been transfered straight out
It happened at the same time however it can’t be the sole reason why… a number of babies on the indictment would still have fit within the downgraded level 1 criteria so would have not gone elsewhere. Delays with transport to tertiary centres would still have been an issue.
Baby K for example should ideally have been born at a level 3 however the circumstances surrounding the imminent premature birth meant the best place for her to be born was at Chester rather than risk during transfer to another hospital (as testified by doctors during the trial). Things like this would still continue to happen with a level 1.
What concerns did you have about the Court of Appeal judgements?
the downgrade means sweet fa, most of the babies on the charge sheet would have been treated at the countess, even if they were born after the unit was downgraded, “all the sickest babies were transferred out” is a nonsense argument man, you don’t think it’s abit weird that 34 weekers aren’t just dropping dead without explanation any more? And regardless of any of this, the ‘very sick’ transferred out babies that died would still be recorded as part of the CoCH’s numbers, so why does the number drop so drastically when Lucy is removed?
Everything i suggest is shot down? You've all quoted the evidence from the trial which I've read and taken into account.
Other professionals have come forward with differing opinions which I can see being an alternative explanation to murder.
I could spend days explaining why but not really much point, as you don't believe any alternative explanations by other experts or professionals.
People on here are getting far too personal and questioning my experience and insinuating i shouldnt be nursing who have no clue about neonatal nursing.
Many of the babies weren't sick before they collapsed, they were in nursery 4 getting ready to go home and many of the babies would have still have met the criteria to be admitted to COCH after the downgrade.
Last edited:
She was blamed for murdering and assaulting babies. Yes there were systematic failings that's obvious from Thirlwall, but they weren't the cause. The cause was her, and poor managers allowed her to continue for far longer than she should have done. Those are the failings that will be addressed by the inquiry so that hopefully this never happens to such an extent again.
Haven't seen a single personal comment about you we've just tried to answer your questions with facts, which you clearly don't want to hear. I doubt you are really on the fence, you are most definitely on the innocent side as so often with you people, you don't want to listen to the actual facts of the trial. No ones shooting you down, just explaining why your opinions cannot be correct in terms of evidence already admitted and tried.
Not thinking people that excuse the behaviours of a serial killer of neonates should be nursing isn’t controversial imo. It actually makes me feel sick.
Ok thanks that makes sense thanks.
It's always the same old stuff trotted out though isn't it? General twattage about how she was a scapegoat and a victim. So many babies just collapsed and died, always when Letby was on shift, stopped dying on nights when she moved to days, stopped dying when she was on holiday and started again when she returned, that alone without any of the 10 months of actual evidence, is a huge red flag
I've not excused anything i have said i can see alternative causes and I'm not 100% convinced.
The babies that died- were they ones that would have been on that unit if the unit wasn’t downgraded? Would they have been born elsewhere or transferred? Or where they babies that weren’t high dependency and wouldn’t have needed transferring. I’m just trying to figure if the deaths stopped coz there were no sick or very prem babies - but then they could have easily died at the transferred hospital I guess, or because she was suspended and that’s why
Just to say I think you sound like an excellent and confident NICU nurse. So sorry if anyone has suggested otherwise.
But their opinions are completely unchallenged and there are also clear conflicts of interests with the panel. And some frankly bizarre statements like what we posted last night about what the bio-engineers said about the heart rate. When we can so easily debunk what they are saying then this raises alarm bells as to intentions or what information they actually had access to.
Many of the things these new experts are saying have also been raised in court during the trial anyway so the jury have heard those alternatives and still concluded guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Dr Shoo Lee’s evidence was actually considered by the court of appeal and they went into some detail as to why it wasn’t grounds for appeal. Why doesn’t this satisfy you? He’s not liked the outcome, probably for egotistical reasons, and gone away and basically repackaged his evidence with a few colleagues he’s roped in, to make it fit towards innocence. Does that sound like someone with intentions of impartiality? And don’t get me started on Neena Modi who has the biggest conflict of interest of the lot.
It was stated in court that you shouldnt be waiting for a 25 weeker to self correct.
Not that it matters anyway because In the larger picture Letby offered up this explanation for why she wasn't taking action during the first trial. She then decided that she wasn't even there but then changed her mind again and said she couldn't remember.
So it's interchangeable, she was either waiting to self correct ( which was wrong) or she wasnt there, or she can't remember and because she can't remember she wasn't there, even though we have witness testimony placing her there.
In regards to the pathologist. Do you actually realise that they have given evidence at the thirlwall enquiry, where they stated that they would have called the police themselves if they had been aware about the association with Letby at all the deaths.
The reason they were not aware is because the management purposely gave them a redacted report which removed mention of Letby and steered them away from potential harm conclusions. They stated that they needed to be made aware of all of this to help them reach their conclusions.
You are offering an opinion, which is being countered with the actual evidence. Like most people who believe Letby is innocent, once you give them the facts of the case then they offer nothing else.
I look forward to your reply in relation to baby K collapses and the pathologist
If you’d followed the trial, almost all of their theories were presented to the court already. Why do you believe experts that say baby A had the mother’s blood condition when it is proven fact that they didn’t? Why are a few opinions of people that haven’t had access to all the evidence and are getting things like the dates babies died, sex of the baby and simple things like the blood condition wrong, to be believed? Dr Shoo Lee who has openly said he just thought right I’ve got to come up with alternative reasons for their deaths and has roped in a load of his mates
Birth injuries for which there is ZERO evidence bar multiples born by c-section being delivered a minute apart
It’s embarrassing. A mechanical engineer on the insulin. Nobody that followed the trial fully would be swayed by this unless they were full on Letby lovers from the start
not ashamed to say I wouldn’t want a single health professional that has doubts about Letby’s conviction anywhere near me or anybody I love. Sorry not sorry
I think you'd struggle then as so many I speak to are also unsure she did it.If you’d followed the trial, almost all of their theories were presented to the court already. Why do you believe experts that say baby A had the mother’s blood condition when it is proven fact that they didn’t? Why are a few opinions of people that haven’t had access to all the evidence and are getting things like the dates babies died, sex of the baby and simple things like the blood condition wrong, to be believed? Dr Shoo Lee who has openly said he just thought right I’ve got to come up with alternative reasons for their deaths and has roped in a load of his mates
Birth injuries for which there is ZERO evidence bar multiples born by c-section being delivered a minute apart
It’s embarrassing. A mechanical engineer on the insulin. Nobody that followed the trial fully would be swayed by this unless they were full on Letby lovers from the start
not ashamed to say I wouldn’t want a single health professional that has doubts about Letby’s conviction anywhere near me or anybody I love. Sorry not sorry
- Status