Nurse arrested for murdering babies

"This is a confidential report and should not be disclosed"

!?!?

The confidential report wasn't disclosed, so no problem.

All that was disclosed was a blank form and the fact that post mortem reports are confidential. Which everyone knew already. Oh, and that a person can die from inhaling their own vomit. Which everyone knew already.
 
The confidential report wasn't disclosed, so no problem.

All that was disclosed was a blank form and the fact that post mortem reports are confidential. Which everyone knew already. Oh, and that a person can die from inhaling their own vomit. Which everyone knew already.

And here's me thinking Hendrix just forgot to keep breathing!
 
The confidential report wasn't disclosed, so no problem.

All that was disclosed was a blank form and the fact that post mortem reports are confidential. Which everyone knew already. Oh, and that a person can die from inhaling their own vomit. Which everyone knew already.
It's been edited at least once since it was originally posted :D
 
Ah once again deciding to interpret the "law" differently. See also "rules" on CCTV installation

Regardless of whether it's got anything identifiable, it's a confidential work document.

I'm quite happy to contact the Royal Stoke University hospital trust to see what their views on this are?
That should get a ban, taking anything off of a forum to get someone into trouble should be punished.
 
I took Royal Stoke off it, not like it made a difference.
There was zero identifiable patient data.
Sir you are more guilty than Lucy

fCE52yn.png
 
It's important to know the 14 Expert Witnesses aren't Bob and his mates off You Tube, they are experts in NICU departments & cases.

Yes, but they've produced no new evidence that suggests she is innocent. They're simply presenting alternative interpretations of existing evidence in an attempt to explain how a bunch of babies spontaneously developed lethal quantities of air and insulin in their bloodstream (plus other symptoms resulting in severe cardiorespiratorydistress) and only ever when in the presence of Letby.

As someone else said, this is just commentary.
 
Yes, but they've produced no new evidence that suggests she is innocent. They're simply presenting alternative interpretations of existing evidence in an attempt to explain how a bunch of babies spontaneously developed lethal quantities of air and insulin in their bloodstream (plus other symptoms resulting in severe cardiorespiratorydistress) and only ever when in the presence of Letby.

As someone else said, this is just commentary.

Innocent until proven guilty. Just because she is in prison that isn't reversed. If there is a credible alternative to the story, then she should be released, for the simple reason that the "proof" has collapsed.
 
Innocent until proven guilty. Just because she is in prison that isn't reversed. If there is a credible alternative to the story, then she should be released, for the simple reason that the "proof" has collapsed.
She became guilty of the crimes when the court found her such. She then remains guilty until the conviction is overturned on appeal. New submissions around this part of the evidence were denied in her earlier appeal because the prosecution never solely relied on skin discolouration as evidence of embolism. This is one part of the evidence in the case for embolism and embolism is one part of the entire case. This new approach has not "collapsed" the proof because it is only a small, supporting part of the proof.
 
That should get a ban, taking anything off of a forum to get someone into trouble should be punished.

I think if you publicly and repeatedly post your personal opinion dressed up as work opinion and are very clear about where you work and the capacity in which you do that work then - hang on, I've lost my syntax - maybe don't post those things unless your employer is super comfortable with you doing so.

Holy moly.
 
I think if you publicly and repeatedly post your personal opinion dressed up as work opinion and are very clear about where you work and the capacity in which you do that work then - hang on, I've lost my syntax - maybe don't post those things unless your employer is super comfortable with you doing so.

Holy moly.

Pretty sure posting a template won't get me told off :)
And my bosses also feel questions need to be answered in the Letby case.
 
Pretty sure posting a template won't get me told off :)
And my bosses also feel questions need to be answered in the Letby case.

I was half joking before but don't over-reach and speak on behalf of fairly easily identifiable people if we're being slightly serious about this.

If all good though then we're all good :)
 
but they've produced no new evidence that suggests she is innocent.
But they have. In the original trail and the inquest depended on the 'air injection' discolouring the skin as per a peer reviewed paper by Dr. Lee. The problem being, his work was based on a different type of air injection. He has now completed a study of air injection as per the Letby cases and found no skin discolouration. This is new, fundamental evidence.
All of PE MDs coverage, last episode
 
Sorry but it is Post Mortems in this country, I deal with the Coroner and Pathologists every day.
It winds me up because we're not in America :)
"Autopsy" comes from the Greek "autopsia" meaning "to see for oneself", so not American... and the Greek predates the Latin 'post-mortem'.

But speaking of pathologists... it seems the Royal College of Pathologists favour using both terms interchangably:

 
Nothing new from them, it's all one-sided information.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom