We have the same problems in the US. ImoNooe., t's endemic in the UK.
Failure after failure in health, social, safeguarding, education, transport and housing.....on and on.
We have the same problems in the US. ImoNooe., t's endemic in the UK.
Failure after failure in health, social, safeguarding, education, transport and housing.....on and on.
The urge to harm may have come later though, once she realised she had access to easy victims (allegedly).If there is an urge to harm, though, I imagine there are easier ways that don't involve spending years studying and working hard.
Agreed - the NHS is NOT fit for purpose.Absolutely. The NHS is a beacon of no accountability, mismanagement, incompetence and poor care because no one looks at the big picture about a patient. In and out the door.
looks like we may have some updates from today soon...LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, November 25
By Mark Dowling
Share
- Trial of Lucy Letby ending its seventh week before a jury
- Prosecution delivering evidence in case of Child F
- Letby denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more
Lucy Letby, 32, is said to have tried to murder the premature twin by intentionally giving him insulin on the Countess of Chester Hospital’s neonatal unit.On Thursday, an on-call Countess of Chester Hospital consultant at the time of Child F's deterioration in August 2015 said the baby boy was found to have an "extremely high" level of insulin in his system.
He told the court Child F "had been given a synthetic form of insulin but he was never prescribed this at this time and he should never have received it."
Read more here: Lucy Letby trial: ‘Poisoned’ baby had ‘extremely high level’ of insulin in his system
BBMYes, similarly I see the evidence today as the strongest so far that somebody purposely harmed a baby & I imagine there will be more to come. The defence said he wasn’t going to challenge DR Gibbs on his evidence on this child today but he said he’d come this later, I think? Didn’t defence opening mention that this particular child’s cause of death was accepted? I’m guessing there is a “response” already in play from the defence to cover this but we just aren’t hearing it yet. Personally, so far, I haven’t heard anything as damning as today. There have been too many indefinite responses & too many maybes so far but today is the first time I’ve thought, there’s a high chance she’s guilty. Earlier, I’ve considered the evidence to be too maybe/could be/ possibly. I’ll continue to follow the case and await the defence and what they can bring.
It would make sense if they did do so.BBM
I wonder if the defence is going to put on his own expert for insulin then bring back Dr Gibbs.
He didn't mention in the opening statement any witnesses he would be calling but he must be calling someone.
The journalists doing the Trial of Lucy Letby podcast have said the defence will be calling their own witnesses. While I haven't heard any mention of it otherwise I assume they know what they're talking about (one of them is in court* watching every day)BBM
I wonder if the defence is going to put on his own expert for insulin then bring back Dr Gibbs.
He didn't mention in the opening statement any witnesses he would be calling but he must be calling someone.
That's exactly what I took from that too. I know when I am being taught something or listening to something I need to understand, I will ask questions to clarify etc. It shows they are being diligentIt's good to see that they are being very thorough in examining all the evidence presented to them. From that question, I get the impression they are questioning everything, which is great.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.