Lucy Letby Case #19

[candyland_]

For me the 100 day celebration is relevant because is shows how far the baby had came and how well she was doing. It was a special day and Letby tried to destroy it.

 

[I’mThankyou_]

Just to clarify that we didn’t hear about this 100 day stuff in the opening statement ( I don’t think ) therefore something similar could occur later that ties this in and that would make me change my mind but currently, I think she could well be guilty of the later two attacks as they fit somewhat with the overall picture, I’ll go as far as to say I think they are making the first incident fit in just so they can mention the 100th day and paint a picture of calculation. So in a nutshell no I don’t think the first attack is an attack at all

Just to add, I don't believe they're making anything fit the 100days.
I'm really trying to make you see just how important this milestone is.
Baby was born before the legal abortion cut off, drs in delivery could of declined and considered her a late miscarriage, they didn't they considered her a human, all 1lb of her. They saved her, she fought for her life, she made it to 100days without any major complications, until she met LL....
In Arrowe Park she was completely fine, the second LL is near her, she has brain damage so severe she'll never be able to live her life without 24 hour care.
It's not a case of making anything fit, its showing just how remarkable Baby G was, and someone took that away from her. Someone deliberately over fed her. Someone deliberately caused her life long complications.

 

[Windowtothewall]

From Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ied-murder-baby-celebration-banner-court-told

"The father said he asked doctors if there was a virus on the ward because another baby girl – known as Child I – in the same room had fallen ill in the same period. Child I is one of seven babies allegedly murdered by Letby between June 2015 and June 2016.

Child G’s father told officers: “The consultant assured me there wasn’t a virus and nothing was wrong with the ward.”

Child I was also premature and the pros said she too showed signs of being overfed and air embolus shortly after she arrived at Chester. Despite being a well baby until that point. LL was designated nurse when it happened on 30th Sept. Child I died

So even the dad noticed another baby on the unit got ill under odd circumstances, to the point he had to comment on it at the time. Wonder if this was the point the consultants started getting suspicious because a parent had flagged it for I, and then for K, the consultants were full on suspecting her.

 

[Daisydunn15]

Still unsure. Some good prosecution evidence lately.

@Lucyxxxx tbf the Facebook posting isn't nice, some of the comments made have been really unfair. I know this is tattle and we all like to gossip a bit but these are just people expressing their opinion, not influences or celebs opening themselves up to criticism. If we all agree to treat each other with some respect despite differing opinions, we should extend that to fb posters.

 

[I’mThankyou_]

Overfeeding hardly points to deliberate harm imo

Overfeeding a premature baby, can kill them.
Knowingly overfeeding a premature baby is deliberate harm.
Which is why every feed is measured and documented whilst baby is in NICU.

 

[DianaBanana]

If it’s true she’s overfed this baby, she’s used the mother’s breast milk to try and kill her. My brain can’t comprehend it.

 

[MmmB777]

I think there’s plenty of evidence against her to stop the doubt. She was always involved in their care minutes before or found with a collapsing baby.
You could remove the texts, Facebook searches and the evidence found at her home and I would still think they had a strong case. We are only part way through and most parents had a negative experience with her.

Completely agree. This case is not plucked out of thin air based on her presence alone. Her presence is a huge factor but there is overwhelming evidence for a crime of this nature - copious amounts of air in many babies that have had interaction with the accused (that expert radiologist had never seen the likes of), deaths very sudden and unexpected (quotes from the accused to prove this), the accused having given cares before sudden collapses of babies previously stable on almost all cases, physical signs of air emboli- pink secretions, fleeting rash, strange responses to cpr, evidence of physical harm- throat multiple cases, excessive bleeding and damaged liver, causes of death unknown or sketchy at PM, large doses of insulin to patients not prescribed and not legitimately given, many witness accounts of suspicious behaviour- eg monitors not sounding, standing at bedside of babies “on the brink of death” removed breathing tubes and doing nothing, tons of background evidence that she hasn’t offered an innocent explanation to, other suspicious behaviour such as accused’s handwriting initialling for other people, collapses and deaths having strange similarities that don’t seem like chance (such as frequently happening when designated nurse was on a break), recoveries outside of her care meaning collapses are more likely sabotage than pervasive problem.. I have probably missed a few points. If you don’t find any of that compelling then sure, it could just be that she was there.

 

[lampielooloo]

Hi all, longtime lurker first time poster. Find the discussion fascinating. My LO was born in April and not long after his birth was diagnosed with an unexpected birth defect on his trachea/esophagus which was surgically repaired when he was less than 24hrs old. He spent 8 long days in the NICU as did I after a C section, where the care was meticulous and frankly incredible. He unfortunately found his way back to the same place at 6 months old for an unrelated illness and we spent another 8 days there. He made another great recovery but I saw the place as a less terrifying place second time round. I knew they would help him to such a high degree if that makes sense? All my trust was invested in those nurses and doctors and they were once again, amazing

I think this case baffles me and attracts my interest because I am searching for a reason beyond LL being bored or attention seeking, to account for her ice cold ability to have committed these heinous acts. It's unfathomable to me. I understand she is entitled to a fair trial, but I don't believe in this many coincidences, she is the common denominator above all else.

I hope the families involved see justice for their babies. I hope LL fucking rots.

 

[I’mThankyou_]

Why is the 100 day thing relevant? There’s no other mention of certain milestones correlating with attacks,

It's relevant because Baby G was born at 23 weeks.
Viability is legally classed at a baby born at 24 weeks gestation, which is also the legal abortion limit. Legally when Baby G was born the hospital didn't have to intervene and save her, but they did. She made it through 100 days, which for any baby is a massive achievement but for a baby who was born outside the "medical guidelines" is amazing.
It will always be relevant, she lived for 100 days until a monster deemed her life unworthy, and changed her whole entire future.

 

[raspberryjuice]

Just to clarify that we didn’t hear about this 100 day stuff in the opening statement ( I don’t think ) therefore something similar could occur later that ties this in and that would make me change my mind but currently, I think she could well be guilty of the later two attacks as they fit somewhat with the overall picture, I’ll go as far as to say I think they are making the first incident fit in just so they can mention the 100th day and paint a picture of calculation. So in a nutshell no I don’t think the first attack is an attack at all

How did the baby vomit so much, and still have the entire 45ml feed aspirated via NG if she wasn’t attacked in the form of overfeeding? Where did the blood come from when the consultant said it wouldn’t be expected to be found where it was? How did all the air get in G’s abdomen & intestines on her X-ray, with enough excess air that 100ml of it was aspirated 4 hours later? How are we explaining away all of this if it wasn’t an attack?

 

[candyland_]

I think the 100 day celebration is significant.. To me it shows a deliberate act of evilness to try and destroy her special day.
Was she not happy that the attention was on someone else? That’s how it comes across to me.

 

[Rippedjeanmaybe]

Quadriplegic cerebral palsy… how awful for her the visual impairment is quite common in 23/24 weekers as their eyes become damaged as they’re exposed to air too early, but the cerebral palsy is just awful and is definitely the result of her brain damage. Poor baby and poor parents.
She will require care for the rest of her life.

 

[Yel]

Lucy Letby Case #20

Instant ban for anyone sniping or arguing on this thread. No time for this constant mess. Agree to disagree and scroll on.

tattle.life

New thread, and an instant ban for anyone arguing. Mods don't have time to deal with the same fucking thing all the time.

 

[avabella]

What I keep thinking is if she's done this, and is found to be beyond reasonable doubt that she's guilty - then I don't think baby A was the first baby she harmed

 

[friedeggontoast]

I’ve said it before but if LL was some creepy looking old bloke, I doubt there would be as much debate over whether she did it.

 

[HappyGoss]

Slingo have you got kids?

Have you ever been to a neonatal unit? Or even a maternity unit?

Its not like your mum putting an extra sausage on your plate love. Every single thing is monitored. Every interaction with these babies is precise.

It's been a very long day, an emotional day for anyone with half a heart. I honestly cannot read your jibberish any longer.

I'm not saying this because you in the NG group, I'm saying it because you're clearly very unable to read a room.

Nanight all

 

[raspberryjuice]

Are we really saying nurses can’t make mistakes? Come on now, I’m sure there’s protocol for a lot of things in life and mistake still happen in all sorts of professions, just a hypothetical scenario I’m not any sort of expert but given the retrospective taking of notes I think it’s possible for feeds to not be documented and done twice accidentally. Again not saying that’s what I think happened just a scenario off the top of my head I’m sure there are millions of way a mistake like that could happen

I think you’re underestimating how precise the care is for these babies. It’s not like your Nana being in hospital, getting her jug of water refilled every 6 hours, her mash and sweetcorn scraped in the bin if she only eats her fish fingers, and meds on the ward round twice a day. They are in intensive care, they are under constant watch (sadly this is sometimes LL), every single thing about their care is documented, their medication, their feeds, their oxygen, every time they’re handled, every single thing that goes in their bodies and comes out of their bodies is measured and documented. If they were typing notes as things happen they would never be off a screen.

 

[Blockedbyadmin]

To people still saying it cats doubt and the nurse responsible could be still out there, like where are you thinking this from? This is a huge deeply researched and investigated case. It’s taken years and 3 arrests to get her charged. Probably a hundred statements and plenty of witnesses etc so it’s not like she was just on duty and the police have pinned it on Lucifer. I’m intrigued to hear the defence but people go to prison for a lot less than this case is so it genuinely baffles me that people still doubt the evidence reported. And for those thinking she’s just a scape goat for bad practice in the unit lol
Don’t make me laugh. As if that’s happening

 

[Rippedjeanmaybe]

a bit more on the incident here.

says that LL told mum to go while bloods were being done, mum felt uneasy and came back to find daughter distressed.

 

[housebythesea]

There was a big discussion about it on one of the early threads...quite a fair few admitted to being noisy themselves.
But...massive BUT...this was a nurse looking up the private life of a patient (family) and therefore it was highly unprofessional. That was never going to look good for her.
Messaging about a patient on social media...big no, no. Guilty or not. Personal devices can easily be accessable to others, if a phone is unlocked, stolen etc.
In my opinion, regardless of the verdict, 'invasion' of patients privacy (via personal devices) should be scrutinised across the board.

I've been re-reading a lot of the Wiki, and I have to say I have massive concerns about how that unit was being run, and I don't mean the staffing levels. It is claimed she was moved to non-clinical duties when one consultant became suspicious about the number of incidents when she was about, but this seems like a massive under-reaction; I mean we are not talking about a suspicion that she was nicking supplies or making off with NHS toilet roll. Then there was the lack of response to blood tests showing that two children had been given exogenous insulin on the basis that "they are okay now". That's a bit like not bothering to investigate a shooting on the basis that the victim pulled through. Oh, there is so much which bothers me and I'm sure that whatever the outcome of this trial, there will be some very difficult questions for the management to answer in the fullness of time.