GUILTY UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 7 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 6 hung re attempted #33

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
DianaWW said:
I bet they torture themselves with that thought every single day. I watched the interviews with them and they are broken. They had a hunch at the time, but very little to back it up. They needed backing from management and the board if they had a chance of being taken seriously. The management are the ones that refused to investigate properly, refused to escalate their concerns, and misled the board to try and brush everything under the carpet. If we have to blame anyone, other than the actual murderer, let's start with them. JMO.
Click to expand...

I have no thoughts of blaming the seven consultants. They had no proof, just suspicion. An investigation would have given them facts. But the hospital refused an investigation.

I think that Dr. A should have has the guts to pull himself out of the situation and moved somewhere else the moment any suspicions against Lucy were cast, but maybe his colleagues were afraid to further destabilize the situation.
 
Charlot123 said:
I have no thoughts of blaming the seven consultants. They had no proof, just suspicion. An investigation would have given them facts. But the hospital refused an investigation.

I think that Dr. A should have has the guts to pull himself out of the situation and moved somewhere else the moment any suspicions against Lucy were cast, but maybe his colleagues were afraid to further destabilize the situation.
Click to expand...

It's understandable that people aren't sure about the doctors, due to the way it has been reported.

For instance, they stated back in 2015 that after the first few unexpected deaths, "all eyes were on Lucy Letby," which implies that they were all keeping a close eye on her (to state the glaringly obvious). Yet when other unexplained attacks occurred, doctors continued to be "baffled," not following up on the insulin reports, and in the case of Dr Jayaram, not even reporting the attack he witnessed, etc. I guess they just forgot about the "all eyes on Lucy Letby" thing. :(
 
Last edited:
Charlot123 said:
I have no thoughts of blaming the seven consultants. They had no proof, just suspicion. An investigation would have given them facts. But the hospital refused an investigation.

I think that Dr. A should have has the guts to pull himself out of the situation and moved somewhere else the moment any suspicions against Lucy were cast, but maybe his colleagues were afraid to further destabilize the situation.
Click to expand...
Interesting situation here. Maybe a nhs professional will be in the know but here’s one outstanding thing That everyone relevant should know about. I’m not sure of who is responsible all things considered.

sorry for lengthy post and if this has been covered.

all info on this document.


relevant quotes.

“It is important that there is a review of every child’s death to learn as much as possible.
This review is designed to support you and other members of your family in understanding why your child died. It will also try to prevent other children dying from the same cause”

I thought the following is relevant due to it showing that the police can be involved without suspicion

“ . In some circumstances, the police will be involved as standard procedure, and this does not mean that you are under suspicion.”

the following i think is very important


A Joint Agency Response is required if your child’s death
• is or could be due to external causes (such as an accident)
• i
When is it required?
A Joint Agency Response is required if your child’s death
• is or could be due to external causes (such as an accident)
• is sudden and there is no immediately apparent cause
• occurs in custody or where the child was detained under the Mental Health Act
• where the initial circumstances raise any suspicions that the death may not have been natural.
• occurs in custody or where the child was detained under the Mental Health Act
• where the initial circumstances raise any suspicions that the death may not have been natural.

the following is important as well.

An NHS serious incident investigation
If there is a possibility that something went wrong in the care the NHS provided to your child, or you during pregnancy and childbirth if your baby died soon after birth, then it may be agreed that a serious incident investigation needs to be conducted so that the NHS can learn from what happened. If you believe that something went wrong with the care provided to your child (or you during pregnancy and childbirth) and this could have, or did impact on their death, you should make that clear to the organisation. They do not have to agree with you but they do have to explain their response.

Review of the death of a baby soon after birth
To improve the quality of the reviews of the deaths of babies who die soon after birth, a tool called the national Perinatal Mortality Review Tool (PMRT) has been developed. The PMRT is designed so that a high quality, standardised review of care of the mother during pregnancy and childbirth, and the care of the baby after birth is carried out. The PMRT is an interactive, web-based tool which guides the review process to ensure that all aspects of care are considered and are reviewed against national guidelines and standards (Information for bereaved parents | PMRT | NPEU > Perinatal Mortality Review Tool).
The review is led by the hospital where the baby died and identifiable information is
used in the PMRT. The report of the review produced by the PMRT is included in medical records and used as the basis of the discussion at the follow-up meeting with the parents.


now I know that leaflet is written for bereaved parents but I would assume the nhs guidelines are an extension of this nationally applied standard.

so I would like to know why these babies didn’t have a ”joint agency response“ and why either party docs or managers wouldn’t have initiated the process?
 
I think part of the problem is that doctors in general just go from patient to patient, dealing with each on the basis of what is happening in the present moment. They don't have time to follow up on each of them or to read the reports, which would in some cases give them pause for thought, or alarm. They send things off to the labs for analysis, but don't bother to read the results when they come back.

We all have our own private horror stories of medical misdiagnoses/negligence. Doctors are fallible human beings.

What we need is some kind of safeguard to ensure... well, it will never happen, unfortunately.

It's naive to think that the guilty party has been caught, the doctors are heroes and we all live happily ever after.
 
notsure said:
I think part of the problem is that doctors in general just go from patient to patient, dealing with each on the basis of what is happening in the present moment. They don't have time to follow up on each of them or to read the reports, which would in some cases give them pause for thought, or alarm. They send things off to the labs for analysis, but don't bother to read the results when they come back.

We all have our own private horror stories of medical misdiagnoses/negligence. Doctors are fallible human beings.

What we need is some kind of safeguard to ensure... well, it will never happen, unfortunately.

It's naive to think that the guilty party has been caught, the doctors are heroes and we all live happily ever after.
Click to expand...
Until the next time.
 
Sweeper2000 said:
Interesting situation here. Maybe a nhs professional will be in the know but here’s one outstanding thing That everyone relevant should know about. I’m not sure of who is responsible all things considered.

sorry for lengthy post and if this has been covered.

all info on this document.


relevant quotes.

“It is important that there is a review of every child’s death to learn as much as possible.
This review is designed to support you and other members of your family in understanding why your child died. It will also try to prevent other children dying from the same cause”

I thought the following is relevant due to it showing that the police can be involved without suspicion

“ . In some circumstances, the police will be involved as standard procedure, and this does not mean that you are under suspicion.”

the following i think is very important


A Joint Agency Response is required if your child’s death
• is or could be due to external causes (such as an accident)
• i
When is it required?
A Joint Agency Response is required if your child’s death
• is or could be due to external causes (such as an accident)
• is sudden and there is no immediately apparent cause
• occurs in custody or where the child was detained under the Mental Health Act
• where the initial circumstances raise any suspicions that the death may not have been natural.
• occurs in custody or where the child was detained under the Mental Health Act
• where the initial circumstances raise any suspicions that the death may not have been natural.

the following is important as well.

An NHS serious incident investigation
If there is a possibility that something went wrong in the care the NHS provided to your child, or you during pregnancy and childbirth if your baby died soon after birth, then it may be agreed that a serious incident investigation needs to be conducted so that the NHS can learn from what happened. If you believe that something went wrong with the care provided to your child (or you during pregnancy and childbirth) and this could have, or did impact on their death, you should make that clear to the organisation. They do not have to agree with you but they do have to explain their response.

Review of the death of a baby soon after birth
To improve the quality of the reviews of the deaths of babies who die soon after birth, a tool called the national Perinatal Mortality Review Tool (PMRT) has been developed. The PMRT is designed so that a high quality, standardised review of care of the mother during pregnancy and childbirth, and the care of the baby after birth is carried out. The PMRT is an interactive, web-based tool which guides the review process to ensure that all aspects of care are considered and are reviewed against national guidelines and standards (Information for bereaved parents | PMRT | NPEU > Perinatal Mortality Review Tool).
The review is led by the hospital where the baby died and identifiable information is
used in the PMRT. The report of the review produced by the PMRT is included in medical records and used as the basis of the discussion at the follow-up meeting with the parents.


now I know that leaflet is written for bereaved parents but I would assume the nhs guidelines are an extension of this nationally applied standard.

so I would like to know why these babies didn’t have a ”joint agency response“ and why either party docs or managers wouldn’t have initiated the process?
Click to expand...
I suspect that 'joint agency response' is fine in theory, but difficult to implement in reality.
Sounds the sort of BS the Dept of Health would come up with as a knee-jerk response to an earlier problem.
 
Davieson said:
I suspect that 'joint agency response' is fine in theory, but difficult to implement in reality.
Sounds the sort of BS the Dept of Health would come up with as a knee-jerk response to an earlier problem.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how it could be avoided. If it’s guidelines it’s rules simple as.
 
katydid23 said:
I agree that it's likely codswallop. Do you know anyone that has any memories or knowledge about the 'heroic' nurses who were there when they were born? I call BS on that story.

I think it was just gaslighting by her---a story to tell her friends describing about how heroic she is.


I totally agree. This has to be course corrected NOW. It cannot be dragged out and watered down in the usual bureaucratic way that ALL nations tend to fall into.

I don't think she will read them either.
Click to expand...
There’s no reason why the statements and sentence couldn’t have been piped into her cell via speakers. She was in the court holding cell. It is a terrible injustice that that was allowed to happen. She will never read any of that.
 
gitana1 said:
There’s no reason why the statements and sentence couldn’t have been piped into her cell via speakers. She was in the court holding cell. It is a terrible injustice that that was allowed to happen. She will never read any of that.
Click to expand...
An infringement of her rights no doubt.
Added to which, the necessary hardware may not be in place.
 
Davieson said:
It might be guidelines but someone has to trigger it for it to become an issue.
Click to expand...
Yeh a recent topic though is the dispute between docs and managers. As far as I can see the process isn’t something either of them have a choice in initiating. It should automatically have involved an external agency And seems to qualify for police involvement Either way.

im looking at those guidelines and thinking this automatically is not something that should have been contained within the hospital on seemingly any level. I’m also not seeing a reason why the docs didnt Think they had all they needed to bypass the managers if that was even the protocol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IDK
gitana1 said:
Thank you so much. Yes!!!
Click to expand...

Sorry, not sure this allowed on here (bypassing paywalls) so just to be on the safe side, I've deleted the all-access Panorama link I posted.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 68 more.
Total: 3,131 (members: 69, guests: 3,062)

Online statistics

Members online
69
Guests online
3,062
Total visitors
3,131
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,664
Messages
18,144,727
Members
231,476
Latest member
ceciliaesquivel2000@yahoo
Back
Top