Nurse Lucy Letby found guilty of murdering seven babies

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

"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.

"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.

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 .

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 ;)

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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

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