UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #15

[Sweeper2000]

I think it's worse, 3 incidents in 3 days if I'm understanding it correctly.

Yeh it’s so blatant I can see why someone would cover their tracks in that case, what I can’t do is link that up with her knowingly taking the handover sheet home. It seems she didn’t quite falsify the notes but left them unfinished almost as if something got in the way as alleged. I’m trying to think if that is an attempt to hide information or not. I’m not sure if we know the dates for that handover sheet either but I would assume it’s before that last day. I can’t see her taking it home and knowing full well how dire the situation could possibly be.

 

[Anxala]

He was already all over her really I think she just saw an easy way to get attention. Every time he felt bad for poor Lucy she got treats, attention, chocolate, lifts home, texts all night etc.

Ans yet she never really seemed to appreciate his attention? Her interactions with him (txts) imo seem amost indifferent to him and his obvious attention/interest in her. If it was attention she was after, then surely she'd come across in a more engaged and less 'distracted' manner.

(By 'distracted', I mean the numerous occasions in their txts where she fails to understand things he's referring to etc etc.)

It's all very odd really.

 

[ColourPurple]

Yeh it’s so blatant I can see why someone would cover their tracks in that case, what I can’t do is link that up with her knowingly taking the handover sheet home. It seems she didn’t quite falsify the notes but left them unfinished almost as if something got in the way as alleged. I’m trying to think if that is an attempt to hide information or not. I’m not sure if we know the dates for that handover sheet either but I would assume it’s before that last day. I can’t see her taking it home and knowing full well how dire the situation could possibly be.

As far as I can see, there are three main reasons she may have taken the handover sheet home:

1. She thought there was something incriminating on it (there was a possible discrepency where she told Dr NiceGuy she left baby Q to get back to her designated Baby in room1, whereas we've been told Baby Q was her designated baby in room 2, obviously she may have had more than one baby) - (if guilty or if innocent but worried she'd done something wrong/negligent as Dr G was asking questions about her care of Baby Q)
2. She wanted a souvenir of her alleged attempted murder - (if guilty)
3. It was accidental - (if guilty or innocent)

All IMO

 

[ColourPurple]

Ans yet she never really seemed to appreciate his attention? Her interactions with him (txts) imo seem amost indifferent to him and his obvious attention/interest in her. If it was attention she was after, then surely she'd come across in a more engaged and less 'distracted' manner.

(By 'distracted', I mean the numerous occasions in their txts where she fails to understand things he's referring to etc etc.)

It's all very odd really.

But she was happy to talk to him into the early hours about the babies' deaths, so not neccessarily romantic attention, but attention and somebody to discuss the babies deaths with.

 

[Anxala]

Why did LL want Dr NiceGuy in particular? *Were his attentions bearing fruit, and she was becoming interested in him? Or did she perhaps see him as an easy mark for deception, him being sympathetic to her? Or both?

But why would she want someone - anyone, for that matter! - looking more closely at the cases of the babies she, if guilty, had such close contact with and/or responsibility for?

I know this is not helpful but if I were a serial killing nurse, the last thing in the world I'd be doing is actively inviting a colleage into my darkness.

* Not fruit, chocolate.

 

[ColourPurple]

But why would she want someone - anyone, for that matter! - looking more closely at the cases of the babies she, if guilty, had such close contact with and/or responsibility for?

I know this is not helpful but if I were a serial killing nurse, the last thing in the world I'd be doing is actively inviting a colleage into my darkness.

* Not fruit, chocolate.

Cos if she is a serial killing nurse, she then has somebody who shared the experience of the resus and the death and the grieving parents and the memory boxes... and gets to relive it every time they talk about it?

If guilty, I doubt she'd think he would ever suspect her of orchestrating it all.

all JMO , IF GUILTY ETC

 

[Anxala]

But she was happy to talk to him into the early hours about the babies' deaths, so not neccessarily romantic attention, but attention and somebody to discuss the babies deaths with.

A fair point. But it still seems such a risky strategy on her part if guilty.

He must have been really besotted with her, particularly after what happened to babies O & P, to not have had serious concerns.

Or maybe he did have concerns and this (besottedness) was a strategy on his part? That's possible too.

(ETA. And could also maybe account for her reaction to him in court.)

 

[Tortoise]

What doesn't gel for me, in terms of what she was thinking about doc choc, is that IF she is guilty (and in that case clearly very busy from the point of her return from Ibiza until Saturday 25th June 2016), I don't think she was spending her free time falling in love. I can't imagine that level of (alleged) obsession and drive leaving any room for contemplation of sharing her personal life, or room for any other positive new thing.

I believe IF she is guilty she recognised that he was besotted with her and it was a very useful barometer for her of what was being said in doctor's circles and also she had his trust, which removes another barrier of detection of what she was allegedly doing. This could be apparent if it was LL who asked Dr Ukoh to get Doctor Choc to attend instead of him. How brazen was even that move coming from a nurse?!

So all in all, another method of manipulation.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

Yeh got one for baby q and I’m working with the dates of the last three events. Two deaths in a very short space of time, the third one being an alleged attempt. Three in a week I think? Three in a week is a seriously conspicuous sequence of events so if guilty the third one in the mind of someone like that might create the precedent to try and elude negative attention by making it out they weren’t near the scene.

Three unexplained collapses in 3 days.

14 days of NO unexplained collapses---then LL returns from vacation, and , Baby O, previously deemed healthy, has his first collapse.

UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*

Prosecution evidence, March 8th 2023, Day 69 - Tweets https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue Triplets O and P Electronic Evidence cont. We're back after a short break for lunch. Court continuing to be shown sequencing evidence for the case of Child O (these included prescriptions, door swipe...

www.websleuths.com

A nursing note [on Baby O] by Samantha O'Brien at 6.29pm on Wednesday records: 'No signs of increased work of breathing...CBG carried out this AM at 1045, good result....respiratory rate remains stable. Baby nursed in incubator...temp within normal limits.'
'Fluid requirements checked and correct...10% dextrose infusing via cannula in left hand, site became puffy throughout day....feeds of donor EBM also commenced at 1300hr, currently having 4mls 2 hr...'

A note at 6.41am recorded a TPN nutrition bag was stopped as Child O had reached full feeds of donor expressed breast milk, and was 'tolerating well'.
At 7.32am 'abdo loos full slightly loopy. Appeared uncomfortable after feed.'
Child O was checked and settled.

The day shift , for LL, begins at 7.30am. During this shift, Child O died.

Lucy Letby is the designated nurse for Child O and Child P and one other baby in room 2.

7:30 am--Letby records, for Child O:...'Observations within normal range...nil increased work of breathing. Donor EBM via NH [NG] tube. Minimal milk aspirates obtained...'

Letby messages a colleague after 8.30am to say she had a student nurse in but 'no time to do anything'.
Letby adds: 'She's nice enough but bit hard going to start from scratch with everything when got 3 babies I don't know and 2 hourly. Ah well...'
The Whatsapp conversation continues over the following hour.

Dr Katarzyna Cooke records for Child O: 'No nursing concerns observations normal'.
The plan was to continue weaning Optiflow, establishing feeds and prescribing vitamins for Child O.

The doctor records a brain scan for Child O at 12.10pm, noting normal observations.

Letby records a fluid chart at 12.30pm with 'trace aspirates'. A similar reading was recorded earlier that morning.
A doctor's clinical notes record at 1.15pm, Child O 'vomits and has distended abdomen. 'Trace aspirate...no bile 1x vomit post feed No blood'
'Unlikely NEC, most likely distention secondary to PMec.'
Letby records, for 1.15pm: '[Child O] had vomitted [undigested milk], tachycardiac and abdomen distended. NG tube placed on free drainage...blood gas poor as charted...saline bolus given as prescribed with antibiotics. Placed nil by mouth and abdominal x-ray performed. Observations returned to normal'

[by 2:40 pm the collapse begins:]

A doctor notes: 'Called to see [Child O] at [about] 1440. Desaturation, bradycardia and mottled. Bagged up and transferred to Nursery 1. Neopuff requirement in 100% oxygen...'
Letby records: 'Approx 1440 [Child O] had a profound desaturation to 30s followed by bradycardia. Mottled++ and abdomen red and distended...'
Shift leader Melanie Taylor is recorded as entering the neonatal unit at 2.46pm.
The doctor records Child O was intubated '1503-1508' 'at first attempt'.
Dr Stephen Brearey records for Child O at this time: 'small discoloured ? purpuric rash on right wall'
Child O suffered another event at 3.44pm, the court hears.
Bleep data for a crash call is made at 3.49pm.
A consultant writes a retrospective note '[Child O] had been intubated about 3pm when [doctor colleague's] fast bleep went off. Arrived to find [Child O] was being bagged. Desat to 35...'
Lucy Letby's note 'Drs crash called 15:51 due to desaturation to 30s with bradycardia, minimal chest movement and air entry observed. Reintubated...'



Morphine is administered to Child O.

A doctor records a further collapse for Child O at 4.15pm, and chest compressions commence.

Lucy Letby records, in notes written retrospectively at 8.35pm for 4.19pm: 'CPR commenced 16:19 and medications/fluids given as documented...IV fluids 10% glucose...morphine...'

Kate Tyndall continues to talk through the sequence of events for Child O.
Adrenaline is given to Child O at 4.26pm, as well as a prescription for sodium bicarbonate.
A consultant records adrenaline and compressions given to Child O.
Dr Stephen Brearey records being called back at 4.30pm.
Lucy Letby records, at about 5pm: 'Placed back on to ventilator. Dopamine commenced....Flecks of blood from NG tube. Discolouration to abdomen. Unable to obtain heel prick...due to poor perfusion.'
The records show attempts to resuscitate and stabilise Child O were unsuccessful. Child O was baptised.



Child O passed away at 5.47pm on June 23, 2016.

Dr Stephen Brearey records: 'After 30 mins of resus, futility of resus explained to parents. Parents and team agreed to stop CPR. [Child O] passed to mum.'
A post-mortem blood test revealed 'nothing untoward', the court hears.

Child P suffers an event at 6pm, the court hears.


OK, I POSTED ALL OF THE ABOVE TO SHOW THAT LL WAS A MAJOR FACTOR IN THIS COLLAPSE. SHE WAS NOT A BYSTANDER.

AND ALSO TO SHOW THAT BOTH TRIPLETS WERE COLLAPSING AT THE SAME TIME. THEIR ISSUES OVERLAPPED. WITHIN 30 MINUTES OF BABY O'S DEATH, HIS BROTHER WAS SUFFERING HIS 1ST EVENT.

 

[Sundial]

What doesn't gel for me, in terms of what she was thinking about doc choc, is that IF she is guilty (and in that case clearly very busy from the point of her return from Ibiza until Saturday 25th June 2016), I don't think she was spending her free time falling in love. I can't imagine that level of (alleged) obsession and drive leaving any room for contemplation of sharing her personal life, or room for any other positive new thing.

I believe IF she is guilty she recognised that he was besotted with her and it was a very useful barometer for her of what was being said in doctor's circles and also she had his trust, which removes another barrier of detection of what she was allegedly doing. This could be apparent if it was LL who asked Dr Ukoh to get Doctor Choc to attend instead of him. How brazen was even that move coming from a nurse?!

So all in all, another method of manipulation.

JMO

With dr choc, I get more of an impression of her dangling the carrot for him so to speak, and using it for her own gain (if guilty etc).

Also, I think as another poster might have mentioned already; was he “in the know” with the other consultants, or maybe even befriending her with his own suspicions instead?

It’s interesting yet bizarre, and I wonder if we’ll hear more from him and his views or concerns etc or was he seemingly oblivious to all the unusual events as LL possibly appears. He appears obvious in the messages between them we’ve heard thus far, but one cannot help but wonder *was he though?*

Perhaps this bought about her recent outburst at the mention of his name in court.
JMO if guilty etc

 

[katydid23]

Yeh got one for baby q and I’m working with the dates of the last three events. Two deaths in a very short space of time, the third one being an alleged attempt. Three in a week I think? Three in a week is a seriously conspicuous sequence of events so if guilty the third one in the mind of someone like that might create the precedent to try and elude negative attention by making it out they weren’t near the scene.

The main problem for LL, with babies O, P and Q is that she was not only 'near the scene' ----she was their designated nurse.

And they were all previously deemed healthy, and suddenly collapsed, 3 days in a row, starting with the day she arrived back from vacation.

After the triplet brothers died, the Doctors wanted LL off the floor while an investigation could get underway. But the hospital would not agree to move her away so she stayed on---and the very next day the 3rd child collapsed as well.

It is really hard to look past this flurry of troubling incidents and she was finally removed from her post.

 

[katydid23]

A reason why if guilty ll would falsify the notes for baby q. Three in a week is conspicuous so if guilty a reason to falsify the notes is that three in a week is too blatant so reduce possible negative attention through falsifying the notes. Making it out you were nowhere near baby q.

elude was the wrong word, I meant to “evade”.

I was wondering why if guilty there was a perceived reason to falsify the notes in those specific cases and not others. Just seems strange to me that those particular events would be accompanied by falsified notes but not others. Must be a reason why.

One of the main reasons Baby Q was a different situation for her was that a contingent of doctors requested that she be taken off the floor to protect Baby Q. That must have rattled her a bit.

 

[katydid23]

Ok here’s another confusing aspect of baby Q. So the previous posts gives a reason why ll would falsify the notes only thing is they found the handover sheet for baby q. If she thinks that baby q is a really suspect event, why on earth would she take that home knowingly?

as a memento?

 

[Dotta]

as a memento?

Memento Mori.

 

[Sundial]

Three unexplained collapses in 3 days.

14 days of NO unexplained collapses---then LL returns from vacation, and , Baby O, previously deemed healthy, has his first collapse.

UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*

Prosecution evidence, March 8th 2023, Day 69 - Tweets https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue Triplets O and P Electronic Evidence cont. We're back after a short break for lunch. Court continuing to be shown sequencing evidence for the case of Child O (these included prescriptions, door swipe...

www.websleuths.com

A nursing note [on Baby O] by Samantha O'Brien at 6.29pm on Wednesday records: 'No signs of increased work of breathing...CBG carried out this AM at 1045, good result....respiratory rate remains stable. Baby nursed in incubator...temp within normal limits.'
'Fluid requirements checked and correct...10% dextrose infusing via cannula in left hand, site became puffy throughout day....feeds of donor EBM also commenced at 1300hr, currently having 4mls 2 hr...'

A note at 6.41am recorded a TPN nutrition bag was stopped as Child O had reached full feeds of donor expressed breast milk, and was 'tolerating well'.
At 7.32am 'abdo loos full slightly loopy. Appeared uncomfortable after feed.'
Child O was checked and settled.

The day shift , for LL, begins at 7.30am. During this shift, Child O died.

Lucy Letby is the designated nurse for Child O and Child P and one other baby in room 2.

7:30 am--Letby records, for Child O:...'Observations within normal range...nil increased work of breathing. Donor EBM via NH [NG] tube. Minimal milk aspirates obtained...'

Letby messages a colleague after 8.30am to say she had a student nurse in but 'no time to do anything'.
Letby adds: 'She's nice enough but bit hard going to start from scratch with everything when got 3 babies I don't know and 2 hourly. Ah well...'
The Whatsapp conversation continues over the following hour.

Dr Katarzyna Cooke records for Child O: 'No nursing concerns observations normal'.
The plan was to continue weaning Optiflow, establishing feeds and prescribing vitamins for Child O.

The doctor records a brain scan for Child O at 12.10pm, noting normal observations.

Letby records a fluid chart at 12.30pm with 'trace aspirates'. A similar reading was recorded earlier that morning.
A doctor's clinical notes record at 1.15pm, Child O 'vomits and has distended abdomen. 'Trace aspirate...no bile 1x vomit post feed No blood'
'Unlikely NEC, most likely distention secondary to PMec.'
Letby records, for 1.15pm: '[Child O] had vomitted [undigested milk], tachycardiac and abdomen distended. NG tube placed on free drainage...blood gas poor as charted...saline bolus given as prescribed with antibiotics. Placed nil by mouth and abdominal x-ray performed. Observations returned to normal'

[by 2:40 pm the collapse begins:]

A doctor notes: 'Called to see [Child O] at [about] 1440. Desaturation, bradycardia and mottled. Bagged up and transferred to Nursery 1. Neopuff requirement in 100% oxygen...'
Letby records: 'Approx 1440 [Child O] had a profound desaturation to 30s followed by bradycardia. Mottled++ and abdomen red and distended...'
Shift leader Melanie Taylor is recorded as entering the neonatal unit at 2.46pm.
The doctor records Child O was intubated '1503-1508' 'at first attempt'.
Dr Stephen Brearey records for Child O at this time: 'small discoloured ? purpuric rash on right wall'
Child O suffered another event at 3.44pm, the court hears.
Bleep data for a crash call is made at 3.49pm.
A consultant writes a retrospective note '[Child O] had been intubated about 3pm when [doctor colleague's] fast bleep went off. Arrived to find [Child O] was being bagged. Desat to 35...'
Lucy Letby's note 'Drs crash called 15:51 due to desaturation to 30s with bradycardia, minimal chest movement and air entry observed. Reintubated...'



Morphine is administered to Child O.

A doctor records a further collapse for Child O at 4.15pm, and chest compressions commence.

Lucy Letby records, in notes written retrospectively at 8.35pm for 4.19pm: 'CPR commenced 16:19 and medications/fluids given as documented...IV fluids 10% glucose...morphine...'

Kate Tyndall continues to talk through the sequence of events for Child O.
Adrenaline is given to Child O at 4.26pm, as well as a prescription for sodium bicarbonate.
A consultant records adrenaline and compressions given to Child O.
Dr Stephen Brearey records being called back at 4.30pm.
Lucy Letby records, at about 5pm: 'Placed back on to ventilator. Dopamine commenced....Flecks of blood from NG tube. Discolouration to abdomen. Unable to obtain heel prick...due to poor perfusion.'
The records show attempts to resuscitate and stabilise Child O were unsuccessful. Child O was baptised.



Child O passed away at 5.47pm on June 23, 2016.

Dr Stephen Brearey records: 'After 30 mins of resus, futility of resus explained to parents. Parents and team agreed to stop CPR. [Child O] passed to mum.'
A post-mortem blood test revealed 'nothing untoward', the court hears.

Child P suffers an event at 6pm, the court hears.


OK, I POSTED ALL OF THE ABOVE TO SHOW THAT LL WAS A MAJOR FACTOR IN THIS COLLAPSE. SHE WAS NOT A BYSTANDER.

AND ALSO TO SHOW THAT BOTH TRIPLETS WERE COLLAPSING AT THE SAME TIME. THERE ISSUES OVERLAPPED. WITHIN 30 MINUTES OF BABY O'S DEATH, HIS BROTHER WAS SUFFERING HIS 1ST EVENT.

I’ve just been reading back through a previous thread posted from your link here and I’m struck by this part of LL report of the incident:

“She said that 'staff obtained equipment from children's ward' and that there was a 'delay in this happening due to staff being needed for infant care needs'”

Am I right in thinking that this relates to the doctor who asked where she was at the time of the babies collapse (I can’t recall which triplet this was). It was heard in evidence she’d stated she had to go to her designated baby in room (?)..but when you re-read the part highlighted in bold it appears as though she’s indicating the delay was due to *staff being needed for care needs* rather than *herself* suddenly being unavailable.

What I find so odd with this, is for someone who is seemingly *in the action*, first to raise the alarm, first to the cot etc etc, is here, suddenly she is needed elsewhere and had to go to another room. What she allegedly told the doctor appears to be a slight difference to what she wrote in the report too.
JMO

 

[katydid23]

Yeh it’s so blatant I can see why someone would cover their tracks in that case, what I can’t do is link that up with her knowingly taking the handover sheet home. It seems she didn’t quite falsify the notes but left them unfinished almost as if something got in the way as alleged. I’m trying to think if that is an attempt to hide information or not. I’m not sure if we know the dates for that handover sheet either but I would assume it’s before that last day. I can’t see her taking it home and knowing full well how dire the situation could possibly be.

" I can’t see her taking it home and knowing full well how dire the situation could possibly be."


The problem is, you are discussing her as if she is logical and rational and is thinking clearly. IF GUILTY of the alleged crimes, then she obviously has mental problems and does not think rationally.

If Guilty, then it would not be that big of a deal to take a piece of paper home, compared to the highly risky, brazen, crazy actions she has been accused of by the state. Why would she care about a random handover sheet if she dared to poison a baby with insulin or inject air in their bloodstream?

 

[katydid23]

With dr choc, I get more of an impression of her dangling the carrot for him so to speak, and using it for her own gain (if guilty etc).

Also, I think as another poster might have mentioned already; was he “in the know” with the other consultants, or maybe even befriending her with his own suspicions instead?

It’s interesting yet bizarre, and I wonder if we’ll hear more from him and his views or concerns etc or was he seemingly oblivious to all the unusual events as LL possibly appears. He appears obvious in the messages between them we’ve heard thus far, but one cannot help but wonder *was he though?*

Perhaps this bought about her recent outburst at the mention of his name in court.
JMO if guilty etc

I have wondered, recently, if he was going undercover, to try and figure it all out.

I have wondered that since we learned more about the senior doctors and their attempts at getting the management to investigate her. Once they decided to start reporting their suspicions and asking for her to be removed, they must have discussed their suspicions with the other doctors and asked for their thoughts on the situation. At the very least, they'd warn them to keep an eye on her while she is on the floor.

I've wondered if maybe Dr choc was. originally interested in her, but then found out about the rumours and decided to keep his connection with her so he could monitor the situation?

 

[ColourPurple]

I’ve just been reading back through a previous thread posted from your link here and I’m struck by this part of LL report of the incident:

“She said that 'staff obtained equipment from children's ward' and that there was a 'delay in this happening due to staff being needed for infant care needs'”

Am I right in thinking that this relates to the doctor who asked where she was at the time of the babies collapse (I can’t recall which triplet this was). It was heard in evidence she’d stated she had to go to her designated baby in room (?)..but when you re-read the part highlighted in bold it appears as though she’s indicating the delay was due to *staff being needed for care needs* rather than *herself* suddenly being unavailable.

What I find so odd with this, is for someone who is seemingly *in the action*, first to raise the alarm, first to the cot etc etc, is here, suddenly she is needed elsewhere and had to go to another room. What she allegedly told the doctor appears to be a slight difference to what she wrote in the report too.
JMO

It looks like the quote about staff being needed for infant care needs is about baby O's death (although I'd assumed the incident report on 30th June was about Baby Q too- tbf we're yet to get to that part in the trial. I'm aqssuming she makes it when she's removed from nursing duties)


A nursing note from 23 June, recorded at 20:51 by Ms Letby, is being shown to court. It summarises Child O's deterioration and what happened with parents after (being taken to family room to be with him)

Shortly after a doctor, who cannot be named for legal reasons, messaged Ms Letby asking if she was okay - she responded 'think so, just finishing my notes, can't wait to get home'

To another colleague, Ms Letby says - with a sad emoji - 'I want to be in Ibiza', the nurse had just got back from a holiday there before the two boys died.
The nursing colleague says 'I bet you don't want to go back in tomorrow', Ms Letby says 'I do and I don't' think good to go back in and talk about it'

Court continuing to be shown messages between Ms Letby and colleagues sent that evening. In one message a doctor, who can't be named for legal reasons, tells Ms Letby 'we do work well together' with a winking emoji

The messages between the doctor and Ms Letby are after midnight 23 June (into 24 June) when both had finished their shifts. The doctor had comforted the nurse after the death of Child O and both were reflecting on the day

Ms Letby apologises for 'blubbering', the doctor says that is 'normal for someone who cares about the babies' being cared for

The pair wish each other goodnight around 1.25am and then he messages her again that morning asking how she slept and letting her know that a medical director has been on ward

The court is shown an incident report, filled out by Ms Letby on June 30, which related to Child O's collapse and death on 23 June. It states that 'resources not available on unit' to deal with resus

She said that 'staff obtained equipment from children's ward' and that there was a 'delay in this happening due to staff being needed for infant care needs'




twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue/status/1633471935358042114?s=20

 

[Sundial]

I have wondered, recently, if he was going undercover, to try and figure it all out.

I have wondered that since we learned more about the senior doctors and their attempts at getting the management to investigate her. Once they decided to start reporting their suspicions and asking for her to be removed, they must have discussed their suspicions with the other doctors and asked for their thoughts on the situation. At the very least, they'd warn them to keep an eye on her while she is on the floor.

I've wondered if maybe Dr choc was. originally interested in her, but then found out about the rumours and decided to keep his connection with her so he could monitor the situation?

Yeh I’m kind of getting the same vibe from it. It’s really unusual, I find it unlikely he wouldn’t have known what was being rumoured at least. It was mentioned people were talking about it and even when dr choc had asked for her to be seen in A&E, I found his reaction a little odd too.

She told him she’d made a fool of herself, when asked why, she said people were discussing what happened and she fainted. Of course it’s human nature (as a doctor/nurse or friend etc) to ask why you fainted or if your ok, need a lift etc (if she allegedly did indeed faint); but I was expecting him to possibly ask what was being discussed amongst those with her at the time.

Instead there’s nothing, he doesn’t really seem to follow it through or query the discussions. In fact, I wonder if the only time it is discussed what was being said etc was where she directly asked (possibly dr choc) “do I need to be worried what dr ? was asking” when she walked into the treatment room.

So blinking weird it seems almost like a ruse on dr chocs behalf and he may have eventually submitted his own statements as part of the court.
JMO

 

[Dotta]

Yeh I’m kind of getting the same vibe from it. It’s really unusual, I find it unlikely he wouldn’t have known what was being rumoured at least. It was mentioned people were talking about it and even when dr choc had asked for her to be seen in A&E, I found his reaction a little odd too.

She told him she’d made a fool of herself, when asked why, she said people were discussing what happened and she fainted. Of course it’s human nature (as a doctor/nurse or friend etc) to ask why you fainted or if your ok, need a lift etc (if she allegedly did indeed faint); but I was expecting him to possibly ask what was being discussed amongst those with her at the time.

Instead there’s nothing, he doesn’t really seem to follow it through or query the discussions. In fact, I wonder if the only time it is discussed what was being said etc was where she directly asked (possibly dr choc) “do I need to be worried what dr ? was asking” when she walked into the treatment room.

So blinking weird it seems almost like a ruse on dr chocs behalf and he may have eventually submitted his own statements as part of the court.
JMO

Im not so sure about it.

He was new there and also lower in rank to Consultants.
A registrar - in the middle of training?

I guess the Consultants were discussing this matter in their own circle.

JMO