Lucy Letby Case #19

[OldBlondie]

I was hung up on a motive for a good while but I think the reality is that there wasn't one beyond her enjoying being cruel and getting a kick/high out of it.

She might retrospectively come up with one to make out like she had some higher purpose but I have no doubt it will be bullshit.

I fully agree, I also think she’s the absolute definition of a psychopath

 

[LilyRose1234]

Had a few reply’s and don’t want to clog up the thread with 5 posts saying the same thing I’d tag you all but that’s long af, I don’t think you guys are seeing what I’m trying to say (my fault as I’m bad at explaining) but to have another stab at it. I understand that the child survived whilst the odds were stacked against her and to reach 100 days it was definitely a milestone which they thought early on that she wouldn’t reach, which gives a good reason for celebration. There can’t be many babies born under those circumstances that make it that far, I just think to suggest she deliberately harmed this baby purely based on the fact that she was 100 days old and people were celebrating is a real reach and it’s not explained why she then waits two weeks before having another crack at it. They are imo crow barring it into the charges and the 100 days thing is being used to back up there suspicions as a motive. And it’s weak if you ask me, it’s an attempt to play on the emotions of the jury and paint a picture of calculated evil but The prosecution promised a pattern would emerge and yet again we’re hearing of circumstance that are completely different to every other case, I think they’re damaging there argument here personally. as I said previously the 114th day fits the pattern perfectly.
It’s possible she’s innocent of the 100th day incident but guilty of the 114th day attacks.

My reading of it was that they were using the 100 day thing as context for the jury, rather than a motive of specifically targeting because she was 100 days old. Also, if I remember Baby G was transferred out of COCH after the first incident, then transferred back, hence the delay until day 114..

 

[OldBlondie]

No it’s just people speculating

This has maybe been answered already as I’m still behind, it’s been reported today about ivf, and LL said something in police interview about A&B being wanted/tried for, and something along the lines of it had been a difficult journey for mum to have finally got A&B. Rest is speculation though

 

[raspberryjuice]

Had a few reply’s and don’t want to clog up the thread with 5 posts saying the same thing I’d tag you all but that’s long af, I don’t think you guys are seeing what I’m trying to say (my fault as I’m bad at explaining) but to have another stab at it. I understand that the child survived whilst the odds were stacked against her and to reach 100 days it was definitely a milestone which they thought early on that she wouldn’t reach, which gives a good reason for celebration. There can’t be many babies born under those circumstances that make it that far, I just think to suggest she deliberately harmed this baby purely based on the fact that she was 100 days old and people were celebrating is a real reach and it’s not explained why she then waits two weeks before having another crack at it. They are imo crow barring it into the charges and the 100 days thing is being used to back up there suspicions as a motive. And it’s weak if you ask me, it’s an attempt to play on the emotions of the jury and paint a picture of calculated evil but The prosecution promised a pattern would emerge and yet again we’re hearing of circumstance that are completely different to every other case, I think they’re damaging there argument here personally. as I said previously the 114th day fits the pattern perfectly.
It’s possible she’s innocent of the 100th day incident but guilty of the 114th day attacks.

IIRC (I’ve struggled to follow the reporting today - it doesn’t read clearly at all), day 100 was only the second night LL had with Baby G. She had been on a run of days up until then. Baby G was then transferred to a different hospital so there is no opportunity in this time for LL to attack. The next attack is 5 days after Baby G comes back to COCH, when LL is on days. Day shifts are obviously much busier and parents are usually around much more. The attack happens when there is a screen surrounding Baby G, giving LL the privacy needed to attack without being observed. We also don’t know how many shifts LL had between Baby G coming back and the second attack.

Just going through the wiki for G though, she was due her immunisations on the day of the second attack. Another milestone in her journey

 

[Haveyouanywool]

Had a few reply’s and don’t want to clog up the thread with 5 posts saying the same thing I’d tag you all but that’s long af, I don’t think you guys are seeing what I’m trying to say (my fault as I’m bad at explaining) but to have another stab at it. I understand that the child survived whilst the odds were stacked against her and to reach 100 days it was definitely a milestone which they thought early on that she wouldn’t reach, which gives a good reason for celebration. There can’t be many babies born under those circumstances that make it that far, I just think to suggest she deliberately harmed this baby purely based on the fact that she was 100 days old and people were celebrating is a real reach and it’s not explained why she then waits two weeks before having another crack at it. They are imo crow barring it into the charges and the 100 days thing is being used to back up there suspicions as a motive. And it’s weak if you ask me, it’s an attempt to play on the emotions of the jury and paint a picture of calculated evil but The prosecution promised a pattern would emerge and yet again we’re hearing of circumstance that are completely different to every other case, I think they’re damaging there argument here personally. as I said previously the 114th day fits the pattern perfectly.
It’s possible she’s innocent of the 100th day incident but guilty of the 114th day attacks.

Sorry, I just don’t think that’s the case. The 100 day celebration would be hugely significant to the parents and staff.
As to the 14 day gap, Baby G was transferred back to AP for a week so LL would not be able to get her hands on her for a while.
The misery is definitely going to be ramped up if death/tragedies happen on special days. Birthdays etc can be particularly difficult for those who have lost loved ones, so for it to happen on a special day, awful

 

[friedeggontoast]

This has maybe been answered already as I’m still behind, it’s been reported today about ivf, and LL said something in police interview about A&B being wanted/tried for, and something along the lines of it had been a difficult journey for mum to have finally got A&B. Rest is speculation though

I know you’ve not caught up so you won’t have seen my follow up post but I was replying to the OP’s question about LL having IVF herself not about the babies xx

 

[candyland_]

Awful, awful reading. Just heartbreaking. The texts seem a bit off to me does anyone else get that vibe? Almost like her colleague was fed up with her, a bit blunt? And once again, no sympathy towards her colleagues (unless not shown)

Her colleague sounds fed up and suffering with her own down days.. I don’t think she could be arsed with Letby and she didn’t even get asked if she was OK.

 

[I’mThankyou_]

Had a few reply’s and don’t want to clog up the thread with 5 posts saying the same thing I’d tag you all but that’s long af, I don’t think you guys are seeing what I’m trying to say (my fault as I’m bad at explaining) but to have another stab at it. I understand that the child survived whilst the odds were stacked against her and to reach 100 days it was definitely a milestone which they thought early on that she wouldn’t reach, which gives a good reason for celebration. There can’t be many babies born under those circumstances that make it that far, I just think to suggest she deliberately harmed this baby purely based on the fact that she was 100 days old and people were celebrating is a real reach and it’s not explained why she then waits two weeks before having another crack at it. They are imo crow barring it into the charges and the 100 days thing is being used to back up there suspicions as a motive. And it’s weak if you ask me, it’s an attempt to play on the emotions of the jury and paint a picture of calculated evil but The prosecution promised a pattern would emerge and yet again we’re hearing of circumstance that are completely different to every other case, I think they’re damaging there argument here personally. as I said previously the 114th day fits the pattern perfectly.
It’s possible she’s innocent of the 100th day incident but guilty of the 114th day attacks.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think they're suggesting she attacked Baby G because she hit that milestone, i think they have just highlighted and focused on the 100days to get the Jury to see just how far this baby had come, before LL got their hands on her. 10 days, 100 days, 200 days I don't think that bares any significance on when LL would attack, they just want to highlight it was a celebration she had in COCH, one that LL very well may of joined in on, and then days later she had the bare faced audacity to harm her.

 

[DianaBanana]

There was also a comment in one of the text messages to her colleagues, saying that the parents were feeling much more confident about her chances once she got to 100 days. So I don’t think the prosecution are saying this has anything to do with why she attacked the baby then, they’re just highlighting that this milestone was clearly significant at the time, in that it was being celebrated by the parents and the staff.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

I get what you're saying, but I don't think they're suggesting she attacked Baby G because she hit that milestone, i think they have just highlighted and focused on the 100days to get the Jury to see just how far this baby had come, before LL got their hands on her. 10 days, 100 days, 200 days I don't think that bares any significance on when LL would attack, they just want to highlight it was a celebration she had in COCH, one that LL very well may of joined in on, and then days later she had the bare faced audacity to harm her.

She did join in as she text a colleague saying she’d helped with the celebration banner.
I actually think the 100 days does have significance, either for heightened drama or misery (or both).
I’m not saying she chose Baby G for that reason, as another baby would get her attention at some point, but, well, who knows all her motivations

ETA: this nicked ss.

 

[slingo16]

Hehehshnakanna

Sorry, I just don’t think that’s the case. The 100 day celebration would be hugely significant to the parents and staff.
Baby G was transferred back to AP for a week so LL would not be able to get her hands on her for a while.
The misery is definitely going to be ramped up if death/tragedies happen on special days. Birthdays etc can be particularly difficult for those who have lost loved ones, so for it to happen on that day, awful

I think that’s exactly the effect the prosecution were looking to have with this detail. And I mean looking at the thread today they’ve done a good job, there’s a lot of people using that piece of information to speculate further about her motives, it only makes sense if it applies to other cases and so far it doesn’t. Surely there are other babies celebrating milestones at various points, we’ve not heard of any of them being attacked, If she’s guilty id bet my life 100 days meant absolutely nothing to LL, and I personally don’t see her failing with 3 attempts. I think that’s almost implausible. We’ve entered the 10 month period with only 1 death aswell now, so she’s somehow becoming less efficient killer of probably the easiest targets you could get.

we’re 7 babies in now and there’s no clear pattern emerging like the prosecution promised. I’m finding it increasingly difficult to believe she’s responsible myself

 

[DianaBanana]

I don’t think it has anything to do with them trying to prove a motive at all. I think they are just trying to highlight, that even though she was very premature, she had still defied the odds and reached this significant milestone. The defence are going to try and blame the collapses/decline on the prematurity, so the prosecution are using this milestone to counter that.

 

[OldBlondie]

I know you’ve not caught up so you won’t have seen my follow up post but I was replying to the OP’s question about LL having IVF herself not about the babies xx

Just caught up now and have seen you answering this and realised it was what you were actually answering, sorry .

Also all these posts about the 100 day thing not being significant I honestly don’t know if poster is reading/hearing the same as rest of us. I honestly can’t tell if the post is genuine or what. It’s already been posted numerous times the significance, as have posts all day showing yet more patterns. If it’s a genuine question then fair enough but it seems there’s a few other posters that are not understanding the question/ point

 

[slingo16]

I get what you're saying, but I don't think they're suggesting she attacked Baby G because she hit that milestone, i think they have just highlighted and focused on the 100days to get the Jury to see just how far this baby had come, before LL got their hands on her. 10 days, 100 days, 200 days I don't think that bares any significance on when LL would attack, they just want to highlight it was a celebration she had in COCH, one that LL very well may of joined in on, and then days later she had the bare faced audacity to harm her.

So have I misunderstood I thought the baby was attacked on the 100th day, but you said “days later” are you saying the attack took place days after the 100th day celebration?

 

[OldBlondie]

She did join in as she text a colleague saying she’d helped with the celebration banner.
I actually think the 100 days does have significance, either for heightened drama or misery (or both).
I’m not saying she chose Baby G for that reason, as another baby would get her attention at some point, but, well, who knows all her motivations

Yes the fact the prosecution have highlighted the fact LL helped make the banner and then went after her a few hours later, I don’t think it’s a stretch to believe that’s not JUST another coincidence

 

[Haveyouanywool]

Hehehshnakanna

I think that’s exactly the effect the prosecution were looking to have with this detail. And I mean looking at the thread today they’ve done a good job, there’s a lot of people using that piece of information to speculate further about her motives, it only makes sense if it applies to other cases and so far it doesn’t. Surely there are other babies celebrating milestones at various points, we’ve not heard of any of them being attacked, If she’s guilty id bet my life 100 days meant absolutely nothing to LL, and I personally don’t see her failing with 3 attempts. I think that’s almost implausible. We’ve entered the 10 month period with only 1 death aswell now, so she’s somehow becoming less efficient killer of probably the easiest targets you could get.

we’re 7 babies in now and there’s no clear pattern emerging like the prosecution promised. I’m finding it increasingly difficult to believe she’s responsible myself

So you don’t believe she perpetrated the first attack?
Is that why you’re fixed on 100 days having no relevance?

 

[I’mThankyou_]

So have I misunderstood I thought the baby was attacked on the 100th day, but you said “days later” are you saying the attack took place days after the 100th day celebration?

Truthfully, I don't know because I don't follow the online reports, as its close to home for me. I'm just picking up bits of information from here. I believe she was attacked around that time and transferred back to Arrowe Park. I'm sure someone will confirm for you.

 

[friedeggontoast]

Hehehshnakanna

I think that’s exactly the effect the prosecution were looking to have with this detail. And I mean looking at the thread today they’ve done a good job, there’s a lot of people using that piece of information to speculate further about her motives, it only makes sense if it applies to other cases and so far it doesn’t. Surely there are other babies celebrating milestones at various points, we’ve not heard of any of them being attacked, If she’s guilty id bet my life 100 days meant absolutely nothing to LL, and I personally don’t see her failing with 3 attempts. I think that’s almost implausible. We’ve entered the 10 month period with only 1 death aswell now, so she’s somehow becoming less efficient killer of probably the easiest targets you could get.

we’re 7 babies in now and there’s no clear pattern emerging like the prosecution promised. I’m finding it increasingly difficult to believe she’s responsible myself

I think you’re focusing too much on the 100th day thing. It was a piece of additional info, it wasn’t the crux of the crime

 

[raspberryjuice]

Surely there are other babies celebrating milestones at various points, we’ve not heard of any of them being attacked

I disagree on this. Other babies we’ve heard have been attacked have been celebrating milestones. Coming off a ventilator, coming off cpap, going on to NG feeds, being able to have breast milk for the first time or a first bottle feed, first bowel opening etc. They are all milestones in a neonates journey and things the parents and staff will have been celebrating. They may not have had cake and a banner to mark the milestones like they did for G’s 100 days, but they are still mini-milestones that will have been celebrated and clear signs baby is on the right path and reassurance for the parents that baby is doing well. Just like G reaching 100 days.

 

[HappyGoss]

So have I misunderstood I thought the baby was attacked on the 100th day, but you said “days later” are you saying the attack took place days after the 100th day celebration?

Baby G was attacked on the 100th day, she was transferred to another hospital (one without a serial killer) and then returned. She was then attacked again.

How clearer can we say it?

Read the wiki chuck.