Lucy Letby Case #16

[DianaBanana]

I am genuinely not trying to argue with you for arguments sake at all. I am happy to be proven wrong. I am entirely open to having missed something or forgotten something in all that I have read so far. As far as I can recall reading, consent was only explicitly discussed in terms of footprints and hair, I haven’t seen anywhere where consent is specifically mentioned for the memory box itself. Whether thats via LL documenting that or being said on the stand etc. If I have missed this, then I would like to see it. I think when we are talking about someone’s guilt or innocence in a legal case then we must be 100% accurate. If there is reporting that shows that LL documented specific consent for the memory box itself and then the mum specifically stating she did not give consent for the memory box itself then of course I will apologise as its entirely possible I have missed that.

I will be interested in seeing if the defence raise this when they give their case.

I have no theories about the insulin at all as we haven’t heard the evidence yet. I just didn’t know until yesterday that both E & F were legitimately prescribed and given insulin and I find that interesting as the somewhat biased reporting so far has suggested that there was no legitimate reason whatsoever for insulin to be on the ward at the time, when clearly there was.

I think the second insulin baby is the one when no babies on the ward were prescribed insulin. Not baby F.

I believe it was after she was put on clerical duties which was before first arrest/interview. But we have not had this explicitly confirmed I don’t believe. I would also like it to be clarified if anything else at all in the unit changed at the same time as the deaths/collapses stopped. Any change in policies/procedures/other staffing such as doctors etc.

I think the unit was downgraded at the same time as Lucy was put on clerical duties. So the decrease in deaths at that time doesn’t really tell us anything.

 

[DianaBanana]

I'm not convinced the query dried blood around the mouth was the same source or incident (not sure how to put it) as the fresh bleeding when the reg got there.

I think the mum described it as still wet. And that Lucy had told her it was blood from irritation from the NGT.

But Lucy’s retrospective note says prior to the 9pm feed there was a mucky aspirate.

So if it was mucky aspirate, why did she tell the Mum it was blood due to irritation? There's no doubt in my mind that after her 9pm visit that Mum was worried sick that her child was bleeding.

Obviously that's just my interpretation and I may well be wrong.

 

[OldBlondie]

Thought I’d post these for anyone not on Twitter and getting no live reporting at all. This is from Mersey hack so far

 

[Daisydunn15]

I see where you are coming from but by that logic this would apply across healthcare, and it doesn't.

The doctor 'changing her mind' well of course, in hindsight they recognise that a post mortem would have been beneficial- they're not often done on neonates.

I didn't know they weren't often done. But also babies don't die unexpectedly so surely in these cases they'd be encouraged if they really were as unexpected and sudden as we're being told?

 

[friedeggontoast]

Possibly, but she was also in the ICU room alone and could have been busy with any number of things, if the screaming was that bad and could be heard from the corridor, I'd expect someone to pop their head in and check everything was OK. In my experience good nurses wouldn't hear a 'horrendous' scream and think 'ah they'll be fine in there alone' or maybe I've just worked in better teams.
I'm not calling the mother a liar, I'm just saying is a subjective measurement and I'm sure my babies cry is more awful to me than it is to anyone else.

Genuinely curious, if you think LL isn’t responsible for the twins deaths, what do you think happened?
If they were well enough to be transferring a hospital closer to home and doing well, what happened for them to deteriorate so rapidly?

 

[StatusWoe]

I’ve skipped the kitten heels and clothes she might wear or bags she may carry threads as it’s distasteful and she’s still on trial so on par with bullying. Just here to read the facts and genuine opinions - guilty or not. Not to buffer the threads with what she may or may not wear. I’ve got better things to do with my time -even if she guilty CBA if she ever wore kitten heels.

See I have a totally different view of those conversations. People are sharing jokes during the weekend (when there's no updates anyway) to try and lighten the mood and resolve some of the tensions that keep flaring up between posters. Nobody is making light of the case itself; I think it's clear that everyone here has total respect and sympathy for the victims. I doubt anyone actually cares whether or not Lucy wears kitten heels! It's just a silly joke. Tattle's a gossip forum after all, and I've seen worse criticisms of people's clothing/appearance on the other threads.

Fair enough if you don't feel the same way, but I've found it a welcome relief from this disturbing case.

 

[avabella]

If somebody was murdering babies, if you can allow that for a minute as a hypothetical- would you expect causes of death to be hard to explain and hard to ascertain? I personally would. If other causes of huge blood loss are rare and she never expected physical trauma caused by somebody, she has given a reason. She can see now it is wrong. I don’t see how it changes anything at all to do with Letby’s innocence but I see Myers has been successful in making people think that it does.

So let's just play devils advocate here - how come LL forgetting why she searched for parents on Facebook years after the fact is suspicious, but a Consultant passing off an infant's death as something that she wasn't actually sure about, and discouraging a PM isn't?

 

[Daisydunn15]

Still unsure for me, I think I will be until we've heard the rest.. I keep trying to understand or rationalise some of the prosecution evidence in my head so waiting to see what kind of defence we hear.

 

[Tofino]

Honestly the two versions simpy CAN'T coexist together. It really is either a case that Letby is telling the truth OR the parents.

I understand people wanting to sit on the fence in an attempt to be balanced but in certain incidents you have to decide yourself which you think is the correct/real version.

That means admitting in scenarios like we have been presented with today that one side (be it the defence or prosecution) is CLEARLY lying.

I think any omissions or incorrect notes are always going to be justified as it being so busy on the unit that it can be easy to forget to add some details or might mistake what time it is because it seems like it happens a lot in the healthcare profession. Similar with Facebook searches, notes at home etc. And each one in isolation I can understand why it may be innocent but we have a collection of things like this spanning across 5 children now, 4 sets of parents. And more to come. Haven’t the 4 so far all had some sort of event with Lucy that has been explained as their trauma affecting their memory? That the events were probably not as bad as the parents remembered? Basically downplaying or disregarding the parents account.

There’s a danger that only seeing an innocent explanation for hundreds of small bits of evidence in isolation means the sheer volume of suspicious behaviour is missed. Because whilst there can be an innocent explanation, there can also be a suspicious one. I don’t believe someone can be that unfortunate / unlucky that they are wrongly accused of murder but display SO MUCH suspicious behaviour.

 

[dual2099]

Watch the Charles Cullen documentary, not the film.

It says exactky the same. The patients he killed were improving.

His defence was he wanted to put them out of their misery. That wasn’t the case. Most were nearly about to be discharged.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

Is this fredo pic Lucy? I can speak little Spanish and pretty sure the head line translates to something a long the lines of the chilling confession of a nurse accused

She looks like my Grandson when I say ‘say cheese’. Although my grandson is a lovely fella.

 

[dual2099]

I know it’s been mentioned about the Facebook searching and people not finding it significant. To be honest as individual incidents you can’t see too much in it. Just somebody being nosey, and did it to other parents too. Now, some say they’ve done it too and everybody ‘stalks’ now and again. But to this extent? It’s the patterns in which she’s doing it. And why was she searching other parents? Ones whose babies where not harmed. That in itself seems quite suspicious. Yes, we’ve all Facebook stalked an ex boyfriend or whatever, who hasn’t. But doing this in a professional manner seems really off. Ok, you could say she really wanted to know how these parents were getting on after losing their baby…but to keep doing it? You cannot deny that’s suspicious.


The texts messages on face value could seem quite innocent - but to start saying ‘ well these things happen, and it’s the luck of the draw ‘ after a baby has died. And c’mon, surely you’d be thinking what the hell is wrong with me if it keeps happening on my shift! But she’s not even questioning it.

I don’t know if anybody has seen the new Netflix documentary about the “Good Nurse” but it’s very interesting how similar the patterns are and how it took a long time to get investigated. The hospitals did not want it and wanted it covered up.

To be honest it’s convinced me more of my thoughts on Letby.

 

[dottynotty]

Honestly this thread has been a minefield tonight. Can’t do right for doing wrong I don’t care what people think of me or my posts. I just don’t reply to anything I disagree with, or posters that the conversation is just going round In circles with, as I’m trying not to let anything to do with me derail tonight. There have been everywhere tonight though

directed at me? Get a grip. It’s a public forum and people can disagree. It’s tattle.

 

[slingo16]

I’m open to peoples opinions. But I’d also like people to explain why they have a NG verdict atm. I don’t think that’s unreasonable or rude or arrogant??

If 7 cats died in the same street, within a specific time and shared the same symptoms, and the same neighbor was always around - It’s fair to assume someone might be responsible for the cats deaths, no?

Therefore my Q to the NG train (not the ‘On the fence’ train) is - If LL is NG, is someone else responsible or are these deaths and subsequent other events all a coincidence?

I haven’t tried to bait anyone or dismiss their opinion. But you can’t preach wanting a discussion and then refuse to explain your NG decision… I want to hear why, not to try disprove or argue, because I’m genuinely curious.

Just to be clear I’m unsure atm but if it ended today I’d be NG, the 7 cats analogy, imagine there are 17 cats that die in that time frame but we only hear of the 7 that link to the neighbour. I think the 10 other deaths are really relevant. Was sub optimal care a factor in these deaths or are there genuine medical explanations. It really matters if poor care was an issue that would really help her case, I’ve personally not heard anything yet, that would make me 100% confident whether she did it or not. and therefore would have to say NG. ( if it ended today )

 

[Haveyouanywool]

I'd certainly agree it's not good to leave a baby crying if you can help them, I mean babies cry and mothers are more sensitive to their crying than other people so if she was busy she may have been finishing up then getting to it. It's definitely not what the prosecution meant though, there's no way when they said she interrupted LL attacking the baby, that they meant attacking as in not responding to his cries.

I agree from what the Prosecution said you could get the impression she was standing over the incubator which is misleading.
I think, if you want to be pedantic, he said in the process of harming the baby, it really was a process and this seems to be the start.

 

[MmmB777]

I'm not saying I believe LL's is true, she can only really go from what she's documented and I'm just saying lots of things can impact on your documentation at the time. It's not great but it happens. The police interviews to me read like she's backing up her initial documentation rather than offering any new memories, which is usually what happens when you're asked about care you delivered years ago.
I think the mum probably was there closer to 9 to bring the breast milk and that she saw something on his face, I just don't think I've seen enough to say LL maliciously omitted this from her notes. She did state there was a mucky aspirate which we don't know happened when the mum was there or not, so is acknowledging that there are issues with him.

Sorry I absolutely cannot agree. The two versions do not and can not coexist. You’ve said that you think mum came close to nine and that she saw something on his face- what does Letby say about this? She says the conversation of what was on his face did not happen. Are you saying it did happen and mum is misremembering Letby telling her the blood was from irritation from the feeding tube (inventing a different conversation) that she actually told her it was bile? And then she tells mum to leave which Letby says she would not have done- someone has to be right. Is baby screaming from the aspiration that mum can’t remember then or the screaming is just crying and mum is again inventing things but forgetting big details also. Absolutely everybody is wrong except Letby, again!

 

[Deeznutslol]

Definitely a huge huge mistake on her part but how much easier would it be for her to have stood up in court & stood by her decision? Which would have made her look better job wise

I mean, to be fair her career is neither here nor there at this point. If she stands up in court and defends her decision and the defence absolutely wreck her during the cross examination, she’s going to look even worse and more incompetent. I think it’s looks far better for her that she’s just been honest and admitted the mistake.

 

[OldBlondie]

There were no cameras, we aren't going to get a video of her standing over a baby physically harming them.

She lied about this whole scenario. That is a major red flag to me. The mother saw blood on her baby and the baby later died of blood loss.

Maybe you believe the mother didn't see blood she saw green bile and just misremembered that, that she misremembered the 9pm feed and just never showed up for it despite not knowing it was being marked as omitted, that she rang her husband and we have proof of a phonecall to her husband about this scenario with Letby and her baby but both of them are actually misremembering the conversation they had and they have both totally fabricated this event.

Or

You can believe them and believe that Letby lied about ALL of this for a sinister reason.

Letby lied about the mother showing up at 9pm. Why did she do that?

I’m glad others are explaining it better than me, I’m on the verge of giving up at this point. I sometimes think people are so desperate to believe LL didn’t do this (as in kill all the babies), that they will just keep making up all kinds of reasons and excuses rather than just accept LL is lying I mean it’s fine for people to do that and believe that, but it’s just coming across as bizarre sometimes and doesn’t make sense at all to me

 

[Tofino]

Regardless of any legal technicalities, I’m really surprised people think it’s acceptable for hospital staff to take photos of your child without consent first.

Collecting things for a memory box that already exist, like photos you have already consented to or name tags etc is different to doing things like taking a lock of hair and footprints for a memory box without permission.

I’m saying this generally, not just aimed at this case.

However whilst it’s not been explicitly stated about consent, my interpretation of mum’s reaction is that she was not asked about these things. I appreciate people will see it differently but that’s still my take on it. Nobody knows for certain either way.

 

[friedeggontoast]

You're completely entitled to believe what you want, but I'd want to see more evidence that she was attacking them, and I was expecting much more based on their opening statement than her being in the room, not near the cot while he cried. I think a lot of people were thinking the attack would be a bigger thing for the prosecution.

It wasn’t just crying though. The mum described it as horrendous screaming with blood around his mouth.
This wasn’t a baby having a cry this was a baby screaming in pain.