I personally think the most likely reason is FDOA, she enjoyed the Adrenalin and attention of crash situations and deaths. She got enjoyment from hurting and killing also. She’s in her own words ‘evil’. She enjoyed the grief of the parents and families and enjoyed the attention it brought her and enjoyed the chase of outwitting people and getting away with it. I think she was out of control and knew there wasn’t any coming back from it hence what she wrote, the fact she kept things despite knowing people were suspicious. And I think she’s likely getting a thrill from the trial.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I think it properly started a long long time ago, small things like pulling the oxygen away to see if they would suffer etc
No fella, I am not a NICU nurse. I have never said I don’t think she is the type, just that I am finding it hard to accept she/anyone could be capable of such heinous crimes.
A quick Google search states thrill, and attention seeking are up there with the most common motives for serial killers. It is there in front of me in black and white and I am still struggling to accept this as a motive for what she has done.
I think she was gaining attention from it. Especially the poor Lucy act. I think she enjoyed the texts from colleagues about Lucy having a hard time etc. the trill aspect I am not sure but I guess you could look at it as she changed her methods but that is looking from a bias side.
I’m finding the medical experts pretty compelling again. Defence cross examination is just not giving me any cause for reasonable doubt as the other issues they raise, like blockage in the bowel, are explained away. It helps there are X-rays as it’s more tangible than just notes and memories.
I will see if I can find my sons scan he had a bowel blockage and later a twisted bowel. Both things you can visibly see on his scan from an untrained eye that there is an issue. He also had emergency surgery resulting in a stoma so what that doctor is stating seems accurate to me.
That’s an interesting point, do you reckon there could have ever been any other suspects or was it always LL as she seemed to be the one that was consistently always there ?
the defence would know about the X-ray so I don’t even know why he would bother going down this route knowing what kind of reply the experts would give. It just makes it look like he’s clutching at straws, which may actually be the case, but it just reinforces the prosecution case.
I would love to know what Ben Myers really thinks though because he must know that his cross examination is weak (not because he’s bad at his job but just he doesn’t have much to work with at the moment). Maybe he just reconciles it
in his mind that covering all possibilities no matter how weak just means she gets her fair trial, even if it doesn’t cast any reasonable doubt.
Ohh he’s not being a very nice fella today.
I think if BM didn’t try question the prosecutions evidence, even if they answer it with something which reinforces their original evidence, he wouldn’t be doing his job. If he doesn’t question the prosecution witnesses then wouldn’t it appear he was agreeing/accepting their evidence? So even if he doesn’t have much to go on it it’s a weak line of questioning, maybe he has to do it to give her a fair trial.
Still wondering what, if any, experts he will bring during the defence arguments as I am finding the prosecutions medical experts credible. Wondering if he will have one which disputes this X-ray finding etc?
Still wondering what, if any, experts he will bring during the defence arguments as I am finding the prosecutions medical experts credible. Wondering if he will have one which disputes this X-ray finding etc?
I think Prof Arthur’s evidence has been incredibly strong, and this is why Dewi Fella said he’d rather defer that particular bit to the radiologist. I think he was excellent at disagreeing with BM theory on bowel blockage as he states clearly there was no medical sign of this, and more importantly it would have been found during PM and it definitely wasn’t. I also think Dr Bohin has been fantastic this morning, she’s acknowledged all the problems within the hospital, acknowledged that D should have been given antibiotics sooner etc BUT has then gone on to explain why they alone could not be responsible for the sudden and unexpected collapses. I think she’s a very strong witness for prosecution, certainly for D anyway. I think the pathologist will be just confirming what Prof Arthur’s, has already said on the defence’s theory of blockage in C being cause of death, there was no sign of this in PM
Myers is absolutely correct, the rash descriptions don't add up. 'blanching and migrating areas of cutaneous pallor were noted in several cases and, in one of our own cases, we noted bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed...background."
"We have had many particular descriptions - they do not all conform to this, do they?"
"I think they're pretty similar."
"Nowhere in the clinical notes for any of the children in this, have we had
"We have seen reddy-brown patches on a background that is cyanosed, so yes, we have."
I don't understand why the doctor isn't saying the rashes don't match.
"We have had many particular descriptions - they do not all conform to this, do they?"
"I think they're pretty similar."
"Nowhere in the clinical notes for any of the children in this, have we had
"We have seen reddy-brown patches on a background that is cyanosed, so yes, we have."
I don't understand why the doctor isn't saying the rashes don't match.
@MmmB777
I’ve just read the wiki for Baby I as you suggested. The baby was being bottle fed and looked after by a Nursery Nurse. Doesn’t shout critical to me! The poor wee mite seemed well on the road to recovery.
The brain scans showing previous damage from repeated resus attempts. How bleeping cruel.
I’ve just read the wiki for Baby I as you suggested. The baby was being bottle fed and looked after by a Nursery Nurse. Doesn’t shout critical to me! The poor wee mite seemed well on the road to recovery.
The brain scans showing previous damage from repeated resus attempts. How bleeping cruel.
Yea the OP that told us Dewi wasn’t a nice fella was mixed up with BM I think
Joking aside, it’s even more compelling to me that she is guilty and he knows it. The fact that his tactic here again is trying to undermine the experts, like he’s a bad panto villain. I think he’s giving LL the fair defence she’s entitled to and that’s it. Dr Bohin has come across as extremely credible to me today, as did prof Arthur’s and it seems BM is clutching at straws as he can’t discredit their actual evidence, so he’s just trying to discredit them as people
@Lucyxxxx @goyellow667 @stardust1 @avabella
I’m in the guilty camp but open to having my mind changed, but for me, it would have to be quite conclusively. However, I get what you guys are saying (@avabella I tagged you anyways as I appreciate your input too even though you haven’t recently or directly said this) that there’s something about LL I can’t put my finger on around her innocence. I think it might be just how completely she believes she is not guilty. It’s jarring compared to all of the rest of the accumliating evidence. And each case, taken on its own, I think, gosh, poor LL- is she being scapegoated because she seems quite plausible.
I just wonder if she’s in such deep denial herself that my nervous system only wants to relate to that and believe her.
But it really is stacking up and I think there really are manipulative and calculating and cruel parts of her that won out whilst causing deliberate harm.
I probably would have less problem believing she was guilty of she was black or brown or of a lower socio economic class, which is disappointing and shocking in myself and something to work on. Alternatively, if there were more reports of her being a not nice fella then I’d also have less trouble.
I’m in the guilty camp but open to having my mind changed, but for me, it would have to be quite conclusively. However, I get what you guys are saying (@avabella I tagged you anyways as I appreciate your input too even though you haven’t recently or directly said this) that there’s something about LL I can’t put my finger on around her innocence. I think it might be just how completely she believes she is not guilty. It’s jarring compared to all of the rest of the accumliating evidence. And each case, taken on its own, I think, gosh, poor LL- is she being scapegoated because she seems quite plausible.
I just wonder if she’s in such deep denial herself that my nervous system only wants to relate to that and believe her.
But it really is stacking up and I think there really are manipulative and calculating and cruel parts of her that won out whilst causing deliberate harm.
I probably would have less problem believing she was guilty of she was black or brown or of a lower socio economic class, which is disappointing and shocking in myself and something to work on. Alternatively, if there were more reports of her being a not nice fella then I’d also have less trouble.
Sorry, but if a doctor can't stand up and say 'No the rashes do not sound the same' when they clearly don't, they lose all credibility,
I'm still G ..but fellas, fellas, fellas...Why didn't doc say they don't sound the same but the striking similarity is cyanosis ..this makes me cross. I like detail
I'm still G ..but fellas, fellas, fellas...Why didn't doc say they don't sound the same but the striking similarity is cyanosis ..this makes me cross. I like detail
I've been dipping out for a few days as I've got so much going on at the moment, but been reading headlines. I'm still feeling she's very much guilty, because I can't see how anything could be a mistake at this point. I hope it really was her because the idea that they have the wrong person is terrifying (although I feel v unlikely)
and baby I is the one that she killed on her 4th attempt, 4 attempts
. She also made the inappropriate bath comments about I, searched the parents many times on Fb, sent the card (so would have had to know name and address to send it), still had pic of card on phone (3 years later), and then claimed to not remember searching them or why she sent/had pic of card. What she did to I was awful, and she seemed extra obsessed with this family in particular. I think there are going to be very suspicious texts to colleagues about this baby too. Just copied the following about I too:“At 1.06am a nurse, having left the nursery temporarily, responded to Child I's alarm and saw Lucy Letby at the incubator. Child I was very distressed and wanted to intervene, but Letby assured her that they would be able to settle the baby.
"Don't worry - we will sort it out," Mr Johnson tells the jury. Child I then collapsed.”
I think the evidence for I is overwhelming. There’s just so much suspicious and bizarre behaviour from LL with this baby. I really do think if people re read some of the evidence on the other babies E-Q, they’d change their minds on a lot. Understand though some just want to just follow along in real time, and in real time, in court atm we are only at baby D so we’ve along way to get yet for those only following in real time on the more compelling evidence and her behaviour becoming more obsessive
I thought though using a journal that’s 30 years old isn’t exactly concrete evidence about the rash. Also loads of nurses and doctors from the hospital have had trouble describing the rash exactly. The one thing they all agree on is it is a rash THAT THEYVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE OR SINCE. They say it was different to sepsis rashes or other ones they’ve seen before. I get you want exact details, but for me personally just hearing ALL these different doctors and nurses (some doctors that have gone onto greater things) saying that they had all seen these rashes that were unusual is good enough for me. Especially as they only seem to be there in babies linked with her using air, which is not all the babies in this case. Even LL mentioned the rash for Baby A being unusual. I think Bohin is just being honest, and to me her saying that does not make any difference to my opinion on the rashes, or make them less credible. Too many doctors and nurses have mentioned them for them not to be credible. Why would more than 10 different people just make them up, and there is definitely documentation of them as well as the evidence being given in court. Some of them maybe just can’t remember the exact colours now, but still know they’d never seen anything like it before or since. What may be slightly red to one of them is brownish to another. Id have trouble describing something like a rash, just colours could easily be slightly different shades especially trying to remember exactly 7 years later. I know you feel you need exact details on this though, so understand your viewpoint that it undermines the rash part of evidence for you
Last edited:
I’m not a medic but I thought the discolouration descriptions from witnesses were pretty similar? Not the exact wording of the journal but enough that it was clear they were all describing the same thing.
What is he suggesting though, that some of the staff were making it up or that it was some other unknown rash?
What is he suggesting though, that some of the staff were making it up or that it was some other unknown rash?
Yes exactly this
Why would multiple staff lie about seeing it
Why would they ALL say it’s like nothing they’d ever seen before or since, if it was another kind of rash, one that just happened to be on ALL the babies here to do with air potentially used
To me BM suggesting this makes him look even more ridiculous
Is this not her saying that actually yes they are similar. Especially as they’re rare, so not much to go on except a 30 year old journal that they are actually similar to
Attachments
I also keep thinking, if it's something they'd not seen before or was as rare as they say, they maybe not know how to describe it? All the words they are using seem, in laymans terms to my simple brain, quite similar to me. Mottling, discolouration etc
- Status