UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #38

[StargateONeill]

The very idea that you supervise someone constantly is ridiculous, frankly. Nowhere does that.

Yes, I have supervised students in the past. Certain competencies have to be taught, practiced and observed by the supervisor to assess someone as competent but otherwise students will be assigned activities that they are capable of doing alone or as part of a team. This is decided by the supervisor to build areas someone may need developing in e.g you have observed my taking down Mrs Smith's medical history, I have sat with you and helped you do it with Mr Jones, now you go and take Mrs Andrew's yourself. And that's for a brand new student, let alone someone with an NMC Pin.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Killer nurse Lucy Letby is 'pals with notorious paedo' on prison's 'VIP wing'

Lucy Letby has befriended a notorious paedophile at HMP Bronzefield, according to a source, who said the killer nurse 'isn’t fussy about who she socialises with'

share.google

Always treat these types of story with great suspicion; if it ever says "....a source said...." it's probably just made up nonsense. The media (gutter press) knows it can say basically whatever it likes as no one can prove otherwise and regardless of what it says, they cant defame a serial baby murderer.

 

[Charlot123]

The very idea that you supervise someone constantly is ridiculous, frankly. Nowhere does that.

Am I to understand that trainee nurses were not supervised at COCH NICU?

 

[katydid23]

Am I to understand that trainee nurses were not supervised at COCH NICU?

How did you get the above conclusion from the statement you replied to?


"The very idea that you supervise someone constantly is ridiculous, frankly. Nowhere does that."

The OP clearly said ^^^trainees were not CONSTANTLY supervised. That is not the same thing as "NOT supervised."


Just like a teacher 'supervising' a classroom of students. Each one has short periods of time where they are unsupervised. They go down the hall to the restroom, they take papers to the office, they go to the equipment room for basketballs for recess.

So the students ARE being supervised, but not every single moment.

 

[Charlot123]

How did you get the above conclusion from the statement you replied to?


"The very idea that you supervise someone constantly is ridiculous, frankly. Nowhere does that."

The OP clearly said ^^^trainees were not CONSTANTLY supervised. That is not the same thing as "NOT supervised."


Just like a teacher 'supervising' a classroom of students. Each one has short periods of time where they are unsupervised. They go down the hall to the restroom, they take papers to the office, they go to the equipment room for basketballs for recess.

So the students ARE being supervised, but not every single moment.

But if it is the practice of a training hospital to occasionally leave trainees unsupervised, how can one blame them for maliciously dislodging the breathing tubes when they were alone, unsupervised, and no one ever saw them doing it? And, if they were actively suspected of doing it, how were they allowed to graduate?

This goes against the way humans react to a crime. Some crimes are only suspected, but if you feel someone switches cards during a card game, you'd never play with that person ever. Catching an arm trying to pickpocket and loudly yelling, "hold the thief!" is an expected reaction. If someone sees a malicious or simply wrong action on the medical unit, the reaction is swift and often, loud.

Me remembering an anesthesiologist confronting an inexperienced nurse, "what are you doing? You are bruising her " and ordering her out. The bruise was on my hand but his reaction was angry: his and the hospital's license were covering her.

In Lucy Letby's case, too much hinges on what i am tempted to call "spectral evidence". The moniker "Nurse Death", dr. Jayaram's "bad feeling" on seeing Lucy next to baby K, Dr. Breary feeling he needed to "protect the babies". One wishes we were reasonable in this day and age, but some people are superstitious. This, however, invites a huge question: if all these consultants had "bad feelings" about Lucy Letby, why did they continue to allow her to work that many shifts? This goes against the desire to protect the babies.

Same about dr. Jayaram and his peculiar memory in the case of baby K. If as he told the court, he walked into the room and saw a baby collapsing and all the alarms buzzing, and Lucy doing nothing, I assume he'd call the code and immediately after the resuscitation, he would have confronted Lucy and reported the incident. Per his story, it was a big incident. Other witnesses and the swipe card reading contradict him. But say, we rely on feelings: a doctor walks on a nurse watching a patient collapsing and doing nothing. He doesn't give her a talk, doesn't report the incident, he just comes back to the whole scene two years later. What would be your feeling about such doctor's actions?

And, "whistleblowing" is very different from merely reporting an incident.

 

[May72031]

But if it is the practice of a training hospital to occasionally leave trainees unsupervised, how can one blame them for maliciously dislodging the breathing tubes when they were alone, unsupervised, and no one ever saw them doing it? And, if they were actively suspected of doing it, how were they allowed to graduate?

Eh? Someone who maliciously dislodges breathing tubes shouldn't be blamed on the basis no one saw them doing it? That makes no sense whatsoever.

if all these consultants had "bad feelings" about Lucy Letby, why did they continue to allow her to work that many shifts? This goes against the desire to protect the babies.

Erm, it was the management that continued to let Letby work that many shifts.

And, "whistleblowing" is very different from merely reporting an incident.

Indeed. I've seen quite a few pro-Letby supporters make the absurd claim that she was somehow a "whistle-blower". If any people were whistle-blowers, it was the doctors.

 

[marynnu]

Same about dr. Jayaram and his peculiar memory in the case of baby K. If as he told the court, he walked into the room and saw a baby collapsing and all the alarms buzzing, and Lucy doing nothing, I assume he'd call the code and immediately after the resuscitation, he would have confronted Lucy and reported the incident. Per his story, it was a big incident.

What you have said is inaccurate. The alarms were not sounding, that's one of the main issues about this incident. You really need to check your facts.
Why do you talk about licences and 'call the code', whatever the hell that is?

 

[Parker Knoll]

From The Times.

https://archive.is/XQdzG

Another nothing burger.
MM expert shopping as per.

 

[Dotta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1966978149721186356

 

[katydid23]

The confession notes did not 'convict' Nurse Lucy.

Her many hours of witness testimony, and her obvious lies, told to the jury, and her falsified medical logs, and the testimony of her co-workers and her victims and the medical experts were the reasons for her conviction.

Those notes, where she called herself EVIL and wrote that she intentionally 'did this because she wasn't good enough to care for them' and she 'didn't deserve to live' did not help her case. But they were NOT the reason she was convicted.

The excuses, however, that her PR team is using---saying "she was just putting her dark thoughts on paper, as a therapeutic coping process"---that sounds ridiculous.

If I am struggling with emotional trauma because I am being investigated for a serious crime, like let's say child abuse-----It makes sense to write out how stressed I am feeling, how worried I might be about being convicted, and about being falsely accused, and facing prison. I would probably say "I feel hopeless, I just want to give up, I am such a failure, etc etc. " " My kids hate me now, my family will never forgive me, no one understands me' etc. I want to end it all."

But what I would NOT do, at all, is write in a journal that " I AM EVIL, I INTENTIONALLY DID THIS, I DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE"

What is the therapeutic value of writing out an affirmative statement of something I DID NOT DO ?

IF I was falsely accused of stealing money from my boss's safe, I am NOT going to write in my journal " I AM GREEDY, I DID THIS AND I DESERVE TO BE FIRED." There is no therapeutic value in writing out the opposite of what actually happened.

I might write how depressed I am, how frustrated I am, and how dark thoughts of self harm are creeping in, etc. I might write how angry I am that my co-workers thought I stole the money, and I feel like a failure that people think of me like that.

But WHY would I write " I am EVIL, I did this, I am worthless and deserve to be fired and arrested.' What therapist would suggest that I write out a false confession as a coping mechanism?

 

[joltz]

From The Times.

https://archive.is/XQdzG

Another nothing burger.
MM expert shopping as per.

Lolz, so now mcduff says that the notes Letby scrawled which state:
"i am evil"
"I did this"
"I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them"

should not have been allowed to be admitted as evidence and the fact they were is enough evidence to have her case sent to the COA.

On what planet, would these notes ever not be allowed to be used as evidence?

This man knows no shame.

She would have been convicted with or without the notes and the jury heard everything that both the prosecution and defence had to say in relation to them. The jury were well aware of everything.

 

[JosieJo]

The defence gave an alternative explanation for the notes she wrote..it was up to the jury to decide what they took from them ...how can that be a reason to appeal? It's not as if the judge said..this is evidence of a confession and that's how you must see it.

 

[MoominMama222]

The confession notes did not 'convict' Nurse Lucy.

Her many hours of witness testimony, and her obvious lies, told to the jury, and her falsified medical logs, and the testimony of her co-workers and her victims and the medical experts were the reasons for her conviction.

Those notes, where she called herself EVIL and wrote that she intentionally 'did this because she wasn't good enough to care for them' and she 'didn't deserve to live' did not help her case. But they were NOT the reason she was convicted.

The excuses, however, that her PR team is using---saying "she was just putting her dark thoughts on paper, as a therapeutic coping process"---that sounds ridiculous.

If I am struggling with emotional trauma because I am being investigated for a serious crime, like let's say child abuse-----It makes sense to write out how stressed I am feeling, how worried I might be about being convicted, and about being falsely accused, and facing prison. I would probably say "I feel hopeless, I just want to give up, I am such a failure, etc etc. " " My kids hate me now, my family will never forgive me, no one understands me' etc. I want to end it all."

But what I would NOT do, at all, is write in a journal that " I AM EVIL, I INTENTIONALLY DID THIS, I DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE"

What is the therapeutic value of writing out an affirmative statement of something I DID NOT DO ?

IF I was falsely accused of stealing money from my boss's safe, I am NOT going to write in my journal " I AM GREEDY, I DID THIS AND I DESERVE TO BE FIRED." There is no therapeutic value in writing out the opposite of what actually happened.

I might write how depressed I am, how frustrated I am, and how dark thoughts of self harm are creeping in, etc. I might write how angry I am that my co-workers thought I stole the money, and I feel like a failure that people think of me like that.

But WHY would I write " I am EVIL, I did this, I am worthless and deserve to be fired and arrested.' What therapist would suggest that I write out a false confession as a coping mechanism?

Many people have an internal negative voice--sometimes one that is extremely condemning. I can see these statements being written down as a recording of that inner condemning voice-- Sort of like "I am worthless. I am no good." escalating to "I am evil" "I am guilty" --these kinds of utterances could be an iteration of that kind of self-accusatory inner monologue.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Exactly !
I’m beginning to seriously question this

The defence gave an alternative explanation for the notes she wrote..it was up to the jury to decide what they took from them ...how can that be a reason to appeal? It's not as if the judge said..this is evidence of a confession and that's how you must see it.

Exactly.
This “ appeal “ is farcical.

 

[katydid23]

Many people have an internal negative voice--sometimes one that is extremely condemning. I can see these statements being written down as a recording of that inner condemning voice-- Sort of like "I am worthless. I am no good." escalating to "I am evil" "I am guilty" --these kinds of utterances could be an iteration of that kind of self-accusatory inner monologue.

Sure, they could be. But they could also be reality. And the jury had a lot more evidence to consider which was more important and impactful than these notes.

If the only 'evidence' was the notes, then I'd agree they might be irrelevant. But they were added to some very important witness testimony , medical reports and her own testimony on the stand. In light of all of the other things, the handwritten thoughts had their place in deliberation. IMO

These notes did not just say things like 'I am worthless, and no good.' They were saying I INTENTIONALLY DID THIS , I AM EVIL.

That is one big step further than just I am worthless. And it is important to note that these notes were found among other notations in her journal, where she had made notations about some of the medical incidents she was charged with. Why is a nurse writing medical notes like that in her daily journal/calender?

Why was she routinely taking home private medical paperwork that was legally not allowed to leave the clinic? She had hundreds of those Daily Logs that were not supposed to be taken off the premises---many in a box under her bed. These stolen papers were considered in context with her journal notes and possible 'confessions' that were also in her possession.

Saying that the jury should not have been shown any of her journal writings does not make sense to me. They are investigating the suspect. They should see her writings and her thoughts from that critical time period, imo. l

IMO

 

[Charlot123]

The confession notes did not 'convict' Nurse Lucy.

Her many hours of witness testimony, and her obvious lies, told to the jury, and her falsified medical logs, and the testimony of her co-workers and her victims and the medical experts were the reasons for her conviction.

Those notes, where she called herself EVIL and wrote that she intentionally 'did this because she wasn't good enough to care for them' and she 'didn't deserve to live' did not help her case. But they were NOT the reason she was convicted.

The excuses, however, that her PR team is using---saying "she was just putting her dark thoughts on paper, as a therapeutic coping process"---that sounds ridiculous.

If I am struggling with emotional trauma because I am being investigated for a serious crime, like let's say child abuse-----It makes sense to write out how stressed I am feeling, how worried I might be about being convicted, and about being falsely accused, and facing prison. I would probably say "I feel hopeless, I just want to give up, I am such a failure, etc etc. " " My kids hate me now, my family will never forgive me, no one understands me' etc. I want to end it all."

But what I would NOT do, at all, is write in a journal that " I AM EVIL, I INTENTIONALLY DID THIS, I DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE"

What is the therapeutic value of writing out an affirmative statement of something I DID NOT DO ?

IF I was falsely accused of stealing money from my boss's safe, I am NOT going to write in my journal " I AM GREEDY, I DID THIS AND I DESERVE TO BE FIRED." There is no therapeutic value in writing out the opposite of what actually happened.

I might write how depressed I am, how frustrated I am, and how dark thoughts of self harm are creeping in, etc. I might write how angry I am that my co-workers thought I stole the money, and I feel like a failure that people think of me like that.

But WHY would I write " I am EVIL, I did this, I am worthless and deserve to be fired and arrested.' What therapist would suggest that I write out a false confession as a coping mechanism?

"Brain dump" or "mind dump" is a psychological technique used, among other things, to reduce stress and anxiety. It is free-associating, so this is what I thought of when I saw these notes.

In general, many therapists encourage journaling but having read how it had been misinterpreted in some court cases, I am concerned about this way of unloading stress.

Here is an example. Not only a grieving mother with a genetic mutation and two of kids inheriting it had to spend 20 years behind bars based on her diary. All these cases negatively affect our knowledge, in this case, about SIDS.

Kathleen Folbigg - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Marantz4250b]

Many people have an internal negative voice--sometimes one that is extremely condemning. I can see these statements being written down as a recording of that inner condemning voice-- Sort of like "I am worthless. I am no good." escalating to "I am evil" "I am guilty" --these kinds of utterances could be an iteration of that kind of self-accusatory inner monologue.

Doesn't matter. You weren't on the jury. You didn't spend ten months of your life sitting in judgement of her.

The very first line of this article is wrong. It went downhill from there. The mainstream media is virtually worthless today and I honestly don't get why they are the only acceptable sources here. They are "mainstream" simply because they have the most money - not because they are any more reliable or integrity. It's not my site, however.

 

[Sweeper2000]

It's a way of filtering all potential media sources. We would all agree we certainly don't want info from theroyalsarelizards.com

 

[Marantz4250b]

It's a way of filtering all potential media sources. We would all agree we certainly don't want info from theroyalsarelizards.com

Do the ToS define what constitutes "mainstream" media? If not is there a universally accepted definition?

 

[Sweeper2000]

Do the ToS define what constitutes "mainstream" media? If not is there a universally accepted definition?

Lol the smallprint. I'm sure I skipped over it a while back. Think it's verified media outlets some of which would not need naming. However ws do allow independent researchers as well such as grey Hughes. Not sure of the verification process in that regard.