Lucy Letby Case #15

[Tangerine Cat]

I wonder if she deliberately went into nursing with a plan all along to harm others or if it came later. It was said to be her dream job.

I very much doubt it. If you had that urge you’d be showing traits of it long before getting through studies and training. I suppose we won’t know until the end of the trial what she was like growing up.

If she’s guilty, my theory is she enjoyed the attention and sympathy she got, maybe she did really well looking after the babies and liked the attention, I’d like to think a baby died naturally but she realised she enjoyed that side of it too.

thanks for the new thread, I haven’t voted yet. I’ve had some time off these threads because it’s too much sometimes.

to all, I enjoy the camaraderie and support here so if anyone needs it I’m sending love and support.

 

[OldBlondie]

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

Yes, exactly this also. Great post
My opinion on the rash evidence has not changed at all, for reasons like these as well as the rest in my other post on it. You’re totally right though, it is hard to describe something you’ve never seen before or since (not just in rashes, even just things in general that are rare/you’ve not seen before)

 

[Haveyouanywool]

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?

Well said, and a description of a (fleeting) ‘rash’ is always going to be subjective, compounded by the fact there would be different lighting conditions etc.
I think the most important thing is it was extremely unusual, seen, and documented by many, and matches the literature pertaining to air embolism.

 

[PumpkinxQueen]

I think it would be unlikely to go into nursing purely fueled by the intention to cause harm - she could have went into elderly care to do that or something similar since it isn’t as much hard work. I think it is likely she was possibly ‘normal’ and didn’t do harm until she got a first taste of it - whenever, wherever, and however that first taste came about. Like studying medicine is a lot of work to hurt people!

At some point you have to look and say “There are too many coincidences, for this to simply be a coincidence”. It just turns into a pattern of events and ultimately it appears she is the common denominator in all of them.

 

[MmmB777]

One of the doctors recently said that the rash almost looked meningitis like. No images really come up for air embolisms on Google, however fat embolism does have some pictures as does pulmonary embolism. They all look a bit different on different people and areas and who knows how it looks on tiny babies or whether it would look different if it’s air that has relatively immediately prior being administered. I don’t think everything pins on the rash, however it is a reoccurring theme of the air cases and I am not hearing other reasons for it and if there is air by these baby’s spines then why would I doubt the other features of air embolism? I don’t believe there was overwhelming infection, I don’t believe a line would so easily create air embolism because I think babies everywhere would be dying of it far more regularly when it’s extremely rare, I don’t believe they’ve been in car accidents. Without a video of letby doing this (which wouldn’t even help anyway as it’s air and she looks like she’s giving treatment and I’m sure Benny Fella would say she was doing her job) I don’t know what else I need to see.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

This answers the question about why the air embolisms weren’t always fatal and could present slightly differently.

Just a little bit weak on the questioning about different animals used?

 

[OldBlondie]

At some point you have to look and say “There are too many coincidences, for this to simply be a coincidence”. It just turns into a pattern of events and ultimately it appears she is the common denominator in all of them.

This absolutely. After reading the wiki on E-Q I completely understand why the prosecution are making it clear a lot of their case is based on patterns. Then when you read about the red flags of healthcare workers that are serial killers in healthcare settings you can see many of these red flags within patterns that you see in this case. There are just so many patterns to see, her behaviour, the babies that were harmed, they way they were harmed, the texts between colleagues, even her starting to realise that people may be becoming suspicious of her, it’s all patterns that are no longer coincidences or patterns you can ignore or explain away. It’s too much

 

[MmmB777]

This answers the question about why the air embolisms weren’t always fatal and could present slightly differently.

Just a little bit weak on the questioning about different animals used?

View attachment 1722216View attachment 1722219

I’ve said it before but this is her trying to make things more believable and more progressive.

 

[Weeder]

Well said, and a description of a (fleeting) ‘rash’ is always going to be subjective, compounded by the fact there would be different lighting conditions etc.
I think the most important thing is it was extremely unusual, seen, and documented by many, and matches the literature pertaining to air embolism.

There are quite defined and refined specifics for describing rashes and I'm surprised she didn't acknowledge that it is all. I agree with everyone else on the rash cropping up and being somewhat undefinable due to subjectivity etc, it just doesn't befit an experienced doctor to claim these rashes sound the same. I agree the patterns are there, I feel like the evidence is better looked at as a whole, but for some reason I thought this was a discussion group and glaringly obvious differences in descriptions would be viewed as just that. Not every single tiny piece of evidence is something I'm just going to nod along to. I have questions and criticisms , I feel the experts are ignoring glaring neglect and lack of attention to detail.

None of this makes LL any less guilty, but while medicine does not deal in absolutes (remember Archie Battersbee 'likely' to be dead) I can't and don't feel edified by the combative nature of the whole thing because sometimes it just seems the prosecution are being defensive (lol) when there's no need.

 

[wishiniwasskinny]

I think the evidence from Arthur’s and Bohin today have been pretty damning. You can see that in how hard Myers has gone on Bohin in his questioning

 

[Weeder]

BTW I support the rash theory, I just don't agree with the way it's being presented.

 

[OldBlondie]

One of the doctors recently said that the rash almost looked meningitis like. No images really come up for air embolisms on Google, however fat embolism does have some pictures as does pulmonary embolism. They all look a bit different on different people and areas and who knows how it looks on tiny babies or whether it would look different if it’s air that has relatively immediately prior being administered. I don’t think everything pins on the rash, however it is a reoccurring theme of the air cases and I am not hearing other reasons for it and if there is air by these baby’s spines then why would I doubt the other features of air embolism? I don’t believe there was overwhelming infection, I don’t believe a line would so easily create air embolism because I think babies everywhere would be dying of it far more regularly when it’s extremely rare, I don’t believe they’ve been in car accidents. Without a video of letby doing this (which wouldn’t even help anyway as it’s air and she looks like she’s giving treatment and I’m sure Benny Fella would say she was doing her job) I don’t know what else I need to see.

Yes all of this, when you put it all together like that how could you come to any other conclusion, and why I think BMs defence has been weak so far. He can’t discredit the medical experts actual solid medical findings evidence that they have found, proving these things are not due to blockages and infection etc, so the only thing he can do is discredit the actual witnesses by basically saying they’re making it up to fit the theory. Which is really absolutely ridiculous to suggest. I mean come on who is going to put their whole professional reputation on the line to make stuff up while under oath. Stuff that they’ve clearly proved with their evidence, and how that evidence leads to the conclusions they’ve given on what happened to these babies. I think BM honestly is so ridiculous suggesting that, for me it just makes the prosecution even stronger

 

[Weeder]

It's weird isn't it? For me it's the patterns, as @MmmB777 and @OldBlondie keep pointing out eh fellas, and the Bev Allitt stuff and the obvious brutality of the later victims and probabililty.

I honestly think they're making a pigs' ear out of the medical evidence, or at least I feel so shocked at the shiteness of the care I'm struggling to give the doctors any credence and therefore the experts any too. It's probably anger on my part for those babies.

 

[OldBlondie]

BTW I support the rash theory, I just don't agree with the way it's being presented.

My fellow fella, youu have a medical background don’t you? So I can completely understand why you are maybe seeing a problem with the way it’s being presented. Whereas the layman like me (that’s pretty clueless) isn’t picking up on quite the same point you are. Sorry if it came across in disagreeing with what you were trying to say, I think I’m just viewing it slightly differently to you, due to you having more knowledge about these kinds of things than me. And appreciate that you think this particular bit has hindered the prosecution in that respect to that particular bit, rather than helped, sorry if that came across in a different way to you from my posts

And yes the whole point of this thread is to have discussions on points, whatever they may be. And it’s perfectly ok to agree or respectfully disagree. This is all our own interpretations, and therefore at this point no one can really be right or wrong. Not aimed this last paragraph at you Fella, I’m just saying in general

 

[Haveyouanywool]

There are quite defined and refined specifics for describing rashes and I'm surprised she didn't acknowledge that it is all. I agree with everyone else on the rash cropping up and being somewhat undefinable due to subjectivity etc, it just doesn't befit an experienced doctor to claim these rashes sound the same. I agree the patterns are there, I feel like the evidence is better looked at as a whole, but for some reason I thought this was a discussion group and glaringly obvious differences in descriptions would be viewed as just that. Not every single tiny piece of evidence is something I'm just going to nod along to. I have questions and criticisms , I feel the experts are ignoring glaring neglect and lack of attention to detail.

None of this makes LL any less guilty, but while medicine does not deal in absolutes (remember Archie Battersbee 'likely' to be dead) I can't and don't feel edified by the combative nature of the whole thing because sometimes it just seems the prosecution are being defensive (lol) when there's no need.

Ok fella I’m not disagreeing with your point but, even with guidelines, descriptions are, to an extent, subjective.
The UK court system is adversarial so I’m sure it’s more combative that it needs to be but, that’s the way it is.

 

[Tofino]

There are quite defined and refined specifics for describing rashes and I'm surprised she didn't acknowledge that it is all. I agree with everyone else on the rash cropping up and being somewhat undefinable due to subjectivity etc, it just doesn't befit an experienced doctor to claim these rashes sound the same. I agree the patterns are there, I feel like the evidence is better looked at as a whole, but for some reason I thought this was a discussion group and glaringly obvious differences in descriptions would be viewed as just that. Not every single tiny piece of evidence is something I'm just going to nod along to. I have questions and criticisms , I feel the experts are ignoring glaring neglect and lack of attention to detail.

None of this makes LL any less guilty, but while medicine does not deal in absolutes (remember Archie Battersbee 'likely' to be dead) I can't and don't feel edified by the combative nature of the whole thing because sometimes it just seems the prosecution are being defensive (lol) when there's no need.

I mean this genuinely and not attacking, as I’m not medically trained, what is it you think they are ignoring with the neglect/care side? As a layman I saw them say (for example) the line was too close to the heart but on the next X-ray it was moved back. I don’t think they are there to criticise individuals/the hospital but just basically ‘say what they see’ and what their conclusion is? What I am taking from the three medical experts is they have all concluded air embolism for various factors and ruled out any sub-optimal care as being the cause and they’ve explained why.

is there more you would like them to elaborate on?

 

[Weeder]

Arghhh...I just lost internet and with that my reply...

I left nursing 7 yrs ago, and was a clinical educator too. @OldBlondie ..goddamn lost my flow but yeah..I'm struggling , le sigh

 

[OldBlondie]

I mean this genuinely and not attacking, as I’m not medically trained, what is it you think they are ignoring with the neglect/care side? As a layman I saw them say (for example) the line was too close to the heart but on the next X-ray it was moved back. I don’t think they are there to criticise individuals/the hospital but just basically ‘say what they see’ and what their conclusion is? What I am taking from the three medical experts is they have all concluded air embolism for various factors and ruled out any sub-optimal care as being the cause and they’ve explained why.

is there more you would like them to elaborate on?

For me personally this is why I thought Dr Bohin was so credible today, as she most definitely acknowledged there were problems in the unit, she acknowledged some of the sub optimal care. Yet despite this, she gave her opinion on why these things were not enough alone, to cause what happened to baby D. Especially as she recovered after the first two collapses, which was not consistent of the cause of them being infection. If Dr Bohin hadn’t of mentioned the hospital problems, and the fact antibiotics weren’t given sooner etc I wouldn’t have found her as credible, but because she has acknowledged them (which therefore ruins BMs defence theory) it seems she’s given an honest account of what’s been presented to her, and at the same time ripped BMs explaination for what caused the collapse/death to shreds. As his defence is based around it being the hospitals fault and not LLs, which Dr Bohin in her evidence, is effectively ruling out

*and sorry, I know this question wasn’t meant for me, I’m just giving my take on how fantastic I thought Bohin was today and why

 

[polagon]

I think it would be unlikely to go into nursing purely fueled by the intention to cause harm - she could have went into elderly care to do that or something similar since it isn’t as much hard work. I think it is likely she was possibly ‘normal’ and didn’t do harm until she got a first taste of it - whenever, wherever, and however that first taste came about. Like studying medicine is a lot of work to hurt people!

At some point you have to look and say “There are too many coincidences, for this to simply be a coincidence”. It just turns into a pattern of events and ultimately it appears she is the common denominator in all of them.

I know you’re not really saying ‘normal’. But if guilty and all that then she was probably never normal and this thing inside here were always there and as you said she got a taste for it, or rather something triggered/unlocked this side of her that was always there.

If she was born with this urge in her then there’s a chance she made certain decision towards her career path that lead her into nursing, which could have been other career paths with perhaps a similar ‘opportunity’ for doing something wicked along the line.

 

[OldBlondie]

Arghhh...I just lost internet and with that my reply...

I left nursing 7 yrs ago, and was a clinical educator too. @OldBlondie ..goddamn lost my flow but yeah..I'm struggling , le sigh

Yes Fella I thought you had a medical background. So you are far more qualified than me on anything medical, and I completely understand why there’s some medically bits that will be interpreted slightly differently (and probably better understood) by you than me