Lucy Letby Case #17

[Tofino]

Letby replied it was the "luck of the drawer [sic]".

Jones-Key: "You seem to be having some very bad luck though"

Even her mate recognises Lucy is having some very bad luck. We were only on E at this point so I’m interested to hear how the messages with colleagues keep going.

 

[MmmB777]

I think I mentioned this in an older thread a while ago, but the insulin is what i've been waiting for. If you accept foul play here then the defence goes from "no crime took place" to "crime took place, but it wasn't Lucy". That's such a massive loss defence-wise.

I'm struggling to think how you defend this properly. I'd argue we don't KNOW insulin was in the TPN bag, but if you can't provide a believable alternative then you're conceding that one. So the only other obvious angle is to say okay, it was foul play via insulin in the TPN bag, but here's why it could have been another nurse and not Lucy. Which is not an accusation you can make without some strong evidence backing it up...

This is all before they have their shit hot insulin expert giving evidence for the prosecution. She is guilty as fucking sin. Just read the later poisoning too. Even more damning as absolutely no baby was prescribed it at the time. Clearly she gave an even larger dose too (level was highest machine could read!?) as she didn’t want another baby surviving this. Luckily they did. Something tells me Letby knew about the fact insulin poisoning is much harder to prove if the victim dies. It’s why it’s a quite favoured drug for crimes of this nature. I wonder if we will ever see that Letby did indeed have some knowledge of or interest in the possible crimes open to people in healthcare.

She’s banging on about child f and his insulin levels rather a lot in her text messages for somebody that then apparently has no recollection of it. Especially as this ‘family will live with her forever’ and she is searching the parents at 1am. Lying bonmarche bitch.

 

[PeninsulaAndOriental]

I am firmly in the guilty camp, and I can’t see that changing.

BUT, one thing which is apparent is the standard of care at the COCH was disgraceful. Any doctor reading the insulin and C Peptide results would have known there was a poisoner at work. But, so far at least, it appears he did nothing.

Our life in their hands - makes you feel very safe, doesn’t it?

There ought to be two inquiries once this is over. The first, to look at ALL deaths under Letby during her career. The second, to look at the failings of the hospital as a whole and not just related to LL.

They’ll have to close the unit. It’s name is destroyed now.

 

[Tofino]

Even though I’m on the guilty train i do understand why some people have doubts especially when the defence have not presented their case yet.

What I really can’t get my head around is why people on Facebook strongly believe it wasn’t Lucy but someone else harming the babies? If they accept deliberate harm then why don’t they accept it’s Lucy? If they think there is not enough evidence for Lucy then there is even less for anyone else so it’s just absurd to be so convinced there is another murderer instead.

 

[Lucyxxxx]

I've voted NG. As we all know I've stated why throughout threads and even me pointing it out feels like repeating myself. In summary. What the prosecution are selling - I aint buying.

 

[candyland_]

If you were innocent wouldn’t you hold your hands up by the third arrest and say OK I’m a nosy bastard - I searched god knows who on Facebook but I didn’t hurt those babies? She doesn’t recall searching one parent in the case which just makes me think she a liar. I think anyone else would rack their brains to remember if you had an allegation this dire being made about you
She probably thought they would never be able to prove it was her and had an air of arrogance about her - especially since she was released without charge twice.

I also think there will be documentaries about her. They always have experts study their behaviour during police interviews so I think it’s highly likely they had them watching her during her arrests to help build a picture about her.

 

[candyland_]

I think she saw herself as higher up and more authoritative than she was. She wasn’t a shift leader or a doctor so I don’t know why she needed to involve herself in every babies care. It’s a bit overbearing. She claims to have more experience than others - but she was still only a 25 year old. There would have been staff in the role for 20+ years.

 

[Takemetoyourbuffet]

If the note was found in the house search when she was first arrested then it must have been written before she'd actually been accused of anything?

Granted she was on clerical duties but the line from the police and hospital wasn't that it was a murder investigation; “Approaching the police is not something we have undertaken lightly. This is to ensure we have been completely thorough in understanding what has happened here and to get the answers we and the families so desperately want.”

Absolutely she as an innocent person might be worried about the implications of being on clerical duties at the same time as the investigation and possibly being falsely accused. But I do find it hard to believe that at that stage an innocent person would be so worried and anguished that they would have an outpouring of emotion of that intensity. Just doesn't add up to me.

Also... "On purpose"

 

[Tofino]

Spoiler: Twitter update (poss upsetting)

 

[raspberryjuice]

I am pretty surprised BM has not cross examined him at all today. I know he said he will at a future date (presumably the other insulin case?), but for me, if I was sat in that room listening to the evidence, looking at the families, knowing everything we’ve heard already I would really struggle to keep an open mind from this point. Her own defence barrister can’t come up with anything to dispute the evidence a doctor has given to say this baby was definitely poisoned. He isn’t trying to claim an accident, plant seeds of reasonable doubt, give alternative explanations - he is simply going “you’ve said it’s poisoning - I’m not going to question that”. That thought will be firmly in their mind now, and from a defence point of view I think it will be pretty difficult to try and argue and change that in a few weeks when we get to the next insulin case.

I know most of us are all very strong in our opinions on here and a lot of us made our minds up weeks ago. But it is very different being in court. You hear so much information and conflicting information from both sides constantly and you really do keep an open mind as much as you can. When I did jury duty I didn’t make my mind up fully until something the defendant said on the stand in his defence which made me believe he was guilty. I really think for LL, this could be that moment for the jurors sitting in court today.

 

[struggs123]

I've gone for unsure. Previously I've said guilty, but I dunno...I'm going to wait for more evidence.

This is me to be honest. I feel like there was more going on beyond 'normal' deterioration, and certainly some of LLs actions and messages seem odd; but if I was on the jury I wouldn't be able to say I believed she was guilty beyond reasonable doubt at this point. Open minded though.

 

[Cheddar Chalpupa]

I wonder if the salsa texts are to show she’s done this and just doesn’t care? She’s left work, knowing she’s set this baby up with a TPN bag poisoned with insulin that she knows has the potential to kill at worst or make the baby extremely poorly at best and rather than sitting at home feeling guilty or regretting what she’s done, she’s off out dancing with a colleague. It shows she’s completely removed from any kind of normal emotional response to what she’s doing.

That was my thought on this. She's set that bag up knowing a baby is going to slowly die and she's fucked off to Salsa, to what kill the time to stop herself excitedly checking her phone for updates? She even texted her colleague on her way home for an update. Absolutely chilling.

 

[MmmB777]

It’s exactly as expected given it’s a hospital scene.

I wish somebody had informed the two independent reviews, the police and the CPS that there was “nothing” to link Letby to all these incidents she was present at. I am desperately trying not to post one of my annoying lists of all the ways in which she is VERY much linked
But I guess it is a lot easier to say there is “nothing” that links her rather than try to explain away multiple multiple reasons she absolutely is linked as totally innocent in one giant A-Q post. Even Benny doesn’t fancy doing that. Because it will look ridiculous.
Until there was toxicology involved, nothing ‘linked’ Shipman to all the old ladies dying except- well him being there directly before they died. Thank goodness someone noticed the link.

 

[candyland_]

She’s only thinking about herself in that note.

 

[raspberryjuice]

I’m pages and pages behind on the thread, going to start catching up here shortly. But before then just want to say a massive thanks to @docmum and @mRsKbRoOkS for both taking the time to explain exactly how the insulin ins and outs works, and peptides etc. It has made reading the live reporting of Dr Gibbs this morning so much easier, and I’m able to follow it understanding exactly what he is saying, so thanks again fellas

I was just coming to say exactly this. The live feed reporting sort of misses the importance of the peptides and the insulin (I’m sure in court it was clearer though) so I’m really grateful that we’d had such a detailed and clear explanation of how it works before we heard the evidence being presented.




Ben Myers KC, for Letby's defence, explains on this count [for Child F], Dr Gibbs will not be asked any questions on his evidence.

He adds that Dr Gibbs will be cross-examined on a future occasion in the trial on evidence that has been raised.

so they’re not questioning anything Dr Gibbs has said today, and her defence accept “The doctor says this insulin result showed Child F had been given a pharmaceutical form of insulin administered, and he "should have never received it".”

 

[PeninsulaAndOriental]

I have tried looking at this from every angle you can imagine. I’ve tried to entertain the thought of her being innocent, and looking at ways to support that.

But when I do, I always come back to the same conclusion: she has to be guilty.

She’s been charged with 7 murders and 10 attacks - there’s no smoke without fire, and the insulin cases are what seals it for me.

The defence is offering the ‘best’ angle for her innocence. And all they keep saying is the babies were sick, it was multiple failings and someone else did the insulin.

That just doesn’t wash with me.

To believe there was someone else there, killing babies trying to frame Lucy, it stretches credibility beyond its limits.

This poisoner suddenly decided to attack two babies, but has now stopped because…well, we don’t know why, they’ve just stopped.

Yes she is entitled to a fair trial, as was Shipman, but I really do believe the ‘she’s innocent’ brigade are only saying this because of how she LOOKS. Its called ‘lookism’ and we humans are very talented at it.

I say that if we had an old, short, fat, balding man in the dock instead of Letby, there wouldn’t be a single person protesting his innocence. The Facebook Mob Groups would not exist either.

You can’t judge a book by its cover.

 

[tinkertailorsoldierspy]

Very interesting that there's no questioning for Dr Gibbs. That seems huge for the prosecution.

 

[Hinchawakening]

De rail… but yesterday in the playground one of the mums was rushing in a bit flustered… I asked if she was alright and she said ‘yeah just lone parenting and need to get better at it, hubby is on jury service so I’m juggling life without him currently’ well you can imagine how far up my ears pricked I know they aren’t allowed to discuss etc and it could be any case he’s on. Won’t stop me asking her when I see her ‘he’s not doing the trail for the nurse accused of murdering babies is he’ I think she’d confirm or deny either way but I know she ain’t the type to spill any tea (not that she should have any, hubby shouldn’t be discussing ) but made me think, if you were on service, despite instructions not to, would you talk to your OH about it? Admittedly, I can’t hold my own shit and can talk the hind legs off a donkey so I’d be bursting at the seams to offload on him!

 

[Deeznutslol]

I’ve voted unsure, however if I was a member of the jury and had to say at this moment if I was G/NG I’d have to say NG based on the evidence given so far.

 

[F1Grid]

A blood test is recorded for insulin to the Royal Liverpool Hospital at 5.56pm. The court hears those results did not come back for a week.

Is this the blood test that showed the high result? Why would it take a week for the results, would that have changed anything if they had results quicker

The test is done by immunoassay so physically requires more time to run (70 minutes of waiting, not including setup). Its also not an urgent test, because the clinician should be treating the blood sugar in the meantime. The result didn't change anything acutely, what it would do is tell you if the baby had an insulinoma, or whether it was synthetic insulin in combination with a C-peptide level.

Another thing that sticks out to me is that they can pretty definitively say it's the bag with the insulin in. They changed everything downstream at some point with no improvement, but when they changed the TPN back F got better.

TPN is made bespoke for each child, so there is no reason for anyone to inject anyone in, so they can't say the wrong drug was accidentally picked. Additionally, I suspect Aseptic Pharmacy will be able to prove there was no insulin in their department where the bag was made up.

LL signed for that bag alone, rather than having a second checker as is normal practice. When you check bags together, you give them a squeeze and check for contamination via injection. There were sufficient staff for LL to have a check if needed, and TPN isn't a drug you need to give instantly or they die. You can wait a few minutes and do it properly.

I think they've got her on this one.