Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Nurse Lucy Letby found guilty of murdering seven babies

1101113151631

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,957 ✭✭✭kirk.


    Hmm I've read this and I've no idea what you're on about 😄



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,957 ✭✭✭kirk.


    I didn't say there's a reasonable doubt I said 1%



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,516 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    I thought that, by definition, ICU is 1 to 1 care or as close as possible given staffing on a specific shift. And HDU is 1 member of staff for 2 patients?

    If it consistently falls below this staffing level then it just isn't functionally an ICU (regardless of the plaque on the door). So there should be no concept of a staff member having to go from bed to bed doing tasks for different patients because they are the person 'on' that shift. It should be close to staff member A assigned to patient B and only patient B, with obvious flexibility to move around whilst still maintaining that 1 to 1.

    Perhaps I am oversimplifying it. You clearly know a lot about it. It just struck me as something whereby you are going to have some incredibly intensive non-stop shifts, interspersed with 8-hour complete non-events where nothing much happens with your assigned patient and you can text away to your hearts content.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭tibruit


    Well you brought up Bailey, so I assumed you had some basic knowledge of the Du Plantier case.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,957 ✭✭✭kirk.


    The doctors storyline stinks a bit

    They're no mugs consultants and the likes yet they're issuing an apology to letby and not whistleblowing up the command chain or to police

    Seems like they were just getting their ducks in a row and neglecting the childcare issue



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,593 ✭✭✭political analyst


    I understand. I've heard of the fictional coroner who was played by Jack Klugman - I only saw one episode, by the way!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,770 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    There was no direct evidence that she was doing anything. She didn't smother the kids, break bones, or bruise them. Even after a full police investigation, it was mostly circumstantial. So the doctors never could definitely claim it was her. It might not have been.

    So they went to management. Management said they investigated and found nothing wrong. What do people think the doctors should have done? Refused to work with her on a hunch? Gone to the police? The police would have gone to the hospital management who would have told them they had already investigated and found nothing. The police opened the investigation after the hospital wrote to the Chief saying that despite their investigation they had suspicions.

    It is easy to see the truth after everything has come out, much harder to see it when in the middle of it.

    Lucy went out of her way to cover her tracks. She played the role of a good nurse, supportive, and caring. Even the families said they couldn't believe they were taken in by her.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,240 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    Really?

    You blaming the union rep now, lol?

    Sure maybe the union should all serve time as well?

    What do you think the rep should have done?

    Turned around to Lucy or their boss in the union and said, "I believe this nurse is a serial killer, not a nurse being picked on, although the only evidence I have is the doctors' word against hers at this stage in time"..!

    "Not interested in the bigger picture only in representing her".

    Is that not the job of a union rep??

    Yes Admin are very much at fault and have culpability for some of the babies' killed after the doctors initially flagged a problem

    She should have been taken off the unit straight away at that stage until all the investigations were completed.

    But blaming the rep is like blaming society or everbody else working in the hospital..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,593 ✭✭✭political analyst


    You forgot about Alison Kelly, who was one of Letby's superiors in nursing at the time and who is suspended from her current role.

    The other accused senior nurse, who has since retired, told ITV Granada that she wasn't given enough info to justify suspending Letby at the time.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,715 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Very logical, sensible and balanced analysis.

    just to add: the circumsrstisl evidence all added up to paint a clear picture of guilt. The system really worked here as regards evidence, prosecution and the killer being found guilty.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,353 ✭✭✭rogber


    I've a lot of sympathy for the parents too. You sacrifice the best years of your life for a child and through no obvious fault of theirs she ends up like this



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,240 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    Yes you clearly have it wrong.

    The quietest shift I have worked on ICU is... Never!

    It is the most intensive busy work you can do.

    Sometimes you might have 2 patients if short staffed and you should be allocated only very stable patients but it is wayy more than you imagine in your posts.

    Soecial baby care is different.

    A lot of SCBU in local hospitals might only care for 'special care "ie not ventilated or critically ill premmies, and would have 3 or 4 nurses looking after 8 to 10 babies and any critical patients would be transferred to the nearest neonatal intensive care.

    They might have one or 2 intensive care baby beds in case of emergency and in her time there this is what happened frequently ......

    Those nurses would nevertheless need to have a neonatal qualification but normally would not be working to that level of expertise.

    I know this because I have done the training and more, worked in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit for years and even transferred babies from said Special Care Units by emergency transfer to NICU back in the day.

    No, any patient in intensive care requires more than just monitoring as my previous post says in detail.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,516 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Cheers, appreciate the replies, and will always hold my hands up when someone with first-hand knowledge explains it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,240 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,123 ✭✭✭✭Gael23


    What happens to the assets and possessions of someone who will never see the light of day again



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,957 ✭✭✭kirk.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭tibruit


    "She should have been taken off the unit straight away at that stage until all the investigations were completed."

    Something which her union would have opposed, which in turn makes it part of the overall problem, because as you imply, they were not interested in the bigger picture.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,240 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    I imply no such thing . That would be you !

    People are moved from units all the time for many reasons . That responsibility was everything to do with hospital management, and nothing to do with the union.

    They could have removed her out of concern for her 'mental health ' and nothing she or her union could have done would have stopped it , except maybe put a limit on the length of time she was removed .

    Why are you arguing a comment that is patently indefensible ?

    So now unions are responsible for serial killers according to you.

    Think this has run its course really, OP.

    When posters are here blaming union reps and mobile phones for a serial killing rampage , it has gone to the ridiculous !



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭tibruit


    "I imply no such thing. That would be you!"

    Yes. I did say..."not interested in the bigger picture and only in representing her."

    You quoted this and specifically replied..."Is that not the job of a union rep?".....so yes, you did imply it. Maybe you mis-spoke.


    "The responsibility was everything to do with management"

    The overwhelming responsibility lies with management for sure, but management decisions will be influenced by outside factors. Lucy wasn`t going quietly. She brought in Mammy and Daddy who probably staunchly defended her but I would imagine to little effect. Get the union onside though, that`s a different story. That`s a factor in the sh*tshow that the administrators were afraid of. I said nothing about mobile phones.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,957 ✭✭✭kirk.


    Your posts are indecipherable

    What's all this about



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,240 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    No the mobile phone red herring been going on since yesterday 🙄

    You are posting indecipherable stuff here alright but I will make a bash at it in the interests of fairplay, maybe you took ME up wrong !

    The sentence I quoted from your post was two phrases.

    As you say in your last post ...

    Quote ..."not interested in the bigger picture and only in representing her."

    You quoted this and specifically replied..."Is that not the job of a union rep?".....so yes, you did imply it. Maybe you mis-spoke." End quote



    It is their job to represent her , not to think of the bigger picture .

    As if Mammy or Daddy and law suits have never been threatened in cases that are much less serious than this before .;)

    That is bread and butter to any HR department, and why union reps are needed .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭tibruit


    Not indecipherable at all. You comprehend all that I said. But you think that the union should focus on nothing but the interests of its member which is fine under most circumstances. I`m just saying not when that member is being accused of multiple murders.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,631 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    I strongly object to that no one said its the fault of mobile phones that's a bizarre idea read the judges speech before he sentenced her.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,240 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    Another indecipherable post ...

    What..are you strongly objecting to ?

    Mobile phones we've done to death (no pun or offence intended !)

    Bizarre idea of the judge or whether read a statement by him? Wha?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,240 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    I think you know that she was not " accused of multiple murders " when the union rep was representing her , and even if she was , it is still the unions' job to represent and provide legal assistance , innocent or guilty .

    Supposing she was being accused in the wrong of something,anything..should the union cast their all seeing eye into the future to divine whether it would look bad if they did their jobs ?

    Go on ...you are very entertaining digging away there ;)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,593 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Why would the police have accept management's word in that scenario?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,593 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Actually, Hindley and Brady were worse because their crimes were sexually-motivated (in the same way as it was with Dutroux and Fourniret and their wives) and their victims were older than Letby's and so, unlike the babies at Chester hospital, were fully aware of torture that was inflicted on them before they were murdered.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,715 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Worse in the sense of the environment, situation, her position, the planning, duration and the absolute defencelessness of the babies in her care.

    She also murdered 7 and tried to murder more. Beyond monstrous behaviour. And she was alone!! Hindley was part of a duo. Quite likely Hindley would not have been a killer had Brady (quite an influence) not been in her life.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭tibruit


    Supposing she was accused in the right (which of course she was) the union was basically trying to put her back into her killing arena. You can dress it up any way you want, but that was the fundamental reality. 13 deaths in her final year and she was on duty for every one of them. The expected fatalities would be 2 to 3 per year. On those stats alone, any individual or entity actively supporting her return would have culpability in my view.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,240 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    I am not getting further into this with you as your bias is showing here and it ain't pretty .

    You aren't even reading my replies which quite clearly show how the union can no more be held responsible than a defence lawyer .

    The decision to have her on duty on the unit was down to nurse management , and there is where the blame lies besides Lucy herself of course.

    Your argument is ignorant and at first I thought you had just made a mistake. I see now you are posting in bad faith and will push your point whether you think it is wrong or not .

    If you want to keep up this nonsense carry on but don't address me again .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,321 ✭✭✭✭Purple Mountain


    Just curious if there was any reports of a partner?

    Is there any possibility she was infertile and took out a twisted jealousy on other families?

    To thine own self be true



  • Registered Users Posts: 569 ✭✭✭Long Sean Silver


    let me just say i have no sympathy for this girl. her deeds are beyond redemption imho. she targeted and murdered the most vulnerable, the most innocent, the most harmless. she deserves to be locked away until her death.

    but i do believe we, society, the justice system has compounded the tragedy by convicting her of murder AND jailing her with your average killers. we have missed an opportunity to investigate further her particular psychosis. we have missed the opportunity to learn something, no matter how unpalatable or repugnant. i know most people will say "let her rot". sure, but we will learn nothing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭Caquas


    The media are full of useless commentary about Lucy Letby’s motive, usually by psychologists who were not involved in the case and can only say she “doesn’t fit the usual pattern”.

    But the prosecution had a theory and it was the focus for their cross examination of Letby. She had an affair with a Dr A who was called to the neonatal unit when the babies grew suddenly ill. She denied this affair, of course, but the messages between them shows that she is clearly lying about her relationship with Dr A. The only time she appeared upset at the trial was during his testimony. He also defended her performance after some babies died.

    Obviously, only a deranged mind could murder babies for such an egocentric motive and it would tend to aggravate her offence, if that’s possible, but it may be the kernel of this baffling and horrifying case.

    This is the best report of the trial in respect of motive.

    It is time for Dr A to come clean. Here’s a scary comment he made to Letby

    : "You are one of a few nurses in the region (I've worked pretty much everywhere) that I would trust with my own children."

    So an experienced neonatal doctor would not trust most NHS nurses with his own child. Thanks for the tip, Doc! Why should anyone?

    Post edited by Caquas on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 581 ✭✭✭dbas


    Who says she won't be interviewed or analyzed in prison?

    She is still denying her crimes and won't give away any insights into her crimes because she still states she didn't commit them.

    How does one learn anything from her 'psychosis' if she doesn't talk.

    Maybe they'll try have another crack at her after her parents die. She might talk more then, but now, they're at nothing



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,631 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/read-the-king-v-lucy-letby-sentencing-remarks-in-full/ That's is the judges sumation. It's very upsetting. The sorrow and heartbrake of the families.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 569 ✭✭✭Long Sean Silver


    you clearly do not understand the difference between a prison & a high security mental hospital. i mean who's gonna have a "crack at her"? the prison guards, the governor? her fellow inmates?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 581 ✭✭✭dbas


    A psychiatrist or psychologist would be best placed to do so, for the benefit of us all to have a crack at her to understand her particular psychosis as you put it.

    While that would be great, I strongly doubt she would engage appropriately due to her particular psychosis



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,715 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    what do you want society to do? She pleaded not guilty… as in she did not kill the babies. In other words, she’s a killer who is simply lying.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,957 ✭✭✭kirk.


    It's been discussed

    The time to investigate her disorder or whatever it is is only beginning

    History probably shows that it likely won't reveal much of use



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,879 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    No mention of any long term partner.

    Just friends and her two rescue cats.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,279 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    She's not being executed you know.

    The state now has the rest of her life to probe into her reasons via psychology if they so wish to do so, it's not like she's going anywhere.



  • Registered Users Posts: 569 ✭✭✭Long Sean Silver


    i agree, but it's unlikely if you sit her down with a cuppa she's gonna open up straight away. it could well take years. on the other hand she may feel the need to 'unburden' herself and might open up fairly quickly, although i doubt it.. i suppose you never know which way or how long these things take. one thing i do know is it's not gonna happen in a prison yard.

    btw which "particular psychosis" are you referring to?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,279 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Am I reading your posts right or are you suggesting that people who commit particularly heinous crimes should be treated differently to 'regular murderers' so that we can probe their motives?

    Do you not think that would feed into their ego, piss off the victims and just overall be a really crappy thing to do?

    There have been instances before where serial killers string along investigators looking into cold cases and crimes that might potentially be linked to them as an ego boost or to try to obtain a more favorable situation for themselves.



  • Registered Users Posts: 569 ✭✭✭Long Sean Silver


    yes i would like to see a psychiatrist examine her and try to determine her motives. personally i think you have been watching too much of Silence of the Lambs. you haven't said which particular psychosis you were referring to, or as i suspect you really have no idea.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,279 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    I didn't mention any psychosis at all, you're referring to a completely different poster.



  • Registered Users Posts: 569 ✭✭✭Long Sean Silver


    oh yes i see that was dbas. perhaps he has some insight into her condition. i would like to see it if he has.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭Risteard81


    Either that or she's someone who has been wrongly convicted. There's not only one possibility as you seek to imply.



  • Registered Users Posts: 569 ✭✭✭Long Sean Silver


    do you feel she may have been wrongly convicted? the British Justice system has form when it comes to these matters, especially where the media whips joe public into a mob like frenzy. we Irish have sadly an acute appreciation of this.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,715 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    She wasn’t wrongly convicted. Found unanimously guilty… but of course, because she didn’t admit to it and there is no video evidence, we’ll have some trying to cast doubt on her guilt



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭Risteard81


    I certainly believe that it's possible. I don't believe that baying witch mobs do anything for the administration of justice. I have concerns about the circumstantial nature of the evidence against her and the shoe-horning of this into the official theory of what happened.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement