Is it possible to pin this to the top of the thread - does anyone know? And maybe we can all update this one instead of creating separate posts - so it's all in one place. Fab idea, thank you.
I think that's a really good point
Won't work for an incomplete timeline because members can't edit the post themselves and Mods are far too busy to constantly be editing a timeline. We can only pin a complete timeline, not one that is under constant revision.
Urgh!
I guess I might actually get some work done now!
I don't think her reasons matter at all really. In a health care profession, your duty towards your patients' health, safety, privacy matter more than your personal needs and wants. And that includes any intrusion on their personal space and life they have not consented to. If you were to ask the parents how they felt about being tracked on FB - what would they think and feel? That's what anyone should be concerned with. Just because we feel a certain way, doesn't give us the right to act on it. That's why healthcare professionals receive extensive training on these points, to not let emotions affect their professionalism and duty.
I think it's more pertinent to know whether her searches only related to the ones who had serious problems, rather than the ones only on the charge sheet. I mean, it seems unlikely the she'd be searching for every family, after all. You might want to make these searches in relation to the very sick ones whether you were guilty or not - the searches could be interpreted in either direction as far as guilt (or not) is concerned.
Yes she would be unlikely to search every parent she came into contact with. Many of her patients will have been in serious conditions due her job so if she was searching for reasons other than "her victims" it would be reasonable to expect quite a few other searches alongside the babies here
I agree with you. It's unprofessional and intrusive. I was coming more from the angle of your second paragraph in that it doesn't make the person criminal, but also to go one step further, it doesn't make the person some sort of beast or outcast IMO. I guess I was just saying I could understand why a 'normal' person might do that under certain circumstances.
I've started a Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION* thread. The timeline can be posted there with new posts containing updates/revisions, and we'll link the Media, Maps & Timeline thread it in the OP of these trial threads.
I do get what you are saying but I reckon that doing stuff you've been repeatedly trained not to do is a lot more common than many people would appreciate. You just have to look at what's come out recently regarding the highly offensive and probably illegal messages in the WhatsApp group of ex-Met officers. Same happened with Wayne Couzens and his mates and they were serving. No, it's not the same kind of situation but it goes to show that professional people doing unethical things is not rare. The more minor stuff I think is probably very common.
I have never done it or even considered doing it and I worked HDU head and neck cancers and was constantly bereaved.
I too won't be here consistently but I'll do some where I can.I won't be able to do updates today but I can maybe catch up on them periodically if nobody else can.
Chester Standard:
Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders
THE trial of former Countess of Chester Hospital nurse Lucy Letby, who is accused of multiple baby murders, is due to finalise its jury and hear…www.chesterstandard.co.uk
Looks like Sky News are back too:
Lucy Letby trial - latest: Nurse 'adamant' she's done nothing to harm any of the babies in the case as defence begins
Latest updates on day four of the Lucy Letby trial, with the prosecution showing the court handwritten "confessions" from the nurse in which she allegedly admitted she was "evil", and the defence saying the hospital was "well out of its depth". Letby denies all charges.news.sky.com
I think that this tells us a lot as to why this trial is going to take a very long time to get through. We have what appears to be a very ill child who already has suffered "sub-optimal" care. The medical evidence, and discussion thereof, will I think be quite lengthy and technical.TODAY’s PROCEEDINGS
10:35am
Child H - attempted murder allegation (twice)
Child H was born in September 2015 and had breathing difficulties shortly after birth.
She was transferred to neonatal unit nursery room 1.
10:37am
Independent experts say there was an "unacceptable delay" in tubating her and administering a protein which helps the lungs, which the prosecution say means the case is complicated by "sub-optimal treatment" at the hospital.
Additionally, Child H "was put on a ventilator she was not paralysed; she was also left with butterfly needles in her chest for prolonged periods which may have punctured her lung tissues and contributed to further punctured lungs."
10:44am
The prosecution say Letby attempted to kill Child H on September 26 at 3.24am, and on September 27 at 12.55am.
Mr Johnson said Child H had previously deteriorated on the night of September 23 and required ventilator support and intubation, followed later by oxygen support.
The court hears Child H responded to intervening treatment, but desaturations were "frequent" and "significant".
Mr Johnson said all but two events could be explained medically and responded to with routine resuscitative measures.
The two events - in the early hours of September 26 and 27, were "uncharacteristic" and required CPR.
Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders
THE trial of former Countess of Chester Hospital nurse Lucy Letby, who is accused of multiple baby murders, is due to finalise its jury and hear…