Lock up the doctor!!! Perjury!!!!Yeah Slingo was saying him raising concerns wasn’t plausible, and asked me where I thought him raising concerns would fit in the timeline.
What I’ve seen is some individuals defending and justify Lucy’s behaviour on various bits of evidence - who is the one on trial for murder remember - but then outraged at the one witness who has testified he suspected her (I totally agree he didn’t do enough and people can be angry about that). I’m certainly not saying don’t be angry at him. I just don’t know how people can only be angry at him and defend her, or justify her actions.
She was the one that just dismissed the 3 June baby deaths in a message to her colleague who raised how odd it was with her. If you don’t think she’s guilty of murder then didn’t she fail in her job just as much as he did?
It does seem like it so far as the defence didn't reference her making any complaints or concerns in their opening statement. Only a grievance she was fighting AFTER suspension which is likely linked to her suspension.I wonder if Lucy raised concerns to colleagues, was everyone raising concerns on what they are seeing and the increasing number of deaths but her?
A criminal case? I thought we had two staff members anonymous now (I might be wrong). I just assumed it might be a request that was granted or because they may still work at COCH.I do wonder if there's any mileage in the adult nurse not being named because she potentially also has a case to answer and it would jeopardise a fair trial for her at some later date.
I know, I've never thought scapegoat. I believe some will be out to save their own arses but I can't imagine a professional would so openly throw management under a bus, unless it was true.Oh yes totally agree. I’ve never been onboard with the scapegoat theory. If anything this latest witness just confirms to me the attitude of the hospital
bosses was to just sweep everything under the carpet and ignore their employees concerns. They are fully responsible either way.
We don’t know if she did, nothing mentioned so far. (sorry if it wasn’t clear but that’s why I wrote “especially if we don’t”)Yes it is very concerning indeed. So many people have failed those babies from what I can see. We don’t know that she didn’t raise any concerns I don’t think that’s ever been mentioned in the trial? Or has it?
I’m not really shocked that the hospital bosses ignored concerns that’s the culture of the NHS. I’d like to hope this case will turn that around but I very much doubt it.
Potentially? Linked to this? I guess it wouldn't be totally out of the realm of possibility.A criminal case? I thought we had two staff members anonymous now (I might be wrong). I just assumed it might be a request that was granted or because they may still work at COCH.
I don’t think it’s that she brushed it off - she said in response to ignore me I’m speculating by saying:We don’t know if she did, nothing mentioned so far. (sorry if it wasn’t clear but that’s why I wrote “especially if we don’t”)
We do know she brushed off her colleague after the first 3 babies died in the June. It will be interesting to see further down the line if she brushed off other people or if she raised any concerns herself. I think it would be telling if many of her colleagues who weren’t even there for all 17 babies found something odd and concerning about all the collapses and she didn’t. We are told she was there for all 22 charges.
On June 30, following the deaths of Child A, C and D, and the non-fatal collapse of Child B, Letby's colleague messaged her there was something "odd" about what had happened.
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?"
The colleague added: "Ignore me, I'm speculating."
Absolutely agree and that Dr should be ashamed of himself if he had concerns and shut up about them. I know I'm late to this discussion and I know the NHS can gaslight, there's nepotism, some people will brush anything under the carpet for an easy life and to avoid the paperwork. However if that was me I'd be questioning her directly, raising it in supervision, raising it with her manager, the director for nursing, my union and continuing until someone listened. I've raised more of a stink than he did for a lot less! He probably didn't think she was a murderer but if he thought her actions contributed to those babies dying whether via negligence or incompetence then he deserves criticism for not acting.We've talked about this before but I still stand by if I genuinely believed a nurse was harming babies I'd do anything to try and stop it, barricade the room, shout in the halls till someone listened if needs be. Just saying it's a difficult culture or what can you do isn't good enough. Yes it may be hard, bloody awful infact but this is the lives of babies on the line here?
It’ll be interesting to see what happens as it’s reported as him and senior colleagues raising the concerns so I wonder if they’ll also take the stand it would be good to hear from them too.Absolutely agree and that Dr should be ashamed of himself if he had concerns and shut up about them. I know I'm late to this discussion and I know the NHS can gaslight, there's nepotism, some people will brush anything under the carpet for an easy life and to avoid the paperwork. However if that was me I'd be questioning her directly, raising it in supervision, raising it with her manager, the director for nursing, my union and continuing until someone listened. I've raised more of a stink than he did for a lot less! He probably didn't think she was a murderer but if he thought her actions contributed to those babies dying whether via negligence or incompetence then he deserves criticism for not acting.
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 imagine he went home and though about it fully and maybe though he was going mad I mean imagine thinking a nurse was a killer . I bet he thought maybe he was wrong but isn’t he the doctor who kept noticing things I do think it will come out that eventually they took him serious or he went to the police about it because they wasn’t listening to him . He did say he had never seen anything like it before but goes on to say he does in another child’s case related to letby chargesAgreed. I would be fucking furious as a parent if a doctor suspected a nurse of harming babies (even if not to the extent of murder) was told no and just went 'alrighty then'.
This is in the wikiI imagine he went home and though about it fully and maybe though he was going mad I mean imagine thinking a nurse was a killer . I bet he thought maybe he was wrong but isn’t he the doctor who kept noticing things I do think it will come out that eventually they took him serious or he went to the police about it because they wasn’t listening to him . He did say he had never seen anything like it before but goes on to say he does in another child’s case related to letby charges
But if it was him an other senior colleagues surely all of them feeling the same would minimise out the doubt of what if I’m going mad. Of course they could all be wrong but if all of them thought it, voiced it and nothing happened and not one of them took it further it’s really quite shocking! Would really like to hear from the other senior colleagues he’s referred to.I imagine he went home and though about it fully and maybe though he was going mad I mean imagine thinking a nurse was a killer . I bet he thought maybe he was wrong but isn’t he the doctor who kept noticing things I do think it will come out that eventually they took him serious or he went to the police about it because they wasn’t listening to him . He did say he had never seen anything like it before but goes on to say he does in another child’s case related to letby charges
Thank you just catching up sorry xxThis is in the wiki
Mr Johnson: "Following those events, the consultants suspected that the deaths and life-threatening collapses of these 17 children were not medically explicable and were the result of the actions of Lucy Letby.
"No doubt they were acutely aware that making such an allegation against a nurse was as serious as it gets.
"They, at the time, did not have the benefit of the evidence that you will hear and the decision was taken by the hospital took the decision to remove Lucy Letby from a hands-on role. She was moved to clerical duties where she would not come into contact with children.
"The police were contacted and began a very lengthy and complex enquiry.
So clearly at some point management did take it seriously, also they had at one point moved Lucy to the day shift so it simply isn't true that any concerns were dismissed.
Could be there was no obvious excuse to fob off child A's death on? Given she'd watched a program on air embolism causing suffocation recently I'd have thought she would have made a connection with child A and suggested what the defence are suggesting now...The fact she didn't makes me suspicious. I wonder if after child A she decided to only pick victims with host of problems she could hide behind, and no one would raise questions/do post mortem etc.I don’t think it’s that she brushed it off - she said in response to ignore me I’m speculating by saying:
“ 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.”
In my opinion, I don’t think that’s brushing it off. She came across like she felt she understood why C and D died but came across unsure as to why child A died from that text. I dunno why she would say that about child A if she was brushing it off.
Didn’t that episode only air after baby A died though?Could be there was no obvious excuse to fob off child A's death on? Given she'd watched a program on air embolism causing suffocation recently I'd have thought she would have made a connection with child A and suggested what the defence are suggesting now...The fact she didn't makes me suspicious. I wonder if after child A she decided to only pick victims with host of problems she could hide behind, and no one would raise questions/do post mortem etc.
But the messages she exchanged with her friend discussing possible reasons was long after the documentary and child A. By that point, C and D had also died. So she watched the whole documentary and discussed it with her friend as well - remember these messages on A, C, D happened after the full documentary aired.Didn’t that episode only air after baby A died though?
It looks increasingly likely that baby A died from injected air and that potentially was LL but I think using her watching a tv show to get the idea comes across as a weak argument if that episode hadn’t even aired before baby As death. All she could have seen was a 4 minute trailer about it and we don’t know if she watched the trailer. As a nurse she would of been made aware of the dangers and that’s more plausible that she knew how to do it than her watching a 4 minute trailer IMO.
Yes but baby A died before that episode you’re talking about so she couldn’t have used the knowledge from it to go on a killing spree. She would have already knew about the dangers of injecting air as she’s a nurse she didn’t need taught by that episode that aired after his death.But the messages she exchanged with her friend discussing possible reasons was long after the documentary and child A. By that point, C and D had also died. So she watched the whole documentary and discussed it with her friend as well - remember these messages on A, C, D happened after the full documentary aired.
But I'm not talking about it as inspiration now.. You said the below.Yes but baby A died before that episode you’re talking about so she couldn’t have used the knowledge from it to go on a killing spree. She would have already knew about the dangers of injecting air as she’s a nurse she didn’t need taught by that episode that aired after his death.
Just saw your edit. So do you think she should have suspected someone injected the baby with air?!? If the medics couldn’t work out how the baby died why would she be able to spot it if she is innocent? Obviously if she is guilty she would know how he died but an innocent nurse wouldn’t think gosh that one’s had an air embolism.But the messages she exchanged with her friend discussing possible reasons was long after the documentary and child A. By that point, C and D had also died. So she watched the whole documentary and discussed it with her friend as well - remember these messages on A, C, D happened after the full documentary aired.
What I'm saying it -she told her friend she had no idea what could have happened to child A.
Yet weeks before she told her friend this, she saw a tv show with risks of air embolism discussed. So why didn't she think this was a possible reason for child A?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?