Lucy Letby Case #15

[abelleza]

 

[SnoopySnooper86]

I always get a bit twitchy when people start throwing around arm chair diagnosis’ of psychiatric disorders in threads, I think it may have been the Archie Battersbee one where a lot of people made assumptions about the very very interesting mother.

I dunno I know we all want answers as to why people who do these fucking awful things behave this way and it kinda satisfies our need for answers by going “aw she’s a covert narcissist” but I truly think a lot of the time people just behave the way they do because they want to, they have the opportunity and there’s not much more to it. It perhaps soothes us & makes us feel a bit better if we can attribute that fucked up behaviour to a condition.

I think LL is a very fucked up woman, socially inept and craving attention, excitement something but a PD? I’m not sure, sorry I’m rambling but hopefully I make sense & I hope I’ve not offended anyone.

 

[Tofino]

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.

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.

 

[Faith61]

If she has done this, I am praying that she changes her plea and spares these families of reliving this horror. Thats obviously just on the assumption that she's guilty. If innocent, this is such a horrid process for everyone. My heart is so heavy today.

Change her plea now...stop these poor families having to go through this.. it's going to get worse from hereon ...
I feel physically sick..God knows how that poor mum is getting through this ..so so brave
I feel for the jury members too today

 

[PumpkinxQueen]

Re LL not being subtle/obvious red flags - I could imagine it’s a terrifying realization that a nurse might be harming patients, and I could also imagine how terrifying it would be for a colleague to report said nurse, there’s so many variables to reporting anyone for anything, but accusing someone of such a serious crime (whether true or not) could have serious implications for another employee. I think you’d probably also question yourself like “Did I really see what I saw?” Etc. More so when someone already has an established reputation with colleagues as being a good nurse & nice person, imagine being that ONE doctor to accuse that well liked nice nurse as hurting innocent babies? Hindsight is 20/20 - I’m sure everyone who witnessed anything suspicious feels guilty about it everyday, and I really hope they all find some level of peace eventually.’ It’s also just such a vile act, it’s quite literally unbelievable what anyone would want to harm a child - let alone a child in hospital who is already very ill.

Still Team Guilty. At this point unless someone else stands up in court and says “it was me”, I don’t think anything could change my mind. And if that happened I think I’d still have my doubts about LL - that’s how convinced I am of her guilt.

Yes! Unless a second suspect was presented, I am on the guilty train. I think we really need to give detectives some credit because they are usually extremely thorough with such serious crimes & the subsequent investigation, lots of police express their upset when CPS don’t accept a case or when a judge passes such a lenient sentence.

 

[od12839]

What’s the chances that all these people happen to be wrong about everything and one, yes just one person (LL) is right. I mean just based sheerly on the number of people versus 1 is crazy when you think about it.

Said something similar myself a while back; a lot of this stuff wouldn't be found until AFTER she was a suspect. Which is so....unbelievably coincidental?

They investigate the deaths, they determine foul play, they narrow it down to Lucy, and THEN they investigate her devices etc and find out she's complaining about it being quiet, forcing herself into the care of certain kids, lying about small details, taking paperwork home, stalking families on Facebook, and her accounts seem to differ from other people's.

If she's innocent then christ what bad luck, eh? To be present at the deaths, suspected, and then to have acted so accidentally suspicious the entire time. She must have pissed off some sort of higher power.

 

[tinkertailorsoldierspy]

Very difficult reading today. Poor parents and poor babies.

I agree. I can understand him questioning the possibility that the times were mistaken. That feels reasonable for a fair trial. But to suggest a mother’s account of what happened to her baby as not being as horrendous as she said it was just seems cruel.

Totally cruel. He's not discrediting the prosecution, he's actually trying to discredit the grieving parents who witnessed something that looked dreadful which turned out to be something beyond horrendous. Awful.

 

[avabella]

Lads, I gotta say I'm feeling ever so slightly smug that there's been a total shit show on the thread and for once I wasn't at the centre of it

Full moon weekend or something for sure.

I hope we can get back to some useful discussion. I'm not a fan of the whole 'G camp/NG camp' mentality, nor the 'but have you read the Wiki' questioning whenever a point is trying to be made. I think I'm generally uncomfortable that some take the fact that it's even at trial stage as enough to be guilty, whereas I'm quite happy to wait for the defence to see what that brings. I only have part of the jigsaw puzzle at the moment so for me I couldn't argue that it's a dead cert. I liken it to that programme, what was it? Where they reveal parts of the picture under squares and you have to guess what's underneath.

Keep cool lads

 

[stardust1]

How can you complain the NICU is too quiet?! Sorry that is an absolutely odd thing to say

 

[klarakluckbag]

But she did say this basically! I found this part of her evidence to be ridiculous today. She was basically denying the shit care poor baby d had pre and post birth. She also said the dads perception was that she went floppy and lifeless and it could be a blocked airway from how he was holding her. No one I know who's had a newborn baby has had that happen to their baby from holding them! I genuinely feel like this discredits her. Total denial of the poor care the baby had and suggesting dad's way of holding her could contribute.

I'm delurking just to answer this, and to explain what the doctor may have meant when she spoke about how a parent's handling of a baby may cause a collapse.
We had two women on the postnatal ward in my hospital, whose babies collapsed within a few weeks of each other, both for the same reason. The mum, in both cases, had been holding their baby on their chest, whilst scrolling on their phone. They hadn't noticed that the baby's head had flopped, cutting off the airway and causing a sudden collapse. What is worse is that in one case, the mum didn't even notice, it was spotted by a support worker on the ward, who had popped her head round the curtain to see if mum needed anything to eat or drink while the baby was sleeping. Our matrons put an immediate stop to women having curtains drawn around their beds after this, and women are told to put their baby down if they're on their phones etc. Both babies made a full recovery, thankfully.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

How can you complain the NICU is too quiet?! Sorry that is an absolutely odd thing to say

Especially will all the sudden and unexpected deaths they had recently

Heartbreaking as a mum you just know a child’s cry and you know when the cry is from pain .

You feel your child's cry in your bones. No one can explain it to someone who has not felt it but I 100% believe this mother.

 

[OldBlondie]

@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 fucking cruel.

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

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 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

 

[Tofino]

I can’t imagine how those parents feel looking back and remembering Lucy gave their poor baby a bath after he died.

 

[Weebles Wobble]

I'm starting to wonder if her parents can continue to go there everyday and not have their doubts.

Maybe a lot of what they're hearing is new to them, not what she's told them. What must they be thinking now! They must have doubts by now. I don't think I could continue every day, for 6 months, to listen to it all. Given it's not close to their home as well I wonder where they are staying.

Saying all this, I know serial killers families have often stood by them. Harold Shipman's wife believed he was innocent, although I believe when he was sentenced she started to have her doubts.

If LL was one of my own children, I would push all doubts away, convinced there was some another explanation.

And no, I'm not a doting mother who thinks her children are perfect! But I would struggle to believe that my own child was so evil. No matter what evidence was in front of me I'm pretty sure I'd be in denial.

Of course we don't yet know LL's back story and whether she ever displayed any unusual and worrying behaviour in the past. Even so, to accept that your own child is a serial killer would be extremely difficult for most loving parents.

 

[Wellthisisinteresting]

There is not much the defence can convince me other than to believe she is EVIL and she did it on PURPOSE. How harrowing hearing from the mum today, LL rot in hell!

 

[Pulltheotherone]

My background is legal as I worked for 20 years as a criminal barristers clerk, and I was married to a criminal barrister so I do know how they tick.
im out of this now thankfully as it’s an exhausting job but I know both prosecution and defence lawyers from many years ago when they were juniors not KCs
What I will say is that only a snapshot of the daily court hearings are being documented …. It’s not word for word as there is not enough hours in the day to fully transcribe and the general public gets the documentary highlights. I have said in earlier threads my opinion on this case but that’s just mine … agree or disagree or be somewhere in the middle - I don’t care as it’s your choice. Only a few are privy to the whole story and imho I am not sure if the fully story will ever come out.
I just do not believe in coincidence.
I have found that the medical nurses have been exceptional in their take on this as I know zip what goes on in a hospital so thanks to you all. Nobody should ever pile on. Opinions are exactly that. The weekend thread is always crazy. I always read and sometimes post. We are in such early days. Literally it’s all the prosecution at the moment. Everyone in that courtroom is doin their job.

 

[stardust1]

Reminds me of when I used to do those online 'Are you a Psychopath?' quizzes when I was like 17 and of course, I was always a Psychopath.

, my nana often fills out those quizzes on behalf of others and diagnoses random people including her colleagues

 

[Tofino]

It wasn't about 'biting' at all - we've had our fair share of arguments on here that the last thing I want to do is start another riot. What I don't/can't understand is the 'slam dunk' at this part of the trial - it's the prosecutions case at the moment so everything they present will be to that narrative. Their witnesses will back up the picture they want to paint. It's all neat and tidy at the moment. Who knows what the defence will bring?

I guess I'm just of the belief that just because it got this far to trial, or just because some witnesses say x,y and z, that that's that. The Dr today blamed a parent on the first collapse of the baby. I was really shocked at that.

As for not responding to how they should be - I have seen lots of talk about how sats went down etc, but were 'not a concern' because of the overall picture. If these babies conditions were declining over a period of time, they may not respond to intervention because it's too late? Maybe that's simplifying it a little.

Maybe I"m not explaining it very well. I feel like I'm listening to a very one sided story at the moment and it would be easy to get caught up in the typical response, there's just something niggling at me that I can't shake. Maybe time will tell either way for me.

I know you already know this fella, but it’s the prosecution’s job to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Then the defence have to try and put reasonable doubt in peoples minds. It might feel one sided but remember a lot of what we are hearing is actually agreed evidence and defence have had chance to cross examine.

I know they will only present witnesses that support their case but the sheer volume of witnesses they have must count for something? child C had 11 staff members give statements, 9 of which took the stand. Most if not all said pretty much the same thing about the collapses and this is also backed up by 3 medical experts so far. I just can’t ignore that.

this is just my thinking but so far I think the prosecution have proven that babies a, c and d died from deliberate air administration. I’m basing this on the colleague statements and testimonies, medical experts and the description of the X-rays in particular. And for me they have also addressed the poor care and why that wouldn’t cause this type of response. Defence have cross examined the witnesses and have so far not been able to put reasonable doubt in my mind.

So then that brings me to, ok I believe it’s deliberate so who did it? And so far in all 3 cases it’s been proven that Lucy was with the baby just minutes before (ETA and Lucy is the only constant staff member prior to collapse), even when it wasn’t her designated baby.

it’s not a done deal as I’m aware we have a long way to go before defence make their case. But i’m not feeling confident that they are going to pull out anything compelling based on what we’ve heard so far. We’ve heard their opening statement and plenty of cross examination so it gives us some idea what direction they are going to take and unless he brings out multiple expert witnesses of different professions to counter the prosecution then I’m going to find it hard to accept that sub-optimal care was the cause.

I think the prosecution’s case will just get stronger and stronger (that’s just my prediction based on opening statement).

The other stuff around it like Facebook, parents feeling uncomfortable etc just adds to it as being sinister behaviour but not proof in itself. I do think her selective memory is highly suspicious too.

 

[MmmB777]

If it overruns then it will just overrun, this happened with cases I followed last year but the judge knew a few weeks before so was able to tell the jury they need to make themselves available for longer than they first said.
They seem to have a schedule (like on Thursday when the juror was sick it was said both Thu and Fri were planned half days due to witness availability, so if juror was back then it will all be heard on Friday instead so they caught up)
So I think the six months would be laid out in a schedule and then the judge will see if it’s staying on track or not. I would hope they’ve built a bit of contingency in too for a trial that long.
we’ve had a few half days recently too which feels like it’s slowing it down. I read on another case of a similar length that it took 4-5 days for closing statements too! So I’m not sure how they are going to fit it all in either!

They could probs shave a month off just by starting at a normal time and not twenty mins before they break for lunch ‍ I’m exaggerating of course and appreciate there’ll be reasons but I can’t help thinking just crack on ha x

 

[Tofino]

Having just re read about Child E on the wiki, I just cannot see a scenario where LL wasn’t responsible.

Falsified medical notes.

Conflicting statements from LL vs. the mum and the SHO.

The mum walking in on LL to find her baby bleeding from the mouth. LL denies any memory of this even happening, so is she inferring the mum is either lying or does not remember a memory of seeing her newborn baby bleeding from the mouth? Granted trauma can affect memory but alongside the falsified medical notes it screams guilty to me. It’s not just LL vs. the mum’s statement, it’s the SHO and other staff too.

The prosecution say Letby's note suggests the mum was present at the start of the shift (7.30pm-8pm), and returned at 10pm, when "neither is true". The prosecution say 9pm was an important time, as it was the time Child E was due to be fed, by his mother's expressed breast milk. The mum said that is why she attended at 9pm. "She was bringing the milk".

The phone call at 9.11pm to her husband also fits the mum's timing, the prosecution add. Letby's notes also show: "prior to 21:00 feed, 16ml mucky slightly bile-stained aspirate obtained and discarded, abdo soft, not distended. SHO [Senior House Officer] informed, to omit feed." The prosecution say the nursing notes made are false, and fail to mention that Child E was bleeding at 9pm. They mention a meeting that neither the registrar or the mother remember.
A record of feeds - a feeding chart - is shown to the court.

The phone call she made to her husband at 9.11pm is so critical to this for the proof of timing and proof Lucy is lying. Otherwise there could be some doubt mum got the time wrong or mistaken which nurse it was like the other mum.