Lucy Letby Case #18

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

@PeninsulaAndOriental it's a very rare case, if there wasn't anything deeper it'd be far more common. Motive will be a huge part of the case I would've thought and it's natural to think of reasons why. I guess there are two camps, the ones who wanna know every little reason that could've added up to her doing this and then others who are content to just say "meh she's a psycho she did it just because"-that's not good enough for me sorry.

But they don't always have a reason... I would love for there to be one, just to make sense of the utter depravity and pointless destruction of life but she may have simply just enjoyed killing and that's it.

That Cullen guy, the killer nurse, killed people at random and while he wasn't even around.

He poisoned bags and it was the luck of the draw who got them. He had an estimated 400 victims but he couldn't even name a 10th of them because he simply didn't know who had ended up dying by his hand.

 

[MmmB777]

But they don't always have a reason... I would love for there to be one, just to make sense of the utter depravity and pointless destruction of life but she may have simply just enjoyed killing and that's it.

That Cullen guy, the killer nurse, killed people at random and while he wasn't even around.

He poisoned bags and it was the luck of the draw who got them. He had an estimated 400 victims but he couldn't even name a 10th of them because he simply didn't know who had ended up dying by his hand.

He did try to twist it to the old mercy killing chestnut but that just didn’t add up at all, it usually doesn’t. There were things about his past that could give you an explanation of sorts though. At least he confessed I suppose. I don’t know if Letby will. I wonder if sitting down with Lucy and accusing her of being grossly incompetent and causing the deaths through negligence would be enough to get her to spill, I think she’d hate that more than anything and might be forced to explain how clever she was. Shipman was an arrogant old toad too.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

He did try to twist it to the old mercy killing chestnut but that just didn’t add up at all, it usually doesn’t. There were things about his past that could give you an explanation of sorts though. At least he confessed I suppose. I don’t know if Letby will. I wonder if sitting down with Lucy and accusing her of being grossly incompetent and causing the deaths through negligence would be enough to get her to spill, I think she’d hate that more than anything and might be forced to explain how clever she was. Shipman was an arrogant old toad too.

I think that would be the only way tbh her ego and sense of self importance is probably off the charts.

 

[musiclover90]

But they don't always have a reason... I would love for there to be one, just to make sense of the utter depravity and pointless destruction of life but she may have simply just enjoyed killing and that's it.

That Cullen guy, the killer nurse, killed people at random and while he wasn't even around.

He poisoned bags and it was the luck of the draw who got them. He had an estimated 400 victims but he couldn't even name a 10th of them because he simply didn't know who had ended up dying by his hand.

I don't know, I see what people are saying but I don't really understand how you can just enjoy killing without there being a reason for it...and something triggering that...

 

[Lucyxxxx]

Fellow decent human beings reading this


It’s very important to point out that some (most?) people who feel she couldn’t have done this, or that she did do it but there must be an ulterior motive…you’re all basing this on how she looks.

if she had the face of Myra Hindley, nobody would be batting an eyelid or even trying to defend her.

Lucy happened to be a relatively presentable looking woman ….who also enjoyed killing babies.

its nothing deeper. It’s not because she was infertile. It’s not because she was jealous of the parents. It’s not because she wanted to be seen as the saviour (she never even attempted to save them)

she just enjoyed killing them.

there has not, to my knowledge, ever been a serial killer who has turned round and offered some romanticised reason for why they did it. The ones that do admit, admit they did it because they enjoyed it.

Lucifer Letby is not going to be the first to have done it for some romantic reason. She’s sick and twisted to her very core.

Let's keep the plays on the name Lucy to a minimum yeah?

 

[housebythesea]

Fellow decent human beings reading this


It’s very important to point out that some (most?) people who feel she couldn’t have done this, or that she did do it but there must be an ulterior motive…you’re all basing this on how she looks.

if she had the face of Myra Hindley, nobody would be batting an eyelid or even trying to defend her.

Lucy happened to be a relatively presentable looking woman ….who also enjoyed killing babies.

its nothing deeper. It’s not because she was infertile. It’s not because she was jealous of the parents. It’s not because she wanted to be seen as the saviour (she never even attempted to save them)

she just enjoyed killing them.

there has not, to my knowledge, ever been a serial killer who has turned round and offered some romanticised reason for why they did it. The ones that do admit, admit they did it because they enjoyed it.

Lucifer Letby is not going to be the first to have done it for some romantic reason. She’s sick and twisted to her very core.

I find this really offensive. You are making a giant leap here - I'm certainly not convinced of her guilt, nor should anyone be who hasn't seen and heard all the evidence and there are no circumstances where I would base my opinion on what an accused person looks like. But what is really out of order is you addressing your comments to "Fellow decent human beings" as if by implication anyone who doesn't agree with you is not a 'decent human being'
Do you think you could try not to do this? Your opinion is worth no more than anyone else's.

 

[PeninsulaAndOriental]

If I was saying this to people who ‘only believed she was guilty’ I’d be saying ‘Fellow decent human beings who believe she’s guilty’

At what point do we realise that, so far, the evidence against this Toxic Tart Letby - although circumstantial - is overwhelming?

The good, lovely, charming, pleasant Dr Shipman was convicted of several cases because they just ‘sounded’ similar to his last killing, that of Kathleen Grundy. There was NO evidence at all for him in those cases, as the bodies were turned to ash by way of cremation. Their deaths just ‘sounded’ suspicious.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The bar for declaring ‘Ms Lucy wouldn’t hurt a fly Letby’ guilty has been set to such a height it’s unprecedented.

People have been thrown away on less evidence.

I never thought in my wildest bleeping dreams, that a person accused of serial baby murder, would be protected by some of the public at large to such a degree.

It’s not because she’s a nurse or in the medical profession. Allitt had her court van attacked, although Shipman wasn’t bothered by the public either. Odd.

On the evidence presented so far, I think any REASONABLE human would argue there’s grounds to convict her. Even ‘the top guy’ Mr Lovely Ben Myers didn’t question the prosecution today or yesterday.

I almost feel like we’re debating the premiership of Margaret Thatcher - or some other subjective and controversial topic here.

 

[housebythesea]

I’m new, I’ve followed from the start and enjoy reading all your thoughts. I was very much initially on the fence but now think guilty.
Just I have a few things I would need clarification on.
The whole second TPN bag strikes me as very odd.
The longline which was changed and re sited… protocol would be that the TPN bag would be discarded and a new one put up which the nurse says happened. Is there proof of this? It would have to have been either re prescribed or atleast signed for on the chart again. You can’t just change it and not document that’s it’s indeed a new bag, second checked again, lot number etc noted. have I missed this part?
And then the assumption that a second bag was also tampered with? A bag in a fridge with multiple other bags, Letby couldn’t have foreseen the bag would be changed and even less so which one would be randomly selected.
The contamination of parts explanation makes no sense to me. A new long line would have all new connections, a new TPN bag would be attached with a new sterile giving set. So insulin biding to the bags/lines is not relevant as completely new equipment would have been used in the set up. Unless a mistake was made in this process ny the nurse putting up the second bag. Initially my rational was that the TPN had been stopped and the same bag/same giving set reconnected to the new long line, poor practice yes but I could see this happening. I have in emergencies switched sedation etc straight over as I had no time to prepare new medications in a emergency situation so although poor practice, is done. Im confused by this part of the investigation. Surely the same bag must have been re used as suggesting a second random bag was also contaminated makes little sense. What would she gain from that if she didn’t know which baby if any would receive it. Maybe I have missed a chunk explains this…..

I too am very puzzled by this and I have been back and forth over the reports to no avail. The indication is that the TPN bag was changed at 10am when the line tissued. As you say, this would have meant a new giving set and should have also meant a new TPN bag, and the reports seem to indicate that this is what happened and a stock bag was used. This would be long after LL's shift had ended, I assume? In which case, how did a random stock bag also contain insulin? I am not buying the line contamination for a minute, especially as they also state that the quantity of insulin required to produce those readings would have been around 0.58ml/hr. That could not be accounted for by a trace contamination. This second bag issue is very important in my opinion, as far from pointing to her guilt, the apparent contamination of another bag resulting in the same low glucose readings at a time when she wasn't there, could establish her innocence.

If I was saying this to people who ‘only believed she was guilty’ I’d be saying ‘Fellow decent human beings who believe she’s guilty’

At what point do we realise that, so far, the evidence against this Toxic Tart Letby - although circumstantial - is overwhelming?

The good, lovely, charming, pleasant Dr Shipman was convicted of several cases because they just ‘sounded’ similar to his last killing, that of Kathleen Grundy. There was NO evidence at all for him in those cases, as the bodies were turned to ash by way of cremation. Their deaths just ‘sounded’ suspicious.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The bar for declaring ‘Ms Lucy wouldn’t hurt a fly Letby’ guilty has been set to such a height it’s unprecedented.

People have been thrown away on less evidence.

I never thought in my wildest bleeping dreams, that a person accused of serial baby murder, would be protected by some of the public at large to such a degree.

It’s not because she’s a nurse or in the medical profession. Allitt had her court van attacked, although Shipman wasn’t bothered by the public either. Odd.

On the evidence presented so far, I think any REASONABLE human would argue there’s grounds to convict her. Even ‘the top guy’ Mr Lovely Ben Myers didn’t question the prosecution today or yesterday.

I almost feel like we’re debating the premiership of Margaret Thatcher - or some other subjective and controversial topic here.

I think your meaning was quite clear. As I think I said before, never do jury service. You have only heard a fraction of the evidence, all from the Prosecution and none from the Defence.
If this case is so clear cut why were no cases flagged as suspicious at the time and why did it take so long to bring charges against her?
The fact that someone has been charged with a crime does not mean they have been found guilty; everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence. I may believe her to be guilty after I have heard all the evidence - but not on the basis that there is "no smoke without fire"

 

[Treesy19]

I too am very puzzled by this and I have been back and forth over the reports to no avail. The indication is that the TPN bag was changed at 10am when the line tissued. As you say, this would have meant a new giving set and should have also meant a new TPN bag, and the reports seem to indicate that this is what happened and a stock bag was used. This would be long after LL's shift had ended, I assume? In which case, how did a random stock bag also contain insulin? I am not buying the line contamination for a minute, especially as they also state that the quantity of insulin required to produce those readings would have been around 0.58ml/hr. That could not be accounted for by a trace contamination. This second bag issue is very important in my opinion, as far from pointing to her guilt, the apparent contamination of another bag resulting in the same low glucose readings at a time when she wasn't there, could establish her innocence.


I think your meaning was quite clear. As I think I said before, never do jury service. You have only heard a fraction of the evidence, all from the Prosecution and none from the Defence.
If this case is so clear cut why were no cases flagged as suspicious at the time and why did it take so long to bring charges against her?
The fact that someone has been charged with a crime does not mean they have been found guilty; everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence. I may believe her to be guilty after I have heard all the evidence - but not on the basis that there is "no smoke without fire"

This again. I feel I need to point out the bloody obvious. So I'm going to. I’m sorry but as this is a thread on the internet there are many of us that have arrived at guilty, thus far. This does not mean that if we were on a jury that we would have cloth ears for the rest of a given case.

 

[docmum]

I’ve never not primed a line but I would have thought surely they alarm if line not primed as they alarm if small air bubble in line!?

yes absolutely, the pumps are stupidly needy. Give them half a reason to alarm and they will do, especially in a room with multiple beds and overnight.

 

[dual2099]

But they don't always have a reason... I would love for there to be one, just to make sense of the utter depravity and pointless destruction of life but she may have simply just enjoyed killing and that's it.

That Cullen guy, the killer nurse, killed people at random and while he wasn't even around.

He poisoned bags and it was the luck of the draw who got them. He had an estimated 400 victims but he couldn't even name a 10th of them because he simply didn't know who had ended up dying by his hand.

I imagine there would have been a trigger, but in terms of having a motive, no there isn’t always an obvious one. If she is psychopathathic it would be more to do with the power she held over these poor babies and their parents.

There could be other factors, like she didn’t think they deserved to live, in her warped mind.


We do not know anything about her background or lifestyle.

Female psychopaths play the long game. They are more devious and less obvious, than their male counterparts.

I did have a thought and I wondered if her parents were medical? She may have come from a medical family ( background) so going down that route may have been completely expected of her.

 

[Daisydunn15]

I too am very puzzled by this and I have been back and forth over the reports to no avail. The indication is that the TPN bag was changed at 10am when the line tissued. As you say, this would have meant a new giving set and should have also meant a new TPN bag, and the reports seem to indicate that this is what happened and a stock bag was used. This would be long after LL's shift had ended, I assume? In which case, how did a random stock bag also contain insulin? I am not buying the line contamination for a minute, especially as they also state that the quantity of insulin required to produce those readings would have been around 0.58ml/hr. That could not be accounted for by a trace contamination. This second bag issue is very important in my opinion, as far from pointing to her guilt, the apparent contamination of another bag resulting in the same low glucose readings at a time when she wasn't there, could establish her innocence.

I'm a bit confused on this as well. It does seem a new TPN was put up, thats what the evidence reported told us. I've seen the explanation that it would take a while for the blood sugars to rise even after the initial contaminated bag was replaced, but there was also a dextrose infusion so surely it would jump up pretty quick? I believe that there would be a level of contamination but as you've pointed out, that would contradict what the experts are telling us they would need to sustain such low readings.

 

[Chocolate2008]

I imagine there would have been a trigger, but in terms of having a motive, no there isn’t always an obvious one. If she is psychopathathic it would be more to do with the power she held over these poor babies and their parents.

There could be other factors, like she didn’t think they deserved to live, in her warped mind.


We do not know anything about her background or lifestyle.

Female psychopaths play the long game. They are more devious and less obvious, than their male counterparts.

I did have a thought and I wondered if her parents were medical? She may have come from a medical family ( background) so going down that route may have been completely expected of her.

I can’t get my head around it if she did it of course. I can understand maybe being triggered by anger at particular parents about an incident/complaint. But multiple babies & seemingly targeting twins, I don’t understand it. The twins thing is really upsetting.

 

[RinsedHoops]

I've been a fence sitter in this case but the insulin evidence has really knocked me off the fence tbh. I just don't think the defence can come back from this.
I've never thought "she's innocent" - but I did want to try to understand what evidence there was and saw a pattern of poor care and a culture at the Countess of Chester that made me think it's possible the deaths weren't deliberate - but this isn't really explainable, and if it WAS deliberate then Letby is the only explanation.
Full disclosure my daughter was a preemie and almost died and the nurses in her NICU and SCBU were wonderful so maybe this created some desire in me that it not be true.

 

[MmmB777]

I'm a bit confused on this as well. It does seem a new TPN was put up, thats what the evidence reported told us. I've seen the explanation that it would take a while for the blood sugars to rise even after the initial contaminated bag was replaced, but there was also a dextrose infusion so surely it would jump up pretty quick? I believe that there would be a level of contamination but as you've pointed out, that would contradict what the experts are telling us they would need to sustain such low readings.

It’s the reporting. The three possible explanations are clear but all of them mean first bag HAD to have been contaminated. Is there an innocent explanation for that and why it happens again? You guys are working harder than Ben!

 

[dual2099]

I can’t get my head around it if she did it of course. I can understand maybe being triggered by anger at particular parents about an incident/complaint. But multiple babies & seemingly targeting twins, I don’t understand it. The twins thing is really upsetting.

It’s hard to get your head round. What I mean by trigger, something in her past. But it’s pure speculation we can’t know for sure.

Anybody who has the nerve to murder poor helpless premature babies is going to be hard to understand.

She won’t be thinking like the rest of us. I mean if it was jealousy or envy, and she just wanted to ruin their lives, most people would stop right there because they have a conscience. To do this,she simply doesn’t have one.

The Charles Cullen killings his defence was he wanted to end their suffering, but that wasn’t true, most of his murders the patients were recovering.

But to get to this point of being a murderer there must be something in her past that’s stopped her from being able ‘feel’ the same way we all do. Not sure if that makes sense!

 

[MmmB777]

Seriously, if it does annoy people so much that opinions are being formed before all the evidence (presumably all the defence evidence also) why wouldn’t you come back in April? Everyone has the right to post here but to keep saying you haven’t heard it all (which generally seems to translate as you aren’t finding every way for Letby to be innocent) and get angry just seems a bit pointless If you’re here, you’re a tit jury member too

 

[candyland_]

I too am very puzzled by this and I have been back and forth over the reports to no avail. The indication is that the TPN bag was changed at 10am when the line tissued. As you say, this would have meant a new giving set and should have also meant a new TPN bag, and the reports seem to indicate that this is what happened and a stock bag was used. This would be long after LL's shift had ended, I assume? In which case, how did a random stock bag also contain insulin? I am not buying the line contamination for a minute, especially as they also state that the quantity of insulin required to produce those readings would have been around 0.58ml/hr. That could not be accounted for by a trace contamination. This second bag issue is very important in my opinion, as far from pointing to her guilt, the apparent contamination of another bag resulting in the same low glucose readings at a time when she wasn't there, could establish her innocence.


I think your meaning was quite clear. As I think I said before, never do jury service. You have only heard a fraction of the evidence, all from the Prosecution and none from the Defence.
If this case is so clear cut why were no cases flagged as suspicious at the time and why did it take so long to bring charges against her?
The fact that someone has been charged with a crime does not mean they have been found guilty; everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence. I may believe her to be guilty after I have heard all the evidence - but not on the basis that there is "no smoke without fire"

They’ve said this is a massive and painstaking case and they had to take their time to get it right. It would have taken them months to look through years of medical records just to start building a picture. One wrong move too soon and their case would be ruined. Unfortunately for Lucy her Facebook searches, her post it note, having handover sheets and lists of babies medication in her house only added to the mammoth task of sifting through evidence.

It’s also bit hard to hold back forming an opinion when the defence are giving the bare minimum isn’t it? He didn’t even question some witnesses this week so he’s not doing a great job at stopping the prosecution from sinking their teeth in.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

Seriously, if it does annoy people so much that opinions are being formed before all the evidence (presumably all the defence evidence also) why wouldn’t you come back in April? Everyone has the right to post here but to keep saying you haven’t heard it all (which generally seems to translate as you aren’t finding every way for Letby to be innocent) and get angry just seems a bit pointless If you’re here, you’re a tit jury member too

Thank you!!! Hate the holier than thou attitude, if you here your "no better" than the rest of us!!

 

[Daisydunn15]

It’s the reporting. The three possible explanations are clear but all of them mean first bag HAD to have been contaminated. Is there an innocent explanation for that and why it happens again? You guys are working harder than Ben!

Eh, I didn't comment on G/NG, just that I'm confused about how the rate of infusion they're saying is needed could still be there with a new long line and new bag, or is it that they're claiming the stock bags were contaminated too? The nurse on thurs said the tpn would have been changed at 10am but the expert yesterday said the infusion rate has essentially stayed the same right up until the evening. Happy for someone to explain, seems odd that the amount they'd get from it being in the bag itself is the same from trace amounts if they've reused giving sets.