Marantz4250b
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2020
- Messages
- 2,690
- Reaction score
- 13,429
I wonder whether these "legal arguments" are actually jury selection?
I get what you're saying. However.....if the hospital had suspicions that she may have had a hand in patients dying then surely it's a massive risk even allowing her access to the premises? Surely you'd suspend someone pending the outcome of your investigations? The potential repercussions of not doing so may be absolutely horrendous if the person was indeed a serial murderer.
I get what you're saying. However.....if the hospital had suspicions that she may have had a hand in patients dying then surely it's a massive risk even allowing her access to the premises? Surely you'd suspend someone pending the outcome of your investigations? The potential repercussions of not doing so may be absolutely horrendous if the person was indeed a serial murderer.
I wonder whether these "legal arguments" are actually jury selection?
The flip side of that is that if they had anything concrete or indeed any real evidence of anything sinister she would surely have been escorted out of the building and/or arrested rather than simply being reassigned.As LL was removed from Clinical duties before the police commenced their investigation I do feel there will be other factors here other than statistics.
I cannot see a nurse being put on admin duties and taken out of her role (even temporarily) "just" because they happened to be on duty for all the unusual collapses/deaths.
The flip side of that is that if they had anything concrete or indeed any real evidence of anything sinister she would surely have been escorted out of the building and/or arrested rather than simply being reassigned.
I cannot see a nurse being put on admin duties and taken out of her role (even temporarily) "just" because they happened to be on duty for all the unusual collapses/deaths.
The flip side of that is that if they had anything concrete or indeed any real evidence of anything sinister she would surely have been escorted out of the building and/or arrested rather than simply being reassigned.
She certainly didn't have her nursing certificate suspended until such time as she was charged in November 2020.
Thanks for that, I wasn't aware the cops could block NMC enquiries like that. I assume that's the same for all professional regulatory bodies?The employers' actions regarding alternative duties/suspension etc are separate to any investigation/actions the NMC may set in motion/invoke.
Initially the employer took action in the context of LL's contract of employment/duty of care.
LL's professional registration body, the NMC, could not conduct their own investigation once the police were conducting a criminal investigation. This is to prevent the criminal investigation from being compromised in any way. Once LL was charged by the police then the NMC were able to impose an interim suspension order pending the outcome of LL's trial.
Thanks for that, I wasn't aware the cops could block NMC enquiries like that. I assume that's the same for all professional regulatory bodies?
I totally agree of course they have to take action but my point was I cannot invisage a situation where a nurse would be put on adin duties "just" and only based on her being on duty for each event ..imo there must have been some other factors.I would respectfully disagree. It would be reasonable for a clinician to be assigned non-clinical duties as an interim measure, whilst the situation is reviewed. The employer has a duty of care to patients and the clinician.
I would liken it to a police firearms officer or graded driver being relieved of firearms/driving duties as a matter of course in the event of discharging their firearm/being involved directly in an accident, whilst an initial review takes place.
The original reports from back in 2018 are not entirely clear, but seem to mention she had already been removed from clinical practice a year prior to the first arrest, but that she was training to work with high dependency babies at her time of arrest. It'd be certainly interesting to know what the reason for the suspension was (if true) and why she was then allowed to work with such vulnerable babies. It's obviously possible that the press have just got this wrong and presumably the police would have been keeping the hospital updated about the investigation which lead to her suspension.
I note one of the reports mention a 'man' (presumed boyfriend) seen entering and leaving her house with her. I'm amazed the press hadn't managed to at least get some quotes/info from him or even people he/she knew.
The fact that no one seems to have had, or prepared to put on record any suspicions about her suggests either an extremely carefully planned awful campaign against vulnerable children or something has gone horribly wrong with the investigation.
These are my feelings too. Yes, as WH1212 has said, if they just felt that she had been making mistakes or even had been a bit negligent then I can understand the being reassigned to other duties decision. If there were the slightest suspicion that she had been acting nefariously then surely she'd be out of the building and the police informed? To keep a nurse, presumably in uniform, on the premises when you suspect them of harming patients just sounds too implausible to me. If she had been killing and attempting to kill patients then taking her off clinical duties may have been the trigger for a final massive killing spree by someone who thought their time was going to be up soon.The flip side of that is that if they had anything concrete or indeed any real evidence of anything sinister she would surely have been escorted out of the building and/or arrested rather than simply being reassigned.
I've oft heard that mentioned but I don't think it's correct. It can't be, when you think about it. As you rightly say, the number of deaths wasn't that high - 8 at most in one year. 2016? That's not enough to be noticed over the course of a couple of weeks holiday.An early news report said she had come into the picture when it was noticed that the death rate fell when she was on holiday. My understanding was that this happened long before police were brought in. She had also earlier been picked for nice photos on the hospital’s PR brochures. Had she been “nurse of the year” or something? Jealous colleagues, gossip? Colin Norris was gay. Ben Geen was in training to be an army nurse. Lucia de Berk had been a prostitute in her youth. Victorino Chua was a Filipino. Daniela Poggiali had a big mouth and a sharp tongue. Odd people get talked about.
Chua was found guilty. That’s not to say that he was guilty. It is true that he did also confess to the crimes he was accused of, though as far as I know he didn’t provide any “perpetrator knowledge” as to how he did them. Personally I’m unsure about his case. To be honest, I have my doubts about Bev Allitt too. Both of these persons were vulnerable individuals. Both were subjected to horrendous police interrogation. By confessing, Bev Allitt was sent to a psychiatric hospital; a lot safer place for an alleged baby killer than a regular prison.I've oft heard that mentioned but I don't think it's correct. It can't be, when you think about it. As you rightly say, the number of deaths wasn't that high - 8 at most in one year. 2016? That's not enough to be noticed over the course of a couple of weeks holiday.
This, I think, has been repeatedly mentioned because people have read the various reports, remembered them out of sequence and have then have put two and two together in their minds and come up with six, possibly willingly. Yes, there were reports of her going on holiday with her parents but I'm sure that that was after her arrests when she was on police bail. I recall wondering at the time as to whether it was a case of her parents taking her away for a change of scenery; she was suspended, was on police bail for a string of unspeakable alleged crimes, probably wasn't getting out much and quite possibly wasn't interacting with her friends and family much and was likely deeply depressed about it all? All speculation obviously and perhaps I'm remembering it incorrectly? I'm sure this thing about the death rates falling has been consistently misrepresented and over hyped, especially on the Lucy Letby Facebook hate groups and suchlike by people who want her to be guilty.
The photos she did were for the local paper when she was picked to front a fund-raising appeal for a new maternity unit or something. So, yes, she was already the "face" of the unit/hospital in one sense. Perhaps that in itself may have something to do with any bias inherent in the investigation, if indeed there has been any?
Chua was actually guilty but I think there is concern about the others and Lucia De-Burk was definitely not guilty. Rebecca Leighton, who was initially arrested for Chua's crimes and who came perilously close to going away for life, was convicted of stealing drugs but I don't recall whether that was related to her arrest for the murders or whether it was earlier. If earlier then that may certainly have instilled some sort of bias in the investigation, I would have thought?
Is there any sort of accurate, referenced timeline floating around, do you know?I've oft heard that mentioned but I don't think it's correct. It can't be, when you think about it. As you rightly say, the number of deaths wasn't that high - 8 at most in one year. 2016? That's not enough to be noticed over the course of a couple of weeks holiday.
This, I think, has been repeatedly mentioned because people have read the various reports, remembered them out of sequence and have then have put two and two together in their minds and come up with six, possibly willingly. Yes, there were reports of her going on holiday with her parents but I'm sure that that was after her arrests when she was on police bail. I recall wondering at the time as to whether it was a case of her parents taking her away for a change of scenery; she was suspended, was on police bail for a string of unspeakable alleged crimes, probably wasn't getting out much and quite possibly wasn't interacting with her friends and family much and was likely deeply depressed about it all? All speculation obviously and perhaps I'm remembering it incorrectly? I'm sure this thing about the death rates falling has been consistently misrepresented and over hyped, especially on the Lucy Letby Facebook hate groups and suchlike by people who want her to be guilty.
The photos she did were for the local paper when she was picked to front a fund-raising appeal for a new maternity unit or something. So, yes, she was already the "face" of the unit/hospital in one sense. Perhaps that in itself may have something to do with any bias inherent in the investigation, if indeed there has been any?
Chua was actually guilty but I think there is concern about the others and Lucia De-Burk was definitely not guilty. Rebecca Leighton, who was initially arrested for Chua's crimes and who came perilously close to going away for life, was convicted of stealing drugs but I don't recall whether that was related to her arrest for the murders or whether it was earlier. If earlier then that may certainly have instilled some sort of bias in the investigation, I would have thought?