Nurse Lucy Letby Has Been Found Guilty Of Murdering Seven Newborn Babies,

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

I don't know why people think it was sooo good back in the black and white days either.  

 

Thought you might come along with your usual equivalent of war and peace.  I only read the first line   -   that's all that necessary in your rambling posts.

You don't know and yet,  you have such hard opinion despite your lack of knowledge.

I know because I was there and saw it taking place.  simple as

[Al Bundy]

4 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

Thought you might come along with your usual equivalent of war and peace.  I only read the first line   -   that's all that necessary in your rambling posts.

You don't know and yet,  you have such hard opinion despite your lack of knowledge.

I know because I was there and saw it taking place.  simple as

Rambling posts?

 

ECCOnoob is one of the best posters on here.

Regardless of whether you agree with their views or not, to label their posts as ramblings is embarrassing.

 

Maybe if you had the attention span to get past the first line then you might actually learn something.

 

Deary me.

Edited August 19, 2023 by Al Bundy

[HeHasRisen]

None of this would have happened if Letby was allowed to park outside the Lyceum and go to Redgates. Obviously. 

[ECCOnoob]

45 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

As I said,  it seemed to run far better without the aid of computers, ward managers, wing managers etc.

As I said, if you bothered to read beyond my first line, you are deluded if you don't think there was just as much, if not more, paperwork and  administrative burden back in those days too.  It was just done very differently and a hell of a lot slower. 

 

They might have had very different job titles but there were just as many pen pushers back then So don't be thinking that getting rid of the suits and replacing with the scrubs is some magic wand solution to make everything better.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Al Bundy said:

Rambling posts?

 

ECCOnoob is one of the best posters on here.

Regardless of whether you agree with their views or not, to label their posts as ramblings is embarrassing.

 

Maybe if you had the attention span to get past the first line then you might actually learn something.

 

Deary me.

Do you not know what a rambler is ?                That was the correct description whether I agree with his views or not.

Maybe you would like to waste your day talking to him in my place   -   if you would,  then feel free.  It would give you a break from The Guardian.

I have plenty of attention span for posters who I think,  are worthy of attention. 

You're quite welcome to support the views of any poster you wish,  but let me decide for myself who the best posters are

Deary you indeed.

Edited August 19, 2023 by Organgrinder

[harvey19]

2 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

I don't know why people think it was sooo good back in the black and white days either.  

 

Just because they didn't have computers or email didn't automatically mean more face to face discussions.  Doctors and Consultants used to dictate their memos and briefings and charts and notes off to their secretaries or huge typing pools to then be transcribed and sent back to be checked and amended by the author who sent it back secretary to retype it then send back to the author to sign off then  passed onto a messenger who delivered it five doors down the corridor to the recipient whose own secretary would eventually open it and leave it waiting in file for the recipient to review once they got back to their desk then said recipient would prepare a response by dictating to their secretary....  round and round the process went  again. 

 

Let's not pretend even back in the days of sternly matrons running their departments with an iron fist there were not some just as huge scandals and mistakes and cover-ups  throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s. 

 

I am not saying that the management in this present case aren't guilty of something and that will no doubt come out in all the investigations and enquiries. But lets not also forget the circumstances we are dealing with here. The culprit is a nurse - thus in their profession patients die. It is part of the course.   

 

Distressing as it is, in a large hospital environment, a death in itself would not be some instant red flag of murder. Even with a pattern of death emerging, there are many stages beforehand which would need to be considered before anyone would jump to red flags of criminal intent by the clinician or nurse or doctor. A process made even more difficult for management if, as appears to have happened in this case, they said culprit has been manipulating and falsifying the records.   

 

There could be very legitimate reasons why management wouldn't be jumping in with heavy allegations like murder against their employee. One obvious one is that the unions would be screaming the house down if they did.  We have already seen what happens if a hospital management try to bring in some extra layer of compliance checks or start to get a bit more heavy-handed with their checking and monitoring of what those precious doctors and nurses are doing. 

 

How many times do we see on here. Hot air being blown about silly health and safety rules or overbearing form filling or whines about doctors and nursing spending too much time jumping through compliance hoops when they should be getting on with the job or overbearing management interfering.....     

 

People often throw out the line, there should be more clinical stuff and less pen pushers but according to the study by the Kings Fund, management staff numbers are actually in decline whereas nursing staff are reportedly increased by 23% in the past 10 years.

 

Its really not as simple as people think.  Everyone always defaults to blaming management and the fat cats in the suits, but the fact is this nurse has been through an entire court process and found guilty by a jury of her peers. This was not some manipulated internal enquiry with bias and management cover up. This was a court of law where all evidence has been heard and an independent decision made that she was guilty of her crimes.  

 

Management incompetence may well be a partial factor in what happened, but this nurse wasn't Florence Nightingale having a bad day or suffering from overworking by her slave driving management.  She was a conscious murderer and now convicted criminal.

May I just add that we only know what is reported in the media.

We do not know all that was said in court.

[Anna B]

20 hours ago, ThaBoom said:

Saw some of the news, and one incident where another nurse relates to hearing a painful cry from one premature baby.

 

When she went in to the room to check, Letby was there with her hands in the incubator- telling the nurse she was 'calming the baby down '. But, was in fact injecting it with air! 😔 

 

This woman should be hung if I had it my way. Doubt she will survive long in prison - a few will want to get her. No one likes a child killer.

Much of the evidence was circumstantial. The jury was undecided on most of the 'guilty' verdicts. Therefore still some doubt in their minds even after hearing all the evidence. 

For a nurse to have her hands in an incubator delivering medication is not that unusual (possibly via 'sleeves.')

 

You say there was an eye witness who saw her inject the baby with air.  That is the only incontrovertible evidence I've heard in this case. But I always thought air bubbles in the blood was almost impossible to prove. (Perhaps Patricia can help us with that.)

Therefore how was it proved and what is your source?  Genuine request. I'm interested in the evidence. Did the witness see the needle in her hand? If so were there any traces of a substance in the tube? Was it ever tested? Is it her word against another?

 

What is the purpose of the enquiry? 

 

 

3 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

May I just add that we only know what is reported in the media.

We do not know all that was said in court.

This.

Edited August 19, 2023 by Anna B

[ECCOnoob]

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

Much of the evidence was circumstantial. The jury was undecided on most of the 'guilty' verdicts. Therefore still some doubt in their minds even after hearing all the evidence. 

I don't think that's quite right.   From the sentencing I've read she was found guilty of actual murder of seven children.  The 'doubts' arose with regards to seven other completely different attempted murders, two of which she was found not guilty and the other five were ones were no verdict could be reached.

 

Whichever way you spin the numbers, she was still found guilty in conducting seven out of 14 possible murders. 

 

Is the conviction absolutely cast iron solid with absolutely no areas of doubt?  No of course not. No conviction is.  But let's get real here. This has not been done on a whim. 

 

Hospital and police investigation, review and analysis by the crown prosecution service to bring a prosecution, 10 month long trial and over four weeks of jury deliberations have reached this decision.

 

You can't seriously be trying to argue this as bad management or lack of supervision with her being the poor overworked employee victim not aware what she was doing.

1 hour ago, harvey19 said:

May I just add that we only know what is reported in the media.

We do not know all that was said in court.

Actually the collective 'we' does. It was a hearing with a public gallery and media presence with every word being recorded and transcribed.

 

Any of us could have been sat up there observing the whole proceedings.  There is a whole section of transcript out there with quotations directly from the barristers and the parties.  Some publications were even doing  live feed timelines.  There were recorded podcasts of trial proceedings and even live video links from the courtroom for people to observe.

 

Yes of course, most of the men and women in the street, simply get the condensed version from the newspapers who have stories to print an angles to achieve. But like most things in life, you consider a range of sources.  One fact checks things.

Edited August 19, 2023 by ECCOnoob

[harvey19]

44 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

I don't think that's quite right.   From the sentencing I've read she was found guilty of actual murder of seven children.  The 'doubts' arose with regards to seven other completely different attempted murders, two of which she was found not guilty and the other five were ones were no verdict could be reached.

 

Whichever way you spin the numbers, she was still found guilty in conducting seven out of 14 possible murders. 

 

Is the conviction absolutely cast iron solid with absolutely no areas of doubt?  No of course not. No conviction is.  But let's get real here. This has not been done on a whim. 

 

Hospital and police investigation, review and analysis by the crown prosecution service to bring a prosecution, 10 month long trial and over four weeks of jury deliberations have reached this decision.

 

You can't seriously be trying to argue this as bad management or lack of supervision with her being the poor overworked employee victim not aware what she was doing.

Actually the collective 'we' does. It was a hearing with a public gallery and media presence with every word being recorded and transcribed.

 

Any of us could have been sat up there observing the whole proceedings.  There is a whole section of transcript out there with quotations directly from the barristers and the parties.  Some publications were even doing  live feed timelines.  There were recorded podcasts of trial proceedings and even live video links from the courtroom for people to observe.

 

Yes of course, most of the men and women in the street, simply get the condensed version from the newspapers who have stories to print an angles to achieve. But like most things in life, you consider a range of sources.  One fact checks things.

I was referring to posters on here.

[Mister M]

Amongst other evidence that was collated, it was reported that police found evidence of notes she'd written saying what an evil person she thought she was, and "I did this".