Lucy Letby Case #9

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:

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.

 
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.
 
Reactions: 3
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?
 
Reactions: 10
Too much tv time I think
 
Reactions: 1
He says "I didnt really have any hard evidence"... that's his answer.
 
Reactions: 5
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.
 
Reactions: 2
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.
 
Reactions: 5
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.
 
Reactions: 3
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.
 
Reactions: 1
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.
 
Reactions: 8
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.

 
Reactions: 3
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.
 
Reactions: 3
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.
 
Reactions: 10
Thank you for your explanation very helpful. That will be telling indeed then if there is no paper trail.
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.