ColourPurple
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2015
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 12,998
Link to today’s live stream of the enquiry .
Courtesy of CS2CR
Courtesy of CS2CR
Looking on Twitter it’s all the same noise.Exactly! So many of their myths have been busted by today’s revelations . I wonder if a single one of them will have the decency to reconsider their stance now?
I doubt it. They'll double down. That sort does. The grand conspiracy is a more romantic, enticing story than the fact that a nurse killed babies and a mixture of incompetence and willful ignorance from her superiors allowed her to do it for a minimum of a year.
Murderers, as I said to my partner today, are more often than not underwhelming. We're expecting the grand, melodramatic motive, the complicated web of intrigue, but those are things of the realm of fiction. I'm not saying that the truth can't be fantastical, complicated and fascinating, but generally, murderers are boring and mundane. They're people, not fanged monsters with cape and claws, drinking the blood of the innocent. Just a spiteful, bland nurse, committing acts of cruelty and murder to fuel her own sense of power and self importance and distract herself from her cardboard cutout life.
MOO
You think the grapevine reached her? She had nurses who wanted her back right? Makes sense to me that she was informed. She's also probably smart enough to put two and two together. Is it about the same time as the "not so nice comments"?The inquiry started off in date order but then seemed to go backwards and forwards in time as it progressed. I feel like it should have been kept in date order to aid with understanding.
I'm not at all sure how Letby came to know what she was suspected of - to me it seems to jump from investigating her practices to her knowing she was suspected of murder at the family meeting.
I think she had her own little network of informants letting her know everything that was going on. Loyal nurses and supervisors, Doc Choc, the head guy... Emails, texts, facebook messages, lunch dates...You think the grapevine reached her? She had nurses who wanted her back right? Makes sense to me that she was informed. She's also probably smart enough to put two and two together. Is it about the same time as the "not so nice comments"?
I've got this probably known.Are there any news or links today? I can't find anything my end
11:48am
Dr David Harkness, in a statement to the inquiry, says he would initiate a Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy and Childhood procedure, which would involve a post-mortem examination in the case of Child E, with the benefit of his increased experience and knowledge now.
No post-mortem examination was pursued for Child E to save the parents further distress.
The cause of death was recorded as prematurity and necrotising enterocolitis [known as NEC in the trial], and no recommendations were made.
11:52am
Lucy Letby had agreed at trial that Child F and Child L had been poisoned by insulin, but denied being the poisoner.
Child F's low insulin c-peptide to insulin ratio test was relayed to the Countess of Chester Hospital. It was established that no other baby on the Neonatal Unit had been prescribed insulin, making accidental administration unlikely.
A Countess doctor's statement to the inquiry said: "I felt that the most likely explanation for the results was some sort of inaccuracy with the test and I would have liked to repeat them, but Child F had no further periods of hypoglycaemia and was transferred back to his local unit.
"It is our usual practice to repeat neonatal bloods that do not fit with the expected clinical picture."
She did consider whether insulin could have been delivered deliberately: “but this seemed absurd and ridiculously unlikely so the tests being wrong seemed the only possible explanation.”
She added in her police statement that: “with hindsight I should have flagged up this unexpected result.”
11:53am
Dr Gibbs, in his statement to the inquiry, said: "I helped during the initial management of Child F’s low blood glucose, in August 2015, at which time infection was suspected. Low blood glucose is a common problem in babies in early life, more so in premature babies.
"Blood results in Child F indicated that the low blood glucose was likely to have been caused by the administration of synthetic insulin. These blood results were only available several days after being taken, by which time the low blood glucose had resolved.
"The results were not interpreted correctly at the time and so, highly regrettably, an indication that someone was deliberately harming patients was overlooked.
"Not being aware of these insulin results meant that Child F did not cause me to be suspicious of deliberate harm on the NNU.”
Dr Gibbs characterises it as “a collective failure” on the part of the paediatric team to have not recognised the significance of the insulin and c-peptide results in Child F in mid-August 2015.
11:54am
Medical Director Ian Harvey has said in his statement to the Inquiry: “This situation [the insulin result] was not reported to me at any time before my retirement. It should have been. I feel strongly that had this been reported to me, this would have alerted me to an urgent problem and significantly altered my perception of the events on the neonatal unit.”
11:55am
Ms Langdale KC says to Lady Thirlwall: "In light of what we know about the facts of this case, and indeed the facts of the [Beverley] Allitt case and others, where the deliberate administering of insulin has been used to cause harm, you may consider that this is an area that requires particularly careful consideration."
Live: Thirlwall inquiry into Lucy Letby baby deaths case begins
And they highlight questions about Lucy Letby in red, after a doctor questions if she is harming the bAbies, and they fob off the concern until a meeting 'next Wednesday.' Meanwhile that nurse highlighted in red is on the day shift until next Wednesday.Good point they made about having concerns. If they had concerns then who's bright idea was it to move her onto dayshifts instead of investigating it properly.
Exactly!Powell replied: “It is unfortunate that she [Letby] was on – however each cause of death was different, some were poorly prior to their arrival on the unit", adding others had bowel disorders, gastric bleeding and congenital abnormalities.
It is sad that they use the 'excuse' that each COD was different---as if a serial killer can't change their mode of attack.
We have to take the murders within the context of natural deaths on the unit. I have a idea she tried to blend them in together, imagine the confusion? Some natural some not and many just leaving more questions than answers.Powell replied: “It is unfortunate that she [Letby] was on – however each cause of death was different, some were poorly prior to their arrival on the unit", adding others had bowel disorders, gastric bleeding and congenital abnormalities.
It is sad that they use the 'excuse' that each COD was different---as if a serial killer can't change their mode of attack.
Quote Message
Following the meeting on 14 July 2016, the board "did not discuss neonatal mortality nor the concerns raised about Letby again until the new year," de la Poer says."The official minutes recorded Dr Ravi Jayaram asking for one matter not to be minuted. In a set of handwritten notes for the meeting, Dr Jayaram was noted to set out Letby’s association with neonatal deaths, referring to Letby as the “elephant in [the] room.”
Nicholas de la Poer KC, at the inquiry