Lucy Letby Case #14

[OldBlondie]

These crimes are hard to prove but luckily there is usually enough evidence with a few charges to get conviction. I think by the time we’re at the poisonings it’ll feel stronger. Sorry but I’m completely terrified if unexplained and huge increase in deaths on one persons shift, the persons presence almost always immediately before the sudden cpr event, trophies typical of this crime, written confession, clear expert witness evidence of air that can only have been administered, actual poisonings, clear evidence of unhealthy interest in babies involved in the case prior to any apparent link, multiple people with huge suspicions testimony to show behaviour and scenarios odd - is flimsy. It is exactly what I’ve heard in other crimes of this nature and it’s incredible to think that someone would be able get off because this is literally all you’d find in these crimes! It will be an absolute travesty and embolden dangerous people imo.

Haha you’ve summed it up brilliantly there thank you, I feel you are in my head sometimes also. I’ve also come to the conclusion that some of us have kind of skipped on a bit ahead. We are not only looking at what is currently going on in court atm, we are looking at that AND babies A-Q, I really wish more would reread the wiki for the prosecutions opening on the other babies. I think they’d get more understanding how things are changing rapidly for many of us, from innocence to sinister in so much of LLs behaviour. Whereas a lot of others are only following it in real time, so in real time we are only on Baby D, and I can see why at this point some feel it’s flimsy (I don’t). I really am confident that as we move on further through the babies people will start seeing the bigger picture and the evidence stacking up, and things that may have looked innocent in the beginning, when we’d only heard real evidence for a few babies, will suddenly actually become sinister. I think once you see the full overall picture and how devious and calculating she, you just cannot unsee it. Also what she did physically to the babies becomes much more graphic too, that poor baby that she left bleeding is so traumatic. It just gets worse the longer her reign of terror went on, it’s going to be incredibly hard to listen to some of the evidence in more detail as we move through these babies. She left one very brain damaged too, it’s just so cruel what she has done to them

***Edited to add, I think she’ll be found guilty and so much more will come out then, about other suspicions or charges they couldn’t prove. I don’t think hummingbird is insignificant, I really think they’re looking for more crimes she’s committed. I think I’ve said already about why I think that from the areas in the job description. I think the part in that article below about why only some charges are taken to court is interesting, and I honestly believe there’s been so many more babies she’s hurt, whether that be she’s just inflicted mild harm on them, or caused enough for collapses I don’t know

 

[TapToBoreMeRigid]

Can anyone advise on what would happen if a juror became ill in a way which required them to leave the case. I'm thinking an illness that would need intense treatment for a good period of time.

Would there be a mistrial and start again? Of course I'm not implying anything in this case, I'm just curious generally.

Hope the juror is back to good health soon. I imagine they must be feeling pretty rough to have been unable to attend.

 

[Walnutss]

Someone recommended a book on Beverly allit? What was it called?

 

[OldBlondie]

Can anyone advise on what would happen if a juror became ill in a way which required them to leave the case. I'm thinking an illness that would need intense treatment for a good period of time.

Would there be a mistrial and start again? Of course I'm not implying anything in this case, I'm just curious generally.

Hope the juror is back to good health soon. I imagine they must be feeling pretty rough to have been unable to attend.

Think that’s why they have the two reserve jurors from beginning of trial? Actually wait, I’ve edited this to say I think the trial can proceed one juror down if it’s a serious illness that would keep them away for a lengthy period. They can go ahead with only 11 in that case, I’m sure I read that

Hopefully we don’t have an ill fella again tomorrow, and the trial can resume. I didn’t realise today and tomorrow would have only been half days, so if juror is ok tomorrow then we should get a full day instead of two half days

 

[Weeder]

I think bringing up the pencil theory again is important as I keep reading fellas who are on the fence talking about the case currently not meeting legal thresholds etc (not getting at anyone here!)

I don’t think individually the cases are necessarily going to meet the legal threshold. I think that’s why the prosecution have outlined patterns so much (I think the word pattern is an easy term for laypersons/jurors to follow too).

Baby A as a single pencil isn’t going to meet the legal threshold most probably. Even add Baby B, you could still snap those two pencils, and Ben Myers definitely could.

Add in 3 more babies/pencils that LL has been present for, it’s getting a little bit harder to snap.

Then add in those Facebook pencils, those notes at home pencils, that sympathy card pencil, some allegedly forged notes pencils, the attention seeking text pencils, the behaviour around parents pencils, the note pencil, then all the other babies.

Ben Myers would need some strength to snap all those pencils, and at the moment he seems to just be trying to pull the rubbers off the top of them.

I’m rambling, but I think the prosecution have laid this out well. Patterns… not coincidence.

I do believe I may have poo pooed this idea initially and possibly not given it the credence I should have... Then i watched some Bev Allitt stuff, read a little extra bed time reading and started viewing the evidence differently.

I am not sure all the babies died because of her. There are medical errors I can't step over namely Baby A and D I think (without looking) and i want to hear the defence on those two particularly but the undeniable thing for me now is her presence at the other cases, all which seem somehow more graphic /brutal.... Obvious??? Not sure what the right word is.hi

Thanks to those responding to me being an odd bod fella... Life is pretty sweet now.. Bon Marche only knows why I struggle STILL to spot a monster despite my early education of them.

BTW, about narcs. Attention is important, but control more so. Narcs are good at masking and coming across charming. She might have traits but for me this one is a psychopath .. Subject to me changing my mind.again obvs!!

 

[MmmB777]

I do believe I may have poo pooed this idea initially and possibly not given it the credence I should have... Then i watched some Bev Allitt stuff, read a little extra bed time reading and started viewing the evidence differently.

I am not sure all the babies died because of her. There are medical errors I can't step over namely Baby A and D I think (without looking) and i want to hear the defence on those two particularly but the undeniable thing for me now is her presence at the other cases, all which seem somehow more graphic /brutal.... Obvious??? Not sure what the right word is.hi

Thanks to those responding to me being an odd bod fella... Life is pretty sweet now.. Bon Marche only knows why I struggle STILL to spot a monster despite my early education of them.

BTW, about narcs. Attention is important, but control more so. Narcs are good at masking and coming across charming. She might have traits but for me this one is a psychopath .. Subject to me changing my mind.again obvs!!

Bon marche only knows - best use of bon marche ever. Stealing that! As well as the ponytails my mum used to call them the yogurt pots they only ate yogurt to stay thin.
I think that possibly gradually once we say ok yes failures from the hospital but here we are down the end of the alphabet and there’s another baby with such similar presentation etc. it will be more obvious that yes she probably harmed all of them. I accept from a legal point of view they’ll be much harder to prove and may mean she’ll get a NG on some. I think looking at it collectively though, it’s so much more obvious what she was up to. I do think you’d really sink your teeth into the journal!

 

[Weeder]

Bon marche only knows - best use of bon marche ever. Stealing that! As well as the ponytails my mum used to call them the yogurt pots they only ate yogurt to stay thin.
I think that possibly gradually once we say ok yes failures from the hospital but here we are down the end of the alphabet and there’s another baby with such similar presentation etc. it will be more obvious that yes she probably harmed all of them. I accept from a legal point of view they’ll be much harder to prove and may mean she’ll get a NG on some. I think looking at it collectively though, it’s so much more obvious what she was up to. I do think you’d really sink your teeth into the journal!

I know, I know fella. Not enough hours in the day.

Yoghurt pots. Brilliant. Usually a muller corner.

 

[dual2099]

Did she take a photo of deceased twin boys? Where did I hear that? Why on earth would she have that on her phone? Can somebody clarify that please? I’m sure I read that somewhere. They were part of triplets - I think one survived. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[OldBlondie]

I think the clusters in Facebook searches are interesting, where she’s searched for 3 sets of parents in a row.

For example, on the 5th October she searched for the parents of baby I, twins E and F, and then baby H. All in quick succession. Why?

Baby I did not die until 23rd October (there had been one attempt before the mentioned search), and baby H survived (2 attempts in Sept) So why is she searching them all at the same time? If she’s innocent, why does it appear that in her mind, there is a link between them?

This was before suspicions were raised and she was moved to day shifts. So I don’t see why an innocent person would link these 3 families at this point.

Fellas I’m sharing this again from a fab fella that posted this yesterday, as I think it is still relevant to what has been discussed a lot about the searches on FB. Also think it’s really relevant to say again. If they were really innocent searches, why did LL claim not to remember, if she was genuinely looking them up for an innocent explanation, why not just tell police this. And why is she claiming she can’t remember these families yet we’ve seen texts to colleagues talking about these families (baby A dad on knees, she found it so upsetting, but now claims to not to remember him), the txt about how she’d convinced the parents to do hand and footprints, but now doesn’t remember them or looking them up. Her sending a card to a family (so deffo know name to address it), but doesn’t remember them now? There’s lots more texts of her talking about the different families to colleagues, but then keeps claiming not to remember them. Again as isolated incidents they maynot be suspicious/sinister but when you look at all this together it’s selective memory and constantly contradicting herself

I thought about this a couple of weeks ago, i've just gone back and found my post because I couldn't remember how on the surface there is nothing in common between them, so it was:

1) a baby she directly looked after that died.
2) a baby she was not directly looking after who died.
3) a baby she was not directly looking after who did not die.

Maybe you could say 1&2 have in common that they died on the same ward, but why does the 3rd baby connect to the others in her mind. (well, I know why I think they connect, because I think she is guilty)

Also resharing this one too as it’s also a good point talking about the Fb searches

Did she take a photo of deceased twin boys? Where did I hear that? Why on earth would she have that on her phone? Can somebody clarify that please? I’m sure I read that somewhere. They were part of triplets - I think one survived. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

I think, and if I’m wrong hopefully a fella will correct. I think you’re right, I do think there was some mention of her taking photos of deceased children. BUT I’m not sure if we ever heard whether it was on her phone, or whether it was done on the ward camera, more as part of the memory box she would have done for the parents. Will have to go through the wiki and see if I can find anymore info on this

 

[TennisTina]

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?

Even if she did have something to hide, I think it's bizarre she didn't say she was thinking of them and checking on them... was she not capable of having that type of thought, even in cover up? Very strange really. On its own, as many have said, the FB isn't a big thing to me but, of course, it's part of a picture. Just catching up on thread for today.

 

[Weeder]

An innocent person, having done stalkery Fb nosing would most definitely say 'because I'm a nosy, bored loon who didn't expect anyone to ever see me snooping'...i mean if my secondary school bf ever found out I know his career in comedy isn't paying the bills I'd be mortified. She seems to shrug it off.

 

[OldBlondie]

I am not sure all the babies died because of her. There are medical errors I can't step over namely Baby A and D I think (without looking) and i want to hear the defence on those two particularly but the undeniable thing for me now is her presence at the other cases, all which seem somehow more graphic /brutal.... Obvious??? Not sure what the right word is

I agree with what @MmmB777 said regarding this, there are medical errors/negligence that can’t be ignored. But they are not solely the cause of what’s happened to these babies, I still can’t help but see that LL used these underlying medical problems to her advantage, and to cover her tracks. I think she’s deliberately targeted some of these babies in a calculating way, and I agree by the time we get to baby Q the probabilities for babies such as A&D only being down to their medical problems, and not LL will be slim to none by then. I can’t get baby N out of my head, after hearing about him I cannot believe that she didn’t deliberately choose him (after the txt she sent about his medical bleeding condition saying she’d googled and he only had 50/50 chance, and then he’s one of only a few that is hurt with bleeding being involved), so that she could cover her tracks easily with him, and ofc the insulin babies. The weakest baby to prove I think will be K as even the prosecution have said there was sub optimal care with this one. If you get chance reread page 4 of the wiki, but I found babies I and N particularly disturbing, and the strongest cases for seeing how calculating and devious she was, most others see the insulin ones as strongest though

 

[MmmB777]

That is another example of searching in sets. The baby this time was still in the hospital. She can’t say “oh I know it’s wrong or odd that I searched them but I’m lonely/have no life and want to see how they are” just can’t cut it as an excuse because sometimes they’re not out of her care and yet they’re linked to other babies in this case in her mind already. A quick look at them in groups. Feel the overfeeding case is again a very strong one in terms of evidence. You can’t draw out the same amount you fed and account for copious amounts of projectile vomit too. Letby acknowledges that also.

 

[dual2099]

You could count them as medical errors if she hadn’t been there at the time. But how many medical errors are you going to have when ones ‘poor’ nurse is always on duty? Yes there were medical errors, but from what I can gather, and I’ve been receiving treatment for the past 6 months is these seem to happen everywhere. My child needed surgery at a few weeks old. With all this treatment I can give you positive and some negatives. Mostly positives. When my child was born I can say the treatment I received until their birth was great, after that I felt dumped in a bed unable to walk and my husband was barked at to go home. In that same hospital a family member died and lodged a complaint. But previously to that they had saved his life. So my point is all hospitals have good and bad treatment etc. I can also say I have quite a few friends who have been left too long in labour, one nearly giving birth in the reception. So I can see these medical errors although not good at all and certainly shouldn’t happen as sadly, not unusual. When my daughter was in picu and on the ward, I remember alarms going off for another baby! I remember thinking why the hell is nobody coming! I just think this happens everywhere and although it shouldn’t it does, and I think the fact one particular nurse seemed to be there every time is overwhelmingly suspicious. Just my opinion.

 

[Weeder]

Re reading Page 4 was what really got me thinking tbh. Your suggestion was spot on. Like i say I have doubts about 2 but not really about the others, it needs to be right for the parents and I'd still like to see medical ?? negligence explored for those 2.
The others , I agree, too many patterns and weight of evidence.

It concerns me greatly that the standards will be ignored. There seems no audit of medics as there is of nurses. The NHS needs an overhaul. I think still the defence will look at UVC vs UAC and embolism risk in the baby when they couldn't get a line in and I think the baby with crappy gases, it'll take a bit to persuade me they haven't missed respiratory acidosis and Co2 overload.

 

[feistyoneanddone]

Does anyone know if the third triplet is also one of the charges? Or was the 3rd triplet not "attacked"?

 

[Weeder]

You could count them as medical errors if she hadn’t been there at the time. But how many medical errors are you going to have when ones ‘poor’ nurse is always on duty? Yes there were medical errors, but from what I can gather, and I’ve been receiving treatment for the past 6 months is these seem to happen everywhere. My child needed surgery at a few weeks old. With all this treatment I can give you positive and some negatives. Mostly positives. When my child was born I can say the treatment I received until their birth was great, after that I felt dumped in a bed unable to walk and my husband was barked at to go home. In that same hospital a family member died and lodged a complaint. But previously to that they had saved his life. So my point is all hospitals have good and bad treatment etc. I can also say I have quite a few friends who have been left too long in labour, one nearly giving birth in the reception. So I can see these medical errors although not good at all and certainly shouldn’t happen as sadly, not unusual. When my daughter was in picu and on the ward, I remember alarms going off for another baby! I remember thinking why the hell is nobody coming! I just think this happens everywhere and although it shouldn’t it does, and I think the fact one particular nurse seemed to be there every time is overwhelmingly suspicious. Just my opinion.

I'm not suggesting medical errors, I'm suggesting negligence, possible harm, ommission of care.
Yes, she might have done these ones, but she may not, in my view. Her presence there, to me, is sinister should they be able to prove they were purposefully killed. Her presence in the other, more brutal, milk and insulin deaths is clearly irrefutable, and there are 22 cases (is that right?) 20 is still a pattern and the devil is in the detail.

I'm finding it hard to express. It's also gone through my mind that clinical ducked up ness might lead to her being found NG on these specific 2 babies even if she did do it.

 

[dual2099]

Re reading Page 4 was what really got me thinking tbh. Your suggestion was spot on. Like i say I have doubts about 2 but not really about the others, it needs to be right for the parents and I'd still like to see medical ?? negligence explored for those 2.
The others , I agree, too many patterns and weight of evidence.

It concerns me greatly that the standards will be ignored. There seems no audit of medics as there is of nurses. The NHS needs an overhaul. I think still the defence will look at UVC vs UAC and embolism risk in the baby when they couldn't get a line in and I think the baby with crappy gases, it'll take a bit to persuade me they haven't missed respiratory acidosis and Co2 overload.

Yea do agree. However the chances of her being in the vicinity every time and then being guilty of 2 murders I can’t fathom. You are right the medical negligence should not be ignored, it also it can’t be that letby can hide behind it.

 

[MmmB777]

I'm not suggesting medical errors, I'm suggesting negligence, possible harm, ommission of care.
Yes, she might have done these ones, but she may not, in my view. Her presence there, to me, is sinister should they be able to prove they were purposefully killed. Her presence in the other, more brutal, milk and insulin deaths is clearly irrefutable, and there are 22 cases (is that right?) 20 is still a pattern and the devil is in the detail.

I'm finding it hard to express. It's also gone through my mind that clinical ducked up ness might lead to her being found NG on these specific 2 babies even if she did do it.

I just hope once they hear the other babies fully.. they can look back at the poorlier babies cases with different eyes.
baby a - the line placement is now shown to be ok (I’m sure the defence will say it’s not), the only other case known of this happening was a poor baby with the line in there for 4 days not a few hours. And the placement and amount of air just can’t be from the line. I agree there’s room for doubt but because of everything else, I believe the expert accounts and witness accounts and I hope the jury will go back and see further credibility when things are similar.
baby d - again no dispute her start was a mess and that she was a poorly baby but again the evidence that she was improving just doesn’t make sense to have a cpr event and die after Letby’s intervention. With those similar symptoms to A which was air whether you think it’s there administered or not. So is baby D not then also displaying signs of air? But this time it’s pneumonia but this just isn’t the picture of a baby declining from pneumonia after the intervention of antibiotics had helped her improve already. Sorry fella, not arguing with you. I do agree they’re harder. But so many recognisable traits that once you see so much of it elsewhere I am hopeful justice will be served. Baby K will be the hardest

Can anybody medical explain the significance of air in baby d’s blood vessels? Sorry if a stupid question.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

@feistyoneanddone

I remain on the fence about her guilt or innocence as I have just not see enough evidence yet that meets the legal threshold.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the info legal fella.

As these cases are notoriously difficult to prove (already vulnerable patients who can’t speak for themselves, legitimate interventions that carry risk etc) would the legal threshold be satisfied, or mitigated, by multiple cases taken as a whole? I know each case is being tried individually but do they support each other?
If the legal threshold is not met in each case, how is justice served on a potential baby killer who has managed to place herself in a position and environment where crimes are more difficult to prove?