Lucy Letby Case #9

[Windowtothewall]

I think it’s possibly this one but don’t know dates it was aired this was shared on a different group


Found this link too - 2/6/15

BBC Two - An Hour To Save Your Life, Series 2, Surviving Birth, Neonatal surgery

Laura gives birth to a baby girl who has been diagnosed with CDH during the pregnancy.

www.bbc.co.uk

You realise TV channels like BBC save the dates of first broadcast for what they air.

What date did she message her colleague about watching the show (present tense)?

Now check what episode of that show was being aired on that date.

BBC Two - An Hour To Save Your Life, Series 2, Surviving Birth

The life-or-death decisions facing doctors and midwives in neonatal emergencies.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Emmelina Ball]

Yet she was happy to speculate on C and D's death without much time with them either? C wasn't even her patient! It didn't stop her speculating.

Also, i thought you said she didn't learn about too much air from a tv show - that is common knowledge for a nurse? So the TV show wouldn't have informed her opinion. It would have provided her with inspiration for a possible hypotheses. Especially since she couldn't "wrap her head around it". You'd think any thing that triggered an idea for a cause would be considered and speculated on.

This entire conversation is about your point to a previous poster saying you think her not speculating on A's death means it wasn't a brush off.

I'm saying she was happy to speculate on all the other cases except the only one where "too much air" would have been the only reasonable speculation.

I don’t think she would need inspiration from a tv show to go and murder - particularly when the episode you’re referring to aired after the babies death.

She has speculated on the other deaths yes - we don’t know the full context to this. Did the doctors hint at possible cause of death? Did it feel something pointed at those being in relation to sepsis etc. They haven’t been discussed at length so it’s impossible for me to make any decent comment on it.

Yes and I have explained why I feel she didn’t brush it off. We don’t all need to agree - it’ll be 6 months before we may know full answers and potential motives.

 

[Daisydunn15]

Yet she was happy to speculate on C and D's death without much time with them either? C wasn't even her patient! It didn't stop her speculating.

Also, i thought you said she didn't learn about too much air from a tv show - that is common knowledge for a nurse? So the TV show wouldn't have informed her opinion. It would have provided her with inspiration for a possible hypotheses. Especially since she couldn't "wrap her head around it". You'd think any thing that triggered an idea for a cause would be considered and speculated on.

This entire conversation is about your point to a previous poster saying you think her not speculating on A's death means it wasn't a brush off.

I'm saying she was happy to speculate on all the other cases except the only one where "too much air" would have been the only reasonable speculation.




Letby replied: "What do you mean? Odd that we lost three and in different circumstances?"

Letby's colleague responded: "I don't know, were they that different?"

It's very clear that they are talking about the circumstances in which they lost 3 patients.

Her responses are her speculation about what those circumstances are. Circumstances that lost them 3 patients i.e circumstances that caused 3 patients to die.

More clearly - speculation on what caused 3 patients to die.

“ Ms Letby said: “Well (Child C) was tiny, obviously compromised in utero. (Child D) septic. It’s (Child A) I can’t get my head round.”

You're seriously reaching here.
'"too much air" would have been the only reasonable speculation.' Even though all the medics including a pathologist didn't come to that conclusion, and the defence team plan to case doubt on the diagnosis altogether but you think a nurse should have known that's the problem because she maybe watched a TV show that spoke about too much air in the stomach or bowel which is a completely different diagnosis
U OK?

 

[Emmelina Ball]

You're seriously reaching here.
'"too much air" would have been the only reasonable speculation.' Even though all the medics including a pathologist didn't come to that conclusion, and the defence team plan to case doubt on the diagnosis altogether but you think a nurse should have known that's the problem because she maybe watched a TV show that spoke about too much air in the stomach or bowel which is a completely different diagnosis
U OK?

Too much tv time I think

 

[Wackie Jeaver]

[
It said he and senior colleagues raised concerns to hospital managers and that he wished he had been more courageous - that indicates it ended there when they brushed it off.

He not only had power to raise it further, he had a duty to raise it further. They at the very least, suspected that she wasn’t performing well and may be implicated in babies deteriorating some how. View attachment 1675141

He says "I didnt really have any hard evidence"... that's his answer.

 

[Windowtothewall]

You're seriously reaching here.
'"too much air" would have been the only reasonable speculation.' Even though all the medics including a pathologist didn't come to that conclusion, and the defence team plan to case doubt on the diagnosis altogether but you think a nurse should have known that's the problem because she maybe watched a TV show that spoke about too much air in the stomach or bowel which is a completely different diagnosis
U OK?

Yet she knew for child C (who she wasn't even the nurse for) that the death was caused by baby being compromised in utero?

She knew for child D it was sepsis.

When her own colleague told her it was odd and questioned if they were that different. And we are getting testimony atm that a lot of her colleagues thought these incidents were unusual.

Yet LL was happy to speculate on C and D when there were clearly other possible options as well - that her colleague was trying to discuss with her and got shut down.

Why would her own colleague think the cases were unusual and speculate on whether they were that different, if all the medics had agreed it was (A) in utero compromise and (B) sepsis.

 

[Emmelina Ball]

You realise TV channels like BBC save the dates of first broadcast for what they air.

What date did she message her colleague about watching the show (present tense)?

Now check what episode of that show was being aired on that date.

BBC Two - An Hour To Save Your Life, Series 2, Surviving Birth

The life-or-death decisions facing doctors and midwives in neonatal emergencies.

www.bbc.co.uk

What date did baby A die? Check that and check what date the episode aired. She didn’t get her inspo from the tv. If she killed she done it because she was an evil bastard, not because she watched a show about it a week later and texted her work colleague that she watched an episode of it.

 

[Windowtothewall]

Too much tv time I think

Don't be b**chy hun. There's more productive and nicer ways to have discussions with internet strangers.

 

[Emmelina Ball]

Don't be b**chy hun. There's more productive and nicer ways to have discussions with internet strangers.

See the tongue emoji . It’s said as a joke. Calm down. I’m sorry you’re upset I don’t agree with you.

 

[jackolantern]

Something tells me he's speaking shite though and is only saying now that he was concerned because he doesn't want to look like he didn't notice anything and wants to play the hero.

I agree that this could be a distinct possibility too. Is there any evidence he did raise it and was ignored? Because if not it's hearsay and a very serious allegation to make against his bosses. And if he did and was ignored, they should be identified and held accountable IMO.

 

[Windowtothewall]

See the tongue emoji . It’s said as a joke. Calm down. I’m sorry you’re upset I don’t agree with you.

I don't actually know you? Why would I care that you agree with me or not? I tried to explain my point because that's what a discussion is... You don't have to be convinced by it.

 

[Daisydunn15]

Yet she knew for child C (who she wasn't even the nurse for) that the death was caused by baby being compromised in utero?

She knew for child D it was sepsis.

When her own colleague told her it was odd and questioned if they were that different. And we are getting testimony atm that a lot of her colleagues thought these incidents were unusual.

Yet LL was happy to speculate on C and D when there were clearly other possible options as well - that her colleague was trying to discuss with her and got shut down.

Why would her own colleague think the cases were unusual and speculate on whether they were that different, if all the medics had agreed it was (A) in utero compromise and (B) sepsis.

You're completely running away with the texts she sent. Nowhere did she say she knew for certain why any of them died, and we don't know who came to those conclusions. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make.

 

[avabella]

You realise TV channels like BBC save the dates of first broadcast for what they air.

What date did she message her colleague about watching the show (present tense)?

Now check what episode of that show was being aired on that date.

BBC Two - An Hour To Save Your Life, Series 2, Surviving Birth

The life-or-death decisions facing doctors and midwives in neonatal emergencies.

www.bbc.co.uk

Yes I realise that, thank you.

This is the link to the trial page where they discussed the TV programme. I can't ascertain which date they allege LL was sending this text. The dates are very jumbled up.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, October 18

THE trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies and attempting to murder 10 more while working as a Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Windowtothewall]

You're completely running away with the texts she sent. Nowhere did she say she knew for certain why any of them died, and we don't know who came to those conclusions. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make.

You can't really expect that every single person on this thread will make a point you understand. It's ok to not understand or disagree and to do so without being disparaging.

 

[Daisydunn15]

I agree that this could be a distinct possibility too. Is there any evidence he did raise it and was ignored? Because if not it's hearsay and a very serious allegation to make against his bosses. And if he did and was ignored, they should be identified and held accountable IMO.

So for us, there's a record of all of our supervisions which the supervisor usually keeps. We have managerial and clinical supervisions and I'd raise concerns like this in either of those. You then get a copy of your supervision and can raise issues if you don't think its a true representation of the discussion. I'm sure it's not exactly the same across the board but there should be some paper trail of these discussions and concerns because they're very useful in disciplinary situations and they're kept for years. I have folders with old supervisions in which I was the supervisor and supervisee and have previously been asked to provide documentation when an old supervisee went to disciplinary... if he had genuine concerns and didn't at least make sure there was a paper trail, an email, anything, then there's something amiss.

 

[Emmelina Ball]

Think it’s a good time…

new thread

Lucy Letby Case #10

Continue here. No live updates today but the Chester standard should be back tomorrow! Hopefully decent reporting 🤞🏻

tattle.life

 

[jackolantern]

So for us, there's a record of all of our supervisions which the supervisor usually keeps. We have managerial and clinical supervisions and I'd raise concerns like this in either of those. You then get a copy of your supervision and can raise issues if you don't think its a true representation of the discussion. I'm sure it's not exactly the same across the board but there should be some paper trail of these discussions and concerns because they're very useful in disciplinary situations and they're kept for years. I have folders with old supervisions in which I was the supervisor and supervisee and have previously been asked to provide documentation when an old supervisee went to disciplinary... if he had genuine concerns and didn't at least make sure there was a paper trail, an email, anything, then there's something amiss.

Thank you for your explanation very helpful. That will be telling indeed then if there is no paper trail.