Lucy Letby Case #16

[MmmB777]

I'm not saying everyone is wrong except LL, that's the opposite of what I'm saying?
We know that LL's notes are written retrospectively this night, that could be why there's nothing about the blood on his face, and she wouldn't document every interaction with the mother, so years later when interviewed, is unlikely to recall specifics.
We don't know that the baby is screaming from being aspirated, but how bad crying is, is very subjective.
I'm not saying anyone is misremembering anything, I think the mum is probably more likely to remember some bits because that's her baby, to LL its one of many patients. That doesn't mean I think she would remember every detail perfectly, such as the colour of the blood.

Sorry I still cannot see at all how the two accounts can coexist at all and have explained why. She didn’t document the blood on his face because it was retrospective?! she didn’t tell anyone about the blood then at all! That’s why she has to say the mother didn’t come at nine and see what she saw. Because it implicates her hugely - the baby went on to die with huge blood loss. You’ve said she gained nothing from not telling the truth her but she does hugely. Letby doesn’t just say she can’t remember though she says she wouldn’t have said those things. That’s not the same. So somebody is right and somebody is wrong. And I know who I believe. Should she have got consent for the memory box or do you believe Letby when she says she did? If that’s a mistake on Letby’s part how come the doctor that clearly called the parents of the wrong baby by accident was vilified. Or again the mother is wrong and she wasn’t surprised by the box at all and had been asked about it. How come a baby doing really well then very rapidly bled heavily (after mum mistook blood eh terrible coincidence) and died on Letby’s shift after so many other unexpected/sudden/rare deaths also on her shifts so much so that multiple people are expressing what awful luck she’s having. And that is what you have to conclude isn’t it? You have to say she was phenomenally unlucky If she’s innocent.

 

[MmmB777]

cannot imagine

 

[dual2099]

Medical murders are notoriously hard to prove. Hence why this case has taken this long to get to court. If you look at previous cases it’s been pretty similar, Harold Shipman, Beverley Alitt and Charles Cullen ( please watch the Netflix documentary if you have not )

The thing is in a situation like a hospital where somebody is a doctor or a nurse you won’t simply catch them ‘red handed’. I think that’s what some people think , there is no physical evidence so how do we know? Well that’s why it’s taken this long to get here, they have piece so many things together.

We have a doctor near us who has been accused of helping patients ‘on their way’ but it still has not gone to court due to the fact it’s incredibly hard to prove for exactly those reasons, also you could argue that doctors and nurses are under so much pressure they are just given an impossible job. So who is to blame?


It’s important to keep an open mind, I do think cover ups do happen, but not in this case, I was very open minded in the beginning, but now I’m not.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

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.

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?

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

But Letby says the incident did not happen at all and that Mum wasn’t there at nine. She can’t not be there at nine at all and see the bile can she? Mum also says that Letby told her the blood was from irritation - not bile so Letby at this point agrees with mum it’s blood and gives an explanation for said blood. Again Letby says none of that happened. So you can think she saw bile but Letby says none of it ever happened, not sure the point of having those two theories coexisting. So either this is invented by mum and letby is right that it never happened, or mum saw bile but Letby explained it was blood, or Letby is a liar.

Oh and one more layer of unlucky for Letby of course - unlucky that somebody else poisoned two babies on her shifts with insulin also.

No matter which way you cut it, Letby lied one way or the other.

 

[docmum]

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain the whole coroner/inquest process. I found it really interesting, and cleared up a few points that I’d been wondering about. You have also mentioned that suspecting a colleague of harming a patient, is the last thing you’d imagine. So could see how this could be part of the reason it took so long for LL’s colleagues to have any real firm suspicions of her. The part of your post that I have quoted is the very chilling to think about. A few people, including myself have had posts were we had wondered if there were more babies before A, and in between the ones involved in the trial, that she had been hurting in minor ways. Such as removing nasal prongs temporarily, or slightly moving tubes, maybe making babies wait slightly longer for feeds that kind of thing. I feel there’s something very sadistic to her, and I feel that when we get to E there’s a shift in LL, in being more devious but also in how sadistic her methods of hurting babies becomes. This is just in my opinion after reading about the methods, and the inclusion of finding blood, and over feeding, and multiple attempts on the same baby, and beginning to inflict a lot of more obvious pain on some of the babies from E onwards

i think (obviously if it is beyond reasonable doubt she is guilty) that these are the only cases that would be able to stand up in court with sufficient evidence as documented in the notes to get a conviction. I don’t know the case whatsoever personally, but I could strongly suspect that there are many many more cases of her cruelty where there wasn’t enough to convince a jury, and the cps wouldn’t want to negatively influence a jury where doubt over one baby’s harm could be cast. I truly believe a few sets of notes had to be put in to the pile where there was another possible explainable cause of death or where evidence wasn’t available to prove any more (ie no exhumation, no PM). This also does reference what’s just been mentioned about bias and I think that will play a huge part in the defences argument eg the description of the unusual rash. But I really do think this rash (just as an example) may have been noted by other medics or staff on other occasions but not documented as such since it didn’t fit a known pattern of illness. In retrospect it is fitting with her. At the time it was part of an emergency situation where the sick baby took precedent. I have no doubt in my mind that the amount it has taken to produce the evidence they have got that she is guilty and likely guilty of more twisted things we’ll thankfully never know the extent of, and I think that whoever blew the whistle to initially voice their concerns over her must have been in mental anguish then and ever since.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

It would be quite incredible for the mum to have such trauma that she invented or misremembered this scheduled 9pm feed this way and that the dad also remembers it or is saying he remembers it this way. Again the 10pm incident is very different. It’s not that they can be confusing the two incidents. Letby says the 9pm one did not happen, she did not see blood, she did not tell the mum blood was from the irritation, she did not send mum away.

It would also be quite incredible that she made a phone call to her husband at that time as well.

It's just not reasonable to assume the mother, the father, the SHO are all lying/misremembering when we have phone calls and the fact that the feed was scheduled for 9pm to back up their version of events.

 

[Tofino]

I think when we are talking about someone’s guilt or innocence in a legal case then we must be 100% accurate.

I don’t think a single person on this thread can claim they are being 100% accurate given we are all making our own interpretations of what we are hearing and speculating on a lot of stuff, especially when we are not in court and hearing every tiny detail.

You are of course entitled to your own opinion on the consent issue and not want to assume anything that’s not been said. But I don’t agree that posters are only allowed to make an interpretation if we are 100% accurate. Our opinions are not legally relevant to the trial.

In the absence of knowing either way if parents consented, my interpretation of the mums reaction and Lucy’s note is that she unlikely have consent. I may not be 100% accurate but I don’t care as for now, unless I hear more about it, it’s just my opinion.

 

[MmmB777]

But she documents bile at 9pm and omits feed, its not like she's claiming he was perfect at 9 and there was nothing to note. Maybe documenting in retrospect she forgot all about the small amount of blood after the events of the night.. maybe she's a lying, murderous cunt, who knows? I just don't understand what she's gaining by saying that didn't happen if it did, when she's documenting the aspirate and he's known to have feeding issues.

She says the sho told her to omit feed and they dispute that and she says mum was informed of the aspirate and none of that happened. We only have Letby’s word there was a bile aspirate. She is saying mum didn’t come at 9 and they did not have those conversations and there was no blood at 9 at all so all of that interaction is invented by mum. I don’t believe that is at all possible or that the dad would be able/willing to also misremember the mums account of that interaction. II think if you are to believe Letby is right then you have to say that the whole thing is invented by mum. The mum was due to give the feed at 9pm so she had every reason to be there then and Letby’s account would mean she missed that. Letby has everything to gain by changing mums account of things because baby was in distress and bleeding and she did nothing about it. If there had been bleeding then that is not accounted for in notes then that has huge implications for what will happen later for this baby as it had massive blood loss and presumably went from being healthy enough to be transferred, incredibly good obs, to bleeding vast amounts a short while later. Perhaps I’m not explaining it well and somebody like @Tofino who has a better grasp of the wiki could try and explain what I mean. I’ve got a lurgy and might not make sense.

 

[brightonbarbie]

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

I think it’s a combination of the following:

- distrust for authority (think Covid deniers)
- disbelief that a young woman who trained as a nurse could be capable of something like this
-

 

[struggs123]

She seems content she wouldn't have done anything differently, it's not overly unusual for someone on call to support the doctors on the ward via phone and then go in if it's deemed necessary. Seems she was apologising for not pushing for the post mortem rather than the care the baby recieved, nothing to suggest the outcome would have sadly been any different. There are lots of issues that have been raised over the years about the on call system (not a criticism to those on call, just the sustainability and effectiveness of the system). We don't know if she was supporting someone else at the same time or anything either, of course in hindsight recognises it would have been better to go quicker but we are all blessed with the gift of hindsight.

 

[avabella]

To me this is a head turn to the NG side for me. I'll try and write it as succinctly as I can -

I've said before about thresholds and tolerance levels - and how these can become skewed dependent on your experiences/situation.

A Consultant going along with a cause of death and not actively encouraging a PM even if she had a tiny niggle of doubt puts me right into the negligent camp. If a CONSULTANT can't even get it right for these babies in death, what guarantee do we have of staff getting it right for these babies in life?

I have every respect for medical professionals and especially in a role like this, it must be bloody hard work. But I think they were overloaded, perhaps left to make decisions they shouldn't have, accepted babies that were too poorly for their skill set and it all went to shit.


Edited to add: I know there's chat about the deaths/collapses when she was moved to days - but as far as I'm away at the moment - that's a prosecution statement and to me it seems very sensationalist like many of their other statements so far. I really would like to know exact stats of deaths/collapses whether LL was there or not.

 

[Treesy19]

I think a liar cannot keep track of the lies, tbh.

 

[candyland_]

I honestly can't get my head around a consultant identifying a cause of death that they're not convinced by and then telling the parents that there's 'little point' in a PM and it wouldn't tell them much. Absolutely awful.

It comes across as tick box and move on behaviour.

 

[raspberryjuice]

I think it really puts it in perspective how little and delicate these babies are when we’re talking about 1ml feeds.

 

[xhc___]

I am really glad they’ve saved your life. But as someone who works on the front line I see disappointed patients most days who are let down by a system that has inadequate funding.

I’ve said it before, the NHS has just spent 100s of thousands of pounds to save my life. Everyone at the GP’s practice, from the receptionists up, have been fab.

 

[avabella]

View attachment 1734644
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.

I appreciate you taking the time to go through it point by point but I really think most of them are complete reaches. It’s based on such little context and bias.

We know nothing of her previous life/relationship history. We’ve seen photographs of her on nights out where she looks like she’s having a fun, easy going time.


Comments like ‘he’s going, he’s going’ are so out of context that it’s hard to get an accurate picture of how it was said. The ‘trust me I’m a nurse’ comment seems to be one the prosecution have made up, as the mother didn’t corroborate it on the stand.

Heading into a meeting now.

 

[MmmB777]

Same for me Ish! I don't know that she's guilty of all the deaths because the ward sounds like a shit show and the Kent report shows how this causes deaths.

But I can't get past the insulin which says guilty to me, and I can't bring myself to read anything about today's babies. It's just too much. So basically, I'm uninformed and dunno now.

Sorry I understand why people have avoided today and not everyone can keep up fully but today has been incredibly compelling for the prosecution. It would be good to have some theories from ng and unsure voters after today because it’s often said that people dominate or it’s an echo chamber when obviously a majority of people vote G on the poll and also seem to follow it v closely and have been very vocal today. It would be a shame if we didn’t hear the other side and their rational and their explanations for what we’ve heard today and I do hope it’s not going to be thought of or expressed that it wasn’t allowed somehow x

 

[dottynotty]

Erm, I don't think kitten heels and fella jokes are on a par with quoting something that was about washing dead babies. That's an awful thing to even imply. Baby loss is a whole different level. Noones heart aches everyday because they don't have their kitten heels.

It's not about not being able to post anything. But that went too far. And it's not about "biting" whatever that is, or taking your bat and ball home, it's about realising you have just been really bloody insensitive on a thread about baby loss, and used it for a laugh.

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.

 

[MmmB777]

Thats where the mix up has occurred - I had thought it was part of the prosecution case that no one had been prescribed it for any of charges.

However, all of the reporting has a bias to it IMO as its all being worded as if she is guilty.

My interpretation is she’s had a fair crack tbh. Most of social media is ablaze with her innocence and hospital coverups (from what posters here have described, I don’t look), it’s barely on the radar of absolutely anyone I know yet could be one of the worst crimes we’ll ever see and we have found out zilch about her past or boyfriends. The headlines are outrageous at times but they’re using content from the case in most cases I imagine and I don’t think a click bait headline is exclusive to this case. Every article I’ve read includes the defence questioning and that she denies all charges. I don’t know I think its all been very low profile considering what a huge case it potentially will be with either verdict. Another differing opinion I’m afraid and not one I’m too fussed with exploring at this point.