Lucy Letby Case #14

[Faith61]

I’m going to go out on a limb and say he is actually a nice fella afterall. Unless ofc we really did ruin our own inside scoop by dismissing the OP that thought he was not a nice fella, really really not a nice fella (sorry couldn’t help it, after re reading the wiki I’m feeling so heavy hearted, so thought I’d make a quick “fella” joke cos for some reason that none of us can explain, we find it funny)


I couldn’t agree more. There’s so much on the wiki that I could have SS and posted to show how conniving she is, and started trying to cover her tracks more. Twisted and evil she really is. Would urge people to re read the wiki page 3 for the opening details for each baby, after all our discussion on here, and evidence we have heard so far I really did get a shock re reading it. Reading it there now, I see so much more relevance of a lot of the prosecution’s words in those opening statements. I also see so much more evidence against her, and her really beginning to cover her tracks more as time goes on. I also see her switching her methods up again to avoid detection, and her physically (more than injecting, actually causing physical trauma) attacking those poor babies, causing bleeding and one to even cry (which they don’t usually do at that size) suggesting she was inflicting pain. And her obsession with the parents. And some of what she said in txts to colleagues. Oh and she took home more than one nursing note home, for babies that weren’t actually her designated babies. Honestly I’m shocked PLEASE FELLAS have re read through of page 3 of wiki

Thankyou, I've read through again and makes me so sad and angry!
Just hope the fellas of the jury can remember all this at the end of the six months
I wish they could have access to it and read it before making their decision
I worry that the defence case will be so fresh in their minds and all this will be " forgotten "
I know, both prosecution amd defence will close their cases at the end...but I just worry that they have had so much legal and medical stuff trusted to/try to understand that human nature will prevail and the defence case will be much fresher in their heads
Six months is a long time and the poor fellas have had to try to take so much in already
Last time I said this...the response was along the lines "this is the case with every court case" ...but this is huge....and I can't help thinking Myers fella has an advantage that all this has been said and documented and they may just "forget"...I'm prob being really naive with my thoughts and Mr Johnson will hopefully do a wonderful closing statement....(referring to his own " wiki")
some of this stuff is huge and builds a "picture" that is quite sickening ....

 

[Daisydunn15]

I have a question for all fellas on here, hopefully it will be answered in morning before court starts for the day. I’ve been on this thread from the very first one, reading and in my head agreeing/disagreeing with points, but never properly joined it or commented until recently. But I remember A LOT of the first few pages, maybe actually even threads, there was loads of debate whether or not the FB searches and the taking of notes home meant anything. Loads and loads said Fb searches were ok, loads of people said they were kind of nosey so didn’t see anything wrong/sinister in them, others were slightly horrified about being looked up.
Result of this; many fellas checked their FB privacy settings straight after this.

There was also loads of opinions in the next great debate, taking the nursing notes home. Again loads of healthcare workers said they’d accidentally done it/it’s easy done.

Most fellas that took notes home with them though, said they destroyed them once they realised, or took them back and didn’t keep them for 3 years.

SO FELLAS, my question is this; Given everything we have heard and know so far, are there any fellas on here that are still of the opinion the FB searches were innocent rather than sinister? Are there any fellas still on here that still think the handover/medicine drug lists for at least three different babies in this case that were found at LL’s home 3 years later are still innocent rather than sinister?

*****not whether FB look ups in general are ok or not, or whether taking notes home is ok or not in general, I’m asking this specifically about LL doing it*****

If anyone will answer this, they will not be attacked for their opinion in anyway. If they believe either of these things are still innocent, that’s their opinion and it doesn’t make it wrong. It’s just opinions on this one not facts. Nor does anyone have to justify their answer. I’m genuinely just really really curious to see if the people that thought her doing either of these things were innocent, have changed their minds about it since those first threads. And even if people think the Fb or notes thing is now sinister/suspicious, it doesn’t necessarily mean they think LL is now guilty. I just really want to know if peoples thoughts on these two particular things have changed.

Thanks in advance fellas

Good morning fella. I still don't think the fb searches or handover sheets are sinister. I've said that I've searched parents of kids who died by suicide, in fact I tend to search them in clusters like someone might bring up one of the kids so I'll see how their family are doing and while I'm at it I'd think about the other families/kids. Usually if I'm feeling a bit deflated and reflective, I don't do it regularly but the searches would be there on my phone and there's no way I could recall exactly what prompted me to search each time.
Also the taking home of handover sheets, I've done it a million times but I still have a piece of work I did with one of the kids who died on my computer and I just can't quite bring myself to delete it.. if innocent maybe she felt the same about the handover sheets for these kids cos if this piece of work was on paper I don't think I could bin it.
Just my thoughts, I'm sure many disagree but I've never murdered these kids and I'd actually left that particular ward by the time they died but it still sticks with me so can't imagine what being involved in the resus would do to you.
There's plenty of other evidence that points to guilty but I don't think these particular things do.

 

[MmmB777]

Good morning fella. I still don't think the fb searches or handover sheets are sinister. I've said that I've searched parents of kids who died by suicide, in fact I tend to search them in clusters like someone might bring up one of the kids so I'll see how their family are doing and while I'm at it I'd think about the other families/kids. Usually if I'm feeling a bit deflated and reflective, I don't do it regularly but the searches would be there on my phone and there's no way I could recall exactly what prompted me to search each time.
Also the taking home of handover sheets, I've done it a million times but I still have a piece of work I did with one of the kids who died on my computer and I just can't quite bring myself to delete it.. if innocent maybe she felt the same about the handover sheets for these kids cos if this piece of work was on paper I don't think I could bin it.
Just my thoughts, I'm sure many disagree but I've never murdered these kids and I'd actually left that particular ward by the time they died but it still sticks with me so can't imagine what being involved in the resus would do to you.
There's plenty of other evidence that points to guilty but I don't think these particular things do.

The key differences I think Fella are that you had a more involved relationship with these people, you were not with them all just a few minutes berfore they died in unusual circumstances, you can give a general explanation for why you do it x

 

[Weeder]

BA served one week in jail, which was spent not eating etc so was transferred to Rampton if I'm not mistaken, which she has remained since. She knew Rampton would have been easier than prison. It really makes me mad that she got moved.

I was watching something about her yesterday and one of the psychs said she went for a mental health diagnosis in order to get moved but also because it enabled her to say she did it, thus helping her get moved. If she'd admitted it while claiming 'sanity' she'd be kept in prison. They were basically saying it suited her to play up.

 

[MmmB777]

I was watching something about her yesterday and one of the psychs said she went for a mental health diagnosis in order to get moved but also because it enabled her to say she did it, thus helping her get moved. If she'd admitted it while claiming 'sanity' she'd be kept in prison. They were basically saying it suited her to play up.

I was with a friend that knows people that have worked at rampton (I’m not a million miles away and friend lives very close) and know her well that say she only acts up whenever there is talk of moving her to prison. She is certainly not a well person though.

 

[Daisydunn15]

Just in relation to a diminished responsibility plea, there's no psychiatrist who would vouch for LL suffering from a mental illness of the nature and degree to cause such an impairment while she was working full time as a nurse with seemingly no concerns raised.
Also by 25 for the most part the main MH issues which could lead to the plea (schizophrenia, bipolar) are usually already diagnosed. That wouldn't have been an option for her so it was either pleading G or NG.

Transferring to a forensic ward down the line is much easier.

 

[Faith61]

The key differences I think Fella are that you had a more involved relationship with these people, you were not with them all just a few minutes berfore they died in unusual circumstances, you can give a general explanation for why you do it x

It's the " I don't remember doing it" that gives me the chills.....I'm not having that she doesn't remember, or that she " panicked" when questioned...she was questioned multiple times and had ample opportunity to fess up to it, IF had nothing to hide?

 

[StatusWoe]

Good morning fella. I still don't think the fb searches or handover sheets are sinister. I've said that I've searched parents of kids who died by suicide, in fact I tend to search them in clusters like someone might bring up one of the kids so I'll see how their family are doing and while I'm at it I'd think about the other families/kids. Usually if I'm feeling a bit deflated and reflective, I don't do it regularly but the searches would be there on my phone and there's no way I could recall exactly what prompted me to search each time.

Hi fella. I hear what you're saying with this. I don't think it's sinister to accidentally take home a handover sheet or to snoop on patients (the fb searches still show a lack of professional boundaries imo, but that's not the same as proof of murder!). What makes the Facebook searches more sinister to me is the fact they're on specific dates - one-year anniversary of the baby's death and Christmas day. This suggests that LL remembered the exact date of the child's death, which also contradicts her claim to not recall doing any searches. If you can recall a specific date, why can't you recall the reason for searching? Christmas Day is a weird one. You'd think she'd be occupied with her own family and Christmassy stuff rather than looking online for the families of dead babies (sorry to put it so bluntly). It makes me question if she was searching for remembrance posts or obsessing over specific families.

Her interest would be more understandable if she'd developed a close relationship with the parents after spending a lot of time with them on the ward. I have doubts about this because LL was not always the assigned nurse for the babies that died. In one case (Baby A, perhaps? I'll have to check), not only was LL not the assigned nurse, but her presence was clearly not welcomed by the parents - so no sign of a close bond. The baby died and the next morning after finishing her shift, Lucy searches again for the parents of the baby who has just died. I understand why, as a professional, you'd be curious to know how a family is coping with a loss & want to check if they're okay, but what exactly did LL hope to gain from a search immediately after a baby (who wasn't her assigned patient) has died? I'd be surprised if the baby's poor parents even went near Facebook the morning after such a devastating loss.

With the handover sheets, I find that raises less suspicion because I see how it could have been an accident; however it makes no sense to hang onto them for so long! You'd realise and then get rid of them, surely?

Apologies to the fellas for repeating points I've made earlier. I hope this inarticulate ramble makes sense.

I was with a friend that knows people that have worked at rampton

Slightly off topic, but I bet that's a tough job!

 

[Daisydunn15]

Hi fella. I hear what you're saying with this. I don't think it's sinister to accidentally take home a handover sheet or to snoop on patients (the fb searches still show a lack of professional boundaries imo, but that's not the same as proof of murder!). What makes the Facebook searches more sinister to me is the fact they're on specific dates - one-year anniversary of the baby's death and Christmas day. This suggests that LL remembered the exact date of the child's death, which also contradicts her claim to not recall doing any searches. If you can recall a specific date, why can't you recall the reason for searching? Christmas Day is a weird one. You'd think she'd be occupied with her own family and Christmassy stuff rather than looking online for the families of dead babies (sorry to put it so bluntly). It makes me question if she was searching for remembrance posts or obsessing over specific families.

Her interest would be more understandable if she'd developed a close relationship with the parents after spending a lot of time with them on the ward. I have doubts about this because LL was not always the assigned nurse for the babies that died. In one case (Baby A, perhaps? I'll have to check), not only was LL not the assigned nurse, but her presence was clearly not welcomed by the parents - so no sign of a close bond. The baby died and the next morning after finishing her shift, Lucy searches again for the parents of the baby who has just died. I understand why, as a professional, you'd be curious to know how a family is coping with a loss & want to check if they're okay, but what exactly did LL hope to gain from a search immediately after a baby (who wasn't her assigned patient) has died? I'd be surprised if the baby's poor parents even went near Facebook the morning after such a devastating loss.

With the handover sheets, I find that raises less suspicion because I see how it could have been an accident; however it makes no sense to hang onto them for so long! You'd realise and then get rid of them, surely?

Apologies to the fellas for repeating points I've made earlier. I hope this inarticulate ramble makes sense.

Totally get where you're coming from, fella. @MmmB777 also pointed out that she didn't really have a relationship with the families. If she is guilty it might paint a bigger picture of her personality.
I just can't really see them as guilty actions without feeling like a massive hypocrite, like I just can't get past feeling like I may have done the same if I'd been in the awful situation of seeing these babies die. That's just me tho, I can see why people see it as sinister and I also see why people wouldn't search families.. it's not something I make a habit of but a few families stick with you.

 

[MmmB777]

Totally get where you're coming from, fella. @MmmB777 also pointed out that she didn't really have a relationship with the families. If she is guilty it might paint a bigger picture of her personality.
I just can't really see them as guilty actions without feeling like a massive hypocrite, like I just can't get past feeling like I may have done the same if I'd been in the awful situation of seeing these babies die. That's just me tho, I can see why people see it as sinister and I also see why people wouldn't search families.. it's not something I make a habit of but a few families stick with you.

I can say with certainty you’ve not done the same thing at all. Seriously. She was doing this two years later in sets in quick succession and in police interview acted like she couldn’t remember some of these babies and families.

 

[StatusWoe]

Totally get where you're coming from, fella. @MmmB777 also pointed out that she didn't really have a relationship with the families. If she is guilty it might paint a bigger picture of her personality.
I just can't really see them as guilty actions without feeling like a massive hypocrite, like I just can't get past feeling like I may have done the same if I'd been in the awful situation of seeing these babies die. That's just me tho, I can see why people see it as sinister and I also see why people wouldn't search families.. it's not something I make a habit of but a few families stick with you.

Understood. Though @MmmB777 also made the point that you've been able to explain your reasoning in a way that makes sense to us. When I read your post I could sympathise with your situation and mindset. I don't think you're a weirdo! With LL, it doesn't help that she hasn't given an explanation, only said she doesn't remember.

 

[friedeggontoast]

The FB searches are not 100% sus but it’s the circumstances in which she searched them that is sus. Searching the parents of Baby A & B whilst they were still in the hospital, just after their first twin had died. It’s just not normal behaviour.

 

[raspberryjuice]

Going back to the notes and handover sheets found during a search of her home… I get that some people take these home accidentally, and most would get rid of them when they found them. It’s not on the same scale confidentiality wise but I accidentally bring home copies of rotas, holiday requests, absence records for my staff when I’ve shoved them in my pocket and forgot to empty them at the end of my shift. I obviously shouldn’t, but it does happen and I get that.

But according to the RightMove sales history on her house (link shared on here earlier this week) she bought it in March 2016. By this time we’re already on to Child L. If you hadn’t already disposed of the notes/handover sheet you accidentally took home when you got home from that shift and found them, or thrown them in confidential waste on your next shift - surely you’d get rid of them when you were going through all your stuff to move house/organising in your new house?

 

[friedeggontoast]

Going back to the notes and handover sheets found during a search of her home… I get that some people take these home accidentally, and most would get rid of them when they found them. It’s not on the same scale confidentiality wise but I accidentally bring home copies of rotas, holiday requests, absence records for my staff when I’ve shoved them in my pocket and forgot to empty them at the end of my shift. I obviously shouldn’t, but it does happen and I get that.

But according to the RightMove sales history on her house (link shared on here earlier this week) she bought it in March 2016. By this time we’re already on to Child L. If you hadn’t already disposed of the notes/handover sheet you accidentally took home when you got home from that shift and found them, or thrown them in confidential waste on your next shift - surely you’d get rid of them when you were going through all your stuff to move house/organising in your new house?

Oh my god amazing point!

If I was on the jury I’d like to know more about where these sheets were found. Were they found just within other belongings and or were they kept all together? Trophy box?

 

[Faith61]

Going back to the notes and handover sheets found during a search of her home… I get that some people take these home accidentally, and most would get rid of them when they found them. It’s not on the same scale confidentiality wise but I accidentally bring home copies of rotas, holiday requests, absence records for my staff when I’ve shoved them in my pocket and forgot to empty them at the end of my shift. I obviously shouldn’t, but it does happen and I get that.

But according to the RightMove sales history on her house (link shared on here earlier this week) she bought it in March 2016. By this time we’re already on to Child L. If you hadn’t already disposed of the notes/handover sheet you accidentally took home when you got home from that shift and found them, or thrown them in confidential waste on your next shift - surely you’d get rid of them when you were going through all your stuff to move house/organising in your new house?

Wow!!!! That really is worrying!!!!

 

[MmmB777]

Going back to the notes and handover sheets found during a search of her home… I get that some people take these home accidentally, and most would get rid of them when they found them. It’s not on the same scale confidentiality wise but I accidentally bring home copies of rotas, holiday requests, absence records for my staff when I’ve shoved them in my pocket and forgot to empty them at the end of my shift. I obviously shouldn’t, but it does happen and I get that.

But according to the RightMove sales history on her house (link shared on here earlier this week) she bought it in March 2016. By this time we’re already on to Child L. If you hadn’t already disposed of the notes/handover sheet you accidentally took home when you got home from that shift and found them, or thrown them in confidential waste on your next shift - surely you’d get rid of them when you were going through all your stuff to move house/organising in your new house?

Zinger. That makes no sense at all. bleeping hell!

 

[Weeder]

Totally get where you're coming from, fella. @MmmB777 also pointed out that she didn't really have a relationship with the families. If she is guilty it might paint a bigger picture of her personality.
I just can't really see them as guilty actions without feeling like a massive hypocrite, like I just can't get past feeling like I may have done the same if I'd been in the awful situation of seeing these babies die. That's just me tho, I can see why people see it as sinister and I also see why people wouldn't search families.. it's not something I make a habit of but a few families stick with you.

I know exactly what you mean. I feel the same. A bit of a merail.. But while I was nursing my life was chaotic in every way. My family, of which I'm now estranged were causing massive problems, which I covered up, my life was falling apart and I suffered years of CPTSD before I got diagnosis and my life back.... I was really great with patients, student nurses, families but never fitted in great with nurses (the pony tails as we used to call them). There's no denying I was an odd bod
I can't get over that. I know I've stammered out stupid things and cared too much, or cried over something stupid... So yeah... It's hard not to see myself or think of the times I was bullied... Gah!!

Be gentle with me.. It's hard to explain fellas.

 

[Faith61]

Totally get where you're coming from, fella. @MmmB777 also pointed out that she didn't really have a relationship with the families. If she is guilty it might paint a bigger picture of her personality.
I just can't really see them as guilty actions without feeling like a massive hypocrite, like I just can't get past feeling like I may have done the same if I'd been in the awful situation of seeing these babies die. That's just me tho, I can see why people see it as sinister and I also see why people wouldn't search families.. it's not something I make a habit of but a few families stick with you.

You've hit the nail on the head...few families stick with you sadly,they really do...but, its her lying to the police after all those "incidents"...doesn't remeber the FB searching, just as an example,yet can remember it was her colleague, not her put up an IV bag!!
It's for.me, more the lies and as I've said a few times her apparent "arrogance"

 

[Aberscot]

Has anyone watched the updates on tick tick from true crime stories, they do a recap daily ?
it’s quite handy for a quick recap, I noticed they did a poll the other day, and the majority thought innocent.

 

[Hinchawakening]

i think you have kind of explained it though. It’s something you do a lot of, and it’s screenshots of lots of different things and that would be backed up if your phone was searched. Not just a photo of a card you sent to a family whose baby you are now on trial for murdering.

We haven’t heard if Lucy has given any sort of explanation yet but I think it really depends what her response is and how credible it is. Did she send the photo to anyone and what did the message to that person say? Does she usually take photos of things like this to remember things or just the family whose baby she’s on trial for murdering?

Agree with what you’ve said… can’t they allow us a few hour questioning her if she has as many SS as I do, I don’t find it odd. Like you say, did she sent to anyone? And said what? We need to know so much more. For me though, that’s the basis of why I think this isn’t sus, innocent until proven guilty. Only have myself to compare to without more info and so for me it’s just normal. If however they came and said more details, it could sway me. Sorry if that doesn’t make total sense I struggle to get what I mean down (and I’ve a 4YO chewing my ear off)