Lucy Letby Case #16

[raspberryjuice]

This thread has become incredibly difficult to read and follow over the past few days and it’s a real shame. Essentially we’re all here for the same reason - to get the right outcome and the truth for these babies and their families. It shouldn’t actually matter whether you’re G/NG or still sat on that fence. We should all just want the right decision to be made by the jury.

I’ve said it since my first posts on these threads that I believe LL is guilty and it will take a lot to change that. But that is just my interpretation of what I’ve read so far. My experiences with a nephew who spent a lot of his short life in hospital, work situations and the experiences of family and friends have shaped how I’ve come to that view. There aren’t 2 of us on this thread who will have exactly the same life experiences, education, work history etc and so we’re all going to interpret every snippet we hear from the court in a different way because every thought and experience we’ve ever had in life has been different to every other person posting.

I’m finding it frustrating that the NG or undecided people feel they can’t post as much because they get overpowered by the people who have very strong views that she’s guilty. Their views are just as valid, just as important and it’s really interesting to read how it’s all being interpreted by everyone. There have been posts by people who are firmly NG or on the fence who’ve made me question the way I’ve interpreted certain things or research further, there have been posts that have solidified my views, there have been posts that have pointed out a view I’ve had has been interpreted wrong by me. It’s all helpful. It’s healthy to have discussions. What’s not ok is to be telling people they’re wrong for their opinion because nobody actually knows who’s right or wrong right now. The only person who actually knows is LL.

The posts questioning the medical evidence are helpful, the debate over the interpretation of a rash and it’s description lead me down a rabbit hole of research - equally the debate over ground coffee helped last night, the posts from NICU parents have been incredibly useful (although I’ve noticed we don’t get as many anymore), the nurses offering their input is helpful and it’s a shame these people feel their information is being shut down because they’re questioning what we’re hearing from the court. For all any of us know they could be giving the us same information as is being read in court but it’s just not being reported in the 1 sentence we get summarising the 20 minutes the expert had been talking.

I think everyone just has to learn to respect that we don’t all think the same. If there is a post that has a glaring error from already presented evidence (I’ll use the confusion over baby e having a blood disorder yesterday which was incorrect) then that’s ok to point out - but it’s not fair to tell someone their view is wrong or to try and change their opinion. It is ok if they think she’s NG, it’s ok if they want to stay on the fence, it’s ok if they’re waiting until we’ve heard closing speeches to come to a decision. I don’t think anybody is going to change their view because JoeBloggs on tattle has been telling them in 43 different ways how they interpreted LL’s texts in a different way.

Hopefully everyone can just play nice and we can get back to civilised discussion. There is enough shit in the world without raging at each other online over such a sad case. We all just want the right decision for those families and those poor, tiny babies.

 

[OldBlondie]

“The court is shown evidence that Letby searched for the mum and dad of Child E and Child F on Facebook nine times in the following months, the vast majority for the mother”

Anyone else feel like it’s the mother of the babies that LL is particularly obsessed with? Could there be some weird warped jealousy thing there

 

[Lucyxxxx]

I have half this thread on ignore lol.

 

[riddleme89]

Mum also said she heard her baby screaming down the corridor then she got into the room and letby was not even near the baby . Now that makes me think letby did something to him and heard footsteps so quickly went to another part of the room or letby was literally standing in another part of the room listening to his screams no doubt got a buzz from it

either way any normal nurse would go and help the baby but she only did that after mum walked in

 

[StatusWoe]

Haven't followed the court updates today. Too distressing. I just skimmed some of the previous thread.

Found this screenshot interesting.

We've got another nurse stating that LL's having some bad luck (last time it was a 'bad run' iirc). This proves that colleagues were linking these unusual deaths to her presence. I'm not saying they suspected Lucy of harming anyone, but the texts are useful as a record of their observations at the time. I know defence have claimed the staff only noticed something was amiss in retrospect, due to confirmation bias, but this shows otherwise.

Once again, something doesn't feel right about her response. Here's what I find suspicious.

1) She's answering a statement that the other nurse didn't make. The nurse types her comment about having some bad luck and LL replies as though it's an accusation rather than an expression of sympathy. Now what's causing her to read the message as a criticism? Is she hypersensitive because she feels under suspicion? Because her own guilt is at the forefront of her mind?

''Not a lot I can do really''...well thanks for clarifying this thing that no one was talking about.

2) It reminds me of the time she asked 'do I need to be worried?' about the doctor's questions. She's more paranoid than you'd expect an innocent person to be.

3) Has anyone else noticed a pattern where she emphasises the extent of the child's illness? What I mean is, it can't just be a haemorrhage, it's always a massive haemorrhage. It's not just sepsis, it's overwhelming sepsis. I'm sure there's another example from her texts, but I'd need to check the screenshots. She's just very quick to give reasons.

4) The ''could have happened to any baby really'' is defensive language. I hear that as ''Oh this isn't suspicious at all! It could have happened to anyone. Don't look too closely. Nothing to see here.'' Except Lucy's the one bringing it up. I'm getting echoes of ''that we lost 3 and all in different circumstances?'' (paraphrasing bc don't remember exact words). The second half of that sentence was unconnected to the first. There was no need to add the 'in different circumstances'.

5) Her emotions don't match her words. She'll claim to be crying for hours or feeling numb and traumatised, but then she writes about the baby in such a detached, cold manner. It's dismissive too - ''could have happened to any baby really.'' To go from a state of grief to an abrupt 'not a lot I can do really!' is noticeably odd. I'm reading it thinking um you recovered quickly Luce!

If she's innocent I'll still think she's a weirdo.

 

[tennis ball michael]

Morning all,
I’ve been having a think with my cod psychotherapy hat on (not a trained professional) and I’ve been wondering whether some of the to and fro on the thread could (and bear with me on this one) tell us something about the feelings on the ward at the time of the allegations.

I wonder if we (the tattle thread) are playing out some of the dynamics that were about at the time Perhaps between those who were suspicious but had no proof and those who were going to wait until the reviews happened and due process followed?

also, it’s been bugging me and I’ll just go ahead and say it. I can’t change my profile name. But I am not a boy and I am not a tennis ball. These were things that popped into my head upon making the account.

 

[White]

Can anybody explain to me why on these Facebook groups everybody is a 100 percent she is NOT GUILTY

im just interested to see what makes them think that . A post uploaded before said including baby E that she’s not guilty . To me it seems obvious she’s guilty and today has definitely made me think she is . Anybody here not guilty and have any reasons why ?? Just interested to see why as them Facebook groups are adamant she’s not guilty

A lower level of intelligence maybe of the users. I'm on Facebook and initially joined some of the groups. However, quickly left as they approved (or not) each post. Also saying ridiculous things like she doesn't look like she could do it and saying she's nothing like Beverly Allitt etc, etc. Sorry FB but the groups seem to be biased, no debate or intelligent discussion there. Also I've seen posts saying the babies weren't attacked, as in blatantly caught holding a dagger or something. I don't know what some people were expecting. They seem much more simplistic.

 

[OoglyBoogly]

Hi everyone, I've been lurking since the start! I just wanted to clarify re night & day shifts - I am on the periphery of neonatal units (not clinical) so I have some kind of experience here. Night shifts are a bit like marmite in our place, some love them, some hate them. For night shifts, you get an uplift in pay for unsociable hours, so this is a big bonus to some, maybe Lucy, being a young person with a mortgage, liked the extra monetary aspect from them? Obviously nights are quieter as well, so it would have provided more opportunities for harming babies, as some of you have already said.

I am of the opinion that moving her to days, was more a concern about her performance, rather than because she was suspected of harming babies. A few others have mentioned this previously, but day shifts have more staff on and more opportunities for supervision. I guess they moved her to clerical duties because they were still concerned about her performance, IMO this might have been what her grievance was about.

It is incredibly hard to sack someone in the NHS (we have someone on our team who has been through loads of disciplinaries, missed shifts, is generally rude and cantankerous to everyone and they are still there) hence all the moving about and changing shifts. Plus why would your mind automatically go to "she's obviously harming them", you would tend to believe she was incompetent first!

I was initially on the fence, but now the more we hear, the more guilty she sounds.

 

[MmmB777]

I’m still guilty. Although I’ve caught up on the live reporting & it does give a bit more about her texts which I previously took that she wasn’t very concerned/sad but I do think there is an element of that whilst reading them.
I’d like to know more about the haemorrhages…I’ve googled a little & appears they seem rare? Is that the case? Or am I just not researching properly.
Would there be previous signs of this?
I’m just very sad today

Unlucky lucy, unexpected, sudden (her words) and extremely rare complications and medical events all happening on her shift. Time and time again. Worst luck of all. And then multiple witness statements to support theories she’s inappropriate, odd and lying. Multiple texts to show this is all happening when she is on shift. There’s more but I’ll stop! That’s some bad luck.

 

[Wellthisisinteresting]

GUILTY with the biggest capital G

 

[IGiveUp22]

I actually think the consultant standing up today to admit she got it wrong, didn’t think about it at the time & wished she’d have pushed for a PM is huge tbh. I really don’t think she’d do that, risking her entire career, unless she was sure she did in fact miss something that could have suggested deliberate cause of death. I can imagine BM will go to town on her though.

Also to the person that asked whether the police interviews would be released? My honest answer is that I don’t know but don’t think they would be. I was more hoping we’d hear them word for word in court at some point.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

That's an interesting stance because by proxy, they were a team, therefore potentially decisions that were made by the team could have led to the disastrous outcomes? It's not that they are on trial per se, but they are part of a much bigger picture so they can't just all be assumed to completely innocent/without any part to play?

A step too far. They are not on trial. They are not on trial by association. In no way.
There may be negligence, definitely some suboptimal care, but that is not what is being tried here.

 

[candyland_]

2. She seems awkward, childish and bratty. She always wanted her own way (to be in nursery 1) and was difficult to control. She did as she pleased despite being told by senior staff to stay in a particular room and to stay away from grieving parents. The woman that people humour to keep the peace. Probably couldn’t find a man

3. I’d say she had mental instability in the way she coped with each death. Saying how upset they made her feel, how she needed time off with mum and dad. Acted like a spoilt child when she didn’t get the designated baby she wanted.

4. Made in appropriate comments regarding predicted death. ‘He’s not going to leave here alive is he?’. She also told Baby Cs mum that he would die - she was surprised this news came from a nurse and not a doctor.

5. Comments ‘I’m not covering your shift again’ and everyone saying she was having bad luck would fall under being jinxed for me. Remember some colleagues said she was having a bad run right at the beginning too.

6. She was like The News of The World spreading the news that the babies had died. She would tell multiple colleagues, her mum, she kept the conversation going or striked another one up about their deaths when fobbed off by others.

7. What do I need to say? Bingo. She was present every time.

8. Trust me I’m a nurse. Accepted she was ‘an amazing nurse’ when told by others. Always wanted to be looking after the most poorly babies - she didn’t like it when ‘the new girl’ trumped her.

9. She fobbed colleague off regarding the deaths. She always planted seeds of causes. When police questioned her she would change her recollection or later claim to have no memory.

10. She must have been mainly on night shift due to then switching her pattern.

11. There has been one mentioned of the support given at another hospital she worked at but we don’t know the details.

13. Staff had suspicions. Parents were made to feel uncomfortable by her presence.

14. Me Me ME ME ME.

15. I can imagine she was overbearing over her designated babies. I think failing to call for help comes under this section.

16. Hangs around after the death. We don’t know if she heavily involved herself in any investigations but she didn’t raise her concerns at any point that we know off.

18. Liar.

20. Unable to listen to senior nurses orders. Was undergoing a grievance.

 

[OldBlondie]

“Letby: "It's the luck of the draw...unfortunately."

Anyone thinking this is feeling very similar to her “element of fate comment”

 

[friedeggontoast]

Walking in on LL harming the baby doesn’t have to be as clear cut as mum catching LL in the act, mum could hear horrendous screaming coming from her baby from the corridor outside the room, walked in to find LL in there alone with baby who was bleeding. I believe that LL heard someone coming and moved away from the cot.

LL hadn’t alarmed anyone or seemed to be trying to help. To me that is the mum walking in to find LL harming the baby.

 

[I’mThankyou_]

Are NEC symptoms a sliding scale do you know?

Obviously I can only explain our experience but they got progressively worse over a number of days, she was stopped and restarted on feeds several times, aspirates and PH levels of her NG were monitored closely. Her tummy was examined every few hours. By day 4 of life she hadn't had her first poo so that was the first warning sign, then she couldn't tolerate larger volumes of feeds she never made it past 1ml every 2 hours. Her aspirates got worse, she became uncomfortable, and would just scream because she was hungry but not physically digesting the food. Heart rate was everywhere she was having persistent bradys because of how uncomfortable she was. By day 5 she was completely NBM and had an xray and then rushed straight to surgery as the blockage was visible on the xray. It progressed quick for us.
Sorry if it doesn't make sense I've spent the past year blocking it from memory

 

[Notworthy]

And that’s cool with me but the people on the fence or NG have give no reason for how they came to that opinion - I’m asking for how they arrived there

A lot of us haven't 'arrived' anywhere. This is the prosecutions case, if she didn't look guilty during that then there would be no trial or at the very least, people would be asking why it's gone to trial/why are the CPS wasting taxpayers money. Until both the prosecution and the defence have rested their case, I am staying on the fence although, quite frankly, I don't have to justify anything and I'm a bit sick of seeing posts trying to shame us when it's a far more reasonable stance to take than getting the pitchforks out.

 

[feistyoneanddone]

Posting this with my mixed NICU parent & legal bod heads on. I am not directing this at anyone in particular because I have seen multiple posters say this, but the posts about the consent and memory box thing are frustrating me.

Nowhere does it say in the (frankly terrible) reporting that LL made up the individual components of the memory box without consent. The making up of the actual memory box would not require consent. It is the individual components that directly involve the baby - foot prints, lock of hair that require consent. Nowhere in the reporting is there ANY evidence that consent was refused, nowhere and yet people are posting that this happened.

The reporting simply quotes the mother of child E and F being surprised at being given the memory box. The reporting then goes on to mention many other items that went in the memory box.

Nowhere does the reporting state that LL took the photos of the babies with the teddy bears without consent.

My baby survived NICU and came home. I have a memory box. Photos were taken of my baby in NICU. Never was I once asked for consent for those photos to be taken. There are photos and some details written in a diary for her by the staff which I was given when she left hospital. The memory box contained her umbilical cord, hospital tags, cot name plate, her monitoring cuff, part of her NGT tube and some other bits and bobs.

Consent is required (legally) for photos to be shared publicly on the internet etc or in print such as posters and magazines. Consent would not be required for photographs of babies to be taken and shared with parents. There is no legal requirement for this. It’s along the same lines as a stranger in the street being able to take a photograph of you or your baby/child. There is no law to prevent this or to require consent. The hospitals own policy may require consent, this should be readily available on the internet but of course, it may now have been changed from 2015/2016. The legal requirements kick in about storage and the keeping of any photographs because of the data controller laws. We have had no reporting in the media to say LL took the photos on her personal phone inappropriately.

A hospital is private property and this is why they have the legal right to ask anyone to leave and can involve security and police if necessary. This includes patients families. This is also how they can legally refuse access to anyone e.g. refuse a parent the right to visit a baby/child in hospital.

People here are of course fully entitled to assume LL’s guilt or innocence. However, posting that she has done things (taken locks of hair, footprints without consent etc) when she has likely not is dodgy legal ground when she is currently on trial. If she had done those things without consent I would expect a) the prosecution to explicitly have said this in their opening and b) for the media to have stated this specifically.

 

[avabella]

The same old people kicking up a stink every night. Flounce off - nobody cares.. You’ve done it multiple times now

I don’t think it’s to do with ‘kicking up a stink’.

There are several posters who are completely *dominating* this whole thread and tone of conversation. Any deviation from the pitch fork *must be guilty* is met with sarcasm and distain, right away creating an unpleasant atmosphere.

It’s useless to say ‘it’s totally fine to think how you think’ and then proceed to type a huge explanation of all the reasons you’re *definitely* wrong.

 

[avabella]

Some new faces would be nice. Lately there's a lot of 'I'd be interested to hear...' then a bombard of people telling you why your opinion is wrong
I've only ever suggested my interpretation of certain pieces of evidence and tried to be objective, I believe in the right to a fair trial and I couldn't possibly say this far into a 6 month trial that I absolutely know what happened and anyone else must be wrong. It's arrogant, and honestly I'm not sure why you'd be on a forum for discussion if you can't hear what anyone else has to say.

Absolutely - it feels very cliquey at the moment and not a ‘nice’ place to be to discuss such an awful case. The sarcy jibes are really wearing but then if you pull anyone up you’re accused of . Would definitely do some good to take a walk now and then. Some fingers must have bloody RSI.

Take care, maybe chat in a few days god speed to you Daisy and all the other conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat wearing, unintelligent anti vaxxers