Lucy Letby Case #10

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

Is she trying to imply that the parents didn’t want to spend time with their baby?

View attachment 1682109

What a bleep. Sorry guilty or not she can duck right off with that kinda messaging. Especially with what she was saying to parents as their babies were trying to be resuscitated before their eyes.
A cold, heartless witch with zero empathy for anyone other than herself.
She's an absolute melt, she'd be the type to send you 5 messages in a row without you even replying to one.

Edited to add that my issue with these texts is that this isn't a spectator sport or a TV show. She shouldn't be gossiping about these poor parents like this, it's not entertainment. It's not appropriate. If she was my colleague I would have pulled her aside at work and have had a word with her about the messages she was sending me being inappropriate. I would have spoken to my management too.

 

[candyland_]

Also, having to be the one to tell people and message people on what I assume is their day off. Normal texts back and forth to colleagues is normal for sure, but to discuss patients like this doesn’t seem normal. I’d be worried about my colleagues if I got texts like this all the time.

Her colleagues have told her multiple times to ‘switch off’, they advised her to stay in room 3 and away from the higher needs babies for a while, there’s more that I can’t remember off the top of my head but they were all along the lines of stop thinking about it.

 

[Wellthisisinteresting]

I’m also a bit unsure of the texts. I agree with the attention side of things & her being the one appearing to bring up the deaths/contacting colleagues etc but then as someone else said, if I read them stand alone I’m not sure I’d think “sinister” straight away. Although I’m in the Guilty camp & im still trying to look at things without bias

Totally agree, I’m firmly camp guilty and a LOT would need to be shown to make me think differently but I don’t see anything incriminating so far … god I’ve messaged colleagues and said things along the line of “ I would rather jump off a cliff than go to the next meeting or complete reports”

Edited to say that I do not work in health care or the NHS - you are ok people

 

[IGiveUp22]

I think the text about the parents of child C (I think) is one that makes me go I think that’s extremely inappropriate to be talking about that to a colleague at the least. Say what you want about how you’re feeling but step too far with that for me

 

[candyland_]

Aee people on here aware that this is the prosecution case and as such only things that form their case are being brought up. I'd lay money there are thousands of other texts between other members of staff that are similar.

The defence have approved the texts and added some themselves that they thought were relevant. It was said earlier in the trial.

 

[avabella]

What a bleep. Sorry guilty or not she can duck right off with that kinda messaging. Especially with what she was saying to parents as their babies were trying to be resuscitated before their eyes.
A cold, heartless witch with zero empathy for anyone other than herself.
She's an absolute melt, she'd be the type to send you 5 messages in a row without you even replying to one.

I find it so fascinating how people can see things differently - to me nothing in that text reads badly. It sounds like she's persuaded them in the sense of making them aware this is the one chance to take the prints even though they are just wanting to leave (which is understandable). I don't see it as a criticism of them?

 

[StatusWoe]

The problem with these messages, we're not getting the full context and these are only some of her exchanges with colleagues. For all we know, Lucy might have been asking how colleagues are managing, just not in these specific messages. It's possible her conversations sound less one-sided in full.

I think her actions are more incriminating than what she's saying here. For instance, leaving the ill baby to seek out a different one - that's not good nursing! Her selective memory in police interviews doesn't reflect well either.

 

[slingo16]

She should know exactly this in my opinion. Without a doubt. She could have explained the elements she did understand then. It’s an insane answer. What if a student asked her that? Would her response be the same?! Agree to disagree

I don’t fully disagree and you seem to be more informed on the subject then me, I’m not sure what she’s trying to say. If she’s denying any knowledge regarding air embolus then that is very suspicious

 

[MmmB777]

Aee people on here aware that this is the prosecution case and as such only things that form their case are being brought up. I'd lay money there are thousands of other texts between other members of staff that are similar.

They aren’t on trial.

 

[mRsKbRoOkS]

To me the texts don’t ring huge alarm bells to me so far ( please don’t throw tomatoes at me) … if the texts were labeled nurse A and nurse B I don’t think I would pick any incriminating behaviour so far …
This view may change the more I see …

They wouldn’t to me in isolation but I’ll say it again it’s not isolation. I think they mainly help to build on the timeline. Texting while on shift when you are caring for poorly babies ? Also just before events and after. They also show how she is texting about the incidents and Facebook searching all within a short space of time. I think they are also building a picture of her character and her obsessiveness concerning the events. The colleague stated she needs to let it go which suggest’s not only was there messages but conversations also! Yes the prosecution are the ones using this evidence to their advantage but it must be relevant or they wouldn’t use it at all if they didn’t think it was useful to the case in anyway. They have had years piecing it all together they arn’t going to use something they didn’t think was pretty damming.

 

[just_nicole]

Does look like she was talking about other members of staff and how they were handling things

 

[Notworthy]

The defence have approved the texts and added some themselves that they thought were relevant. It was said earlier in the trial.

The defence aren't going to have access to texts between other members of staff though, are they, only the ones that include Lucy.

 

[wishiniwasskinny]

I think taken in the context of the trial the fact that she was (probably) one of those annoying colleagues that you roll your eyes about can be taken to be odd behaviour when under the microscope like this. I think if nothing had happened and I was reading her texts I’m not sure I’d see anything malicious in them. Just… annoying. Some people do like to go on about things

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

I find it so fascinating how people can see things differently - to me nothing in that text reads badly. It sounds like she's persuaded them in the sense of making them aware this is the one chance to take the prints even though they are just wanting to leave (which is understandable). I don't see it as a criticism of them?

But she shouldn't be texting her colleague and telling her that. That's my issue, I find it wholey inappropriate. Sure, next time you meet your colleague face to face and it comes up maybe verbally tell them but to write it down in a text?? So bloody insensitive in my opinion.

 

[WonderShade18]

If there was no trial of this size, the texts don't mean much. But I have to remember whilst reading them that this is someone charged with multiple accounts of murder and attempted murder. So texts regarding victims are relevant whether they are incriminating or not.

 

[Windowtothewall]

I picked up on something in these messages

• She keeps talking about how tiny child C was (800g)
• Also this message from her colleague now The colleague recalls a baby who had previously died in the neonatal unit, but had "overwhelming sepsis" so "nothing would have saved that baby

Remember when a colleague was talking about how unusual the deaths were and LL says - Well (Child C) was tiny, obviously compromised in utero. (Child D) septic. It's (Child A) I can't get my head round."

It seems from all these messages where she keeps referring to Child C's size (800g) to everyone that she was setting it up as child was tiny hence died suddenly.

And after hearing about this baby who died of overwhelming sepsis, how much of a coincidence is it that her next alleged victim child D is one she passed off as dying of sepsis too? Almost like her colleague gave her an excuse of how to hide a baby's death.

Child D, the one after today's messages is the one she wasn't designated nurse for and the prosecution say she fudged notes to give herself an alibi even though she was treating him.

 

[MmmB777]

I think the text about the parents of child C (I think) is one that makes me go I think that’s extremely inappropriate to be talking about that to a colleague at the least. Say what you want about how you’re feeling but step too far with that for me

I think it is because she knows she basically encouraged them to bugger off when they were cuddling their baby as it died. She’s trying to leave a paper trail that counteracts that. The parents specifically have mentioned they felt hurried along by a nurse matching her description and here she is saying they wanted to go.
I don’tonly think her texts are attention seeking, she says deliberate things that look very unnatural.

 

[CoffeeandCookies]

By the looks of it the jury are being given really thorough instruction on the clinical notes and graphs, I think my head would probably explode with all the new information they have to process each day

I’ve wondered with a case as complex as this whether they are able to check that the jury member is capable of understanding the information particularly the medical stuff that will be shown to them throughout the trial?
If the jury are just randomly selected from members of the public then yes you will have some educated/intelligent people but then you will also have some uneducated and shall we say intellectually challenged people who would just not be able to get their head around it or have the capability to make a decision based on this no matter how much it is dumbed down.
Does anyone know whether this is something that is checked or they’re allowed to?

 

[listymint]

The fact that her colleague was shocked about the collapse and immediately thought 'infection'
Because how else would a baby who was considered 'stable' suddenly have a fatal collapse? Heartbreaking.

 

[candyland_]

The defence aren't going to have access to texts between other members of staff though, are they, only the ones that include Lucy.

I didn’t suggest that they should.