Lucy Letby Case #19

wideningperspective · Dec 1, 2022

slingo16 said:
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

For me there is a very clear pattern emerging. A pattern of changing tactics, a pattern emerging of what could perhaps be described as an addiction. She gains self-worth through being one of the main characters in dealing with tragedy. She wants to be noticed more for her work and secondary gain is for being the unlucky one, “feel sorry for me”, but “I can manage all of this”. A pattern emerging here…she is becoming more manipulative, callous and impulsive!!

The pattern is emerging and I wonder if she meets the following characteristics …..low vulnerability, low self-consciousness, low anxiousness, fearlessness, boldness, assertiveness and dominance. PSYCHOPATH

This to me is not about looking for a pattern in relation to this precious babies. Step into her shoes, that is where the pattern is. This is about her

candyland_ · Dec 1, 2022

slingo16 said:
I must have missed it, but it says to me that we’re not going to hear of any other children attacked in similar circumstances ( around a milestone) obviously unless I’ve missed it mentioned in other cases which is entirely possible

The majority of the babies were harmed when they were only days old. Baby A and B were 1 day old when she attacked them.

HappyGoss · Dec 1, 2022

Slingo have you got kids?

Have you ever been to a neonatal unit? Or even a maternity unit?

Its not like your mum putting an extra sausage on your plate love. Every single thing is monitored. Every interaction with these babies is precise.

It's been a very long day, an emotional day for anyone with half a heart. I honestly cannot read your jibberish any longer.

I'm not saying this because you in the NG group, I'm saying it because you're clearly very unable to read a room.

Nanight all

I’mThankyou_ · Dec 1, 2022

slingo16 said:
Bsbdbd

No I agree, I just think overfeeding is more likely to be a mistake than any other method of murder in this case. It’s not going to be easy to establish malicious intent

I dont think it was or can be a mistake. Her feed was documented, before feeding a baby in neonatal you would check 1) when they was last fed 2) the volume of their feed. You'd also verbally double check it with their named nurse.
The overfeeding was a deliberate act to harm baby G.

DianaBanana · Dec 1, 2022

DianaBanana said:
Something definitely did happen to that baby on her 100 day milestone. We have not got to the evidence yet, we’re only on day 1 of baby G, so we will be hearing more.

overfeeding by that extent to a tiny baby will kill them. There was also 100mls of air.

Then on the 21st September when she got back from Arrow Park (where she got better), the same thing happened again (overfeeding) and this baby was left disabled.

When Lucy finished her shift after this event she searched for baby G’s parents on Facebook. Then straight after that she searched the parents of E and F. Then the parents of baby I.

SamPam · Dec 1, 2022

slingo16 said:
Bsbdbd

No I agree, I just think overfeeding is more likely to be a mistake than any other method of murder in this case. It’s not going to be easy to establish malicious intent

and I know what the wiki is lol, the poster was being a big fat meany so I thought I’d take the piss. Lol I appreciate you trying to help me though

There are procedures in place that are carried out before a feed, this has been discussed in court.
A nurse wouldn't make that mistake.

slingo16 · Dec 1, 2022

I’mThankyou_ said:
I dont think it was or can be a mistake. Her feed was documented, before feeding a baby in neonatal you would check 1) when they was last fed 2) the volume of their feed. You'd also verbally double check it with their named nurse.
The overfeeding was a deliberate act to harm baby G.

You may well be correct, but I don’t think it’s been established that it couldn’t be a mistake. Somebody said the insulin incident could have been put down to a mistake and if that can be possible then it’s definitely possible to over feed a baby imo

tay65 · Dec 1, 2022

candyland_ said:
For me the 100 day celebration is relevant because is shows how far the baby had came and how well she was doing. It was a special day and Letby tried to destroy it.

I really hope BM doesn't persuade the jury these events with baby G were just down to extreme prematurity and convince the jury she hadn't done wrong. The baby was extremely premature but I don't think she would have got to 100 days and then suffered these catastrophic events. I think these events would have occurred much earlier if they weren't deliberate. These poor parents have a disabled child who probably should have had a healthy child. Also the child has been deprived of a normal life because of one evil person who shouldn't wriggle out of this because of her smart talking KC.

Windowtothewall · Dec 1, 2022

slingo16 said:
Overfeeding hardly points to deliberate harm imo

Well, overfeeding has met the CPS's threshold for prosecuting as a crime, or they wouldn't have charged her for (child G):

Count 7: Attempted murder (air embolus & excessive milk)
Count 8: Attempted murder (air embolus & excessive milk)
Count 9: Attempted murder (air embolus & excessive milk)

It would have just been air embolus.

The baby's milestone birthday is to discredit the defence's theory that the baby died simply because they were so premature. Also baby is the victim and the prosecution needs to talk through all the details of the day they were attacked - which just happened to include a milestone birthday.

As an e.g - With Covid, 14 days (or whatever it was) was the end of self isolation i.e you were considered much healthier and ready to return to the world at that milestone. Now if you suddenly died on day 14, Covid wouldn't automatically be considered the killer because you passed the threshold of it killing you.

The 14 days is like the 100 days. 100 days is milestone for premature babies that shows their chances of survival now are much higher.

Baby G was given a 5% chance of survival at birth - it's reasonable to think that at 100 days this was much much much higher.

IdeletedbutI'mbackagain · Dec 1, 2022

mRsKbRoOkS said:
Also i think to be attacked on her due date is pretty bloody massive! How is that a coincidence. Seems very significant to me. I’m just imaging the parents now talking about how today is the day she should have been born. I’m sure it was very prominent in their minds that day. I can imagine they would have been particularly emotional, and made them reflect how far they had all come, I bet it was a point of discussion between them and the nurses on the ward.
I’m sorry but that can’t be a coincidence, surely not ?! Does anyone else feel the same as me on this ?

I don’t think we have ever had a explanation for any attack or murder have we ?

Re the attack on her 100 days celebration and the attack on the babies due date. I wonder did the parents joy and hope and her colleagues happiness at these babies little achievements just made her incredibly and irrationally angry!??

I think we discussed this in one of the threads way back, don't think I was 100% on board with that theory back then but it seems more plausible now the more babies we are hearing about.

It's like how cute things like kittens and puppies can make people irrationally angry or how when your are so overcome with how cute your baby is your just wanna nibble them.

raspberryjuice · Dec 1, 2022

I’mThankyou_ said:
I dont think it was or can be a mistake. Her feed was documented, before feeding a baby in neonatal you would check 1) when they was last fed 2) the volume of their feed. You'd also verbally double check it with their named nurse.
The overfeeding was a deliberate act to harm baby G.

In addition you’d also check the positioning of the NG. For those without experience of this you remove a small amount of stomach contents and check the acidity. For G, having been fed 45ml of milk minutes before, would clearly show completely undigested milk in babies stomach. At this point you’d realise baby was already fed. There is no accidental over feeding.

slingo16 · Dec 1, 2022

SamPam said:
There are procedures in place that are carried out before a feed, this has been discussed in court.
A nurse wouldn't make that mistake.

Are we really saying nurses can’t make mistakes? Come on now, I’m sure there’s protocol for a lot of things in life and mistake still happen in all sorts of professions, just a hypothetical scenario I’m not any sort of expert but given the retrospective taking of notes I think it’s possible for feeds to not be documented and done twice accidentally. Again not saying that’s what I think happened just a scenario off the top of my head I’m sure there are millions of way a mistake like that could happen

candyland_ · Dec 1, 2022

tay65 said:
I really hope BM doesn't persuade the jury these events with baby G were just down to extreme prematurity and convince the jury she hadn't done wrong. The baby was extremely premature but I don't think she would have got to 100 days and then suffered these catastrophic events. I think these events would have occurred much earlier if they weren't deliberate. These poor parents have a disabled child who probably should have had a healthy child. Also the child has been deprived of a normal life because of one evil person who shouldn't wriggle out of this because of her smart talking KC.

The baby smiled at her parents, reacted to them singing and settled when they cuddled her. She is so much more than a premature baby and I’m sure the jury will feel that too and see how far she had come.

I’mThankyou_ · Dec 1, 2022

raspberryjuice said:
In addition you’d also check the positioning of the NG. For those without experience of this you remove a small amount of stomach contents and check the acidity. For G, having been fed 45ml of milk minutes before, would clearly show completely undigested milk in babies stomach. At this point you’d realise baby was already fed. There is no accidental over feeding.

This too @slingo16
It is almost impossible for an over feeding error to occur.
A medication one, like insulin can happen. But overfeeding. Absolutely not.

Windowtothewall · Dec 1, 2022

IdeletedbutI'mbackagain said:
Re the attack on her 100 days celebration and the attack on the babies due date. I wonder did the parents joy and hope and her colleagues happiness at these babies little achievements just made her incredibly and irrationally angry!??

I think we discussed this in one of the threads way back, don't think I was 100% on board with that theory back then but it seems more plausible now the more babies we are hearing about.

It's like how cute things like kittens and puppies can make people irrationally angry or how when your are so overcome with how cute your baby is your just wanna nibble them.

Haha, think that was me talking about the cute aggression theory. Tbh back then, I too was just speculating and trying to find a reason. Now I realise I haven't a clue why she does what she does.

Still cute aggression is a fascinating theory in general.

slingo16 · Dec 1, 2022

Windowtothewall said:
Well, overfeeding has met the CPS's threshold for prosecuting as a crime, or they wouldn't have charged her for (child G):

Count 7: Attempted murder (air embolus & excessive milk)
Count 8: Attempted murder (air embolus & excessive milk)
Count 9: Attempted murder (air embolus & excessive milk)

It would have just been air embolus.

The baby's milestone birthday is to discredit the defence's theory that the baby died simply because they were so premature. Also baby is the victim and the prosecution needs to talk through all the details of the day they were attacked - which just happened to include a milestone birthday.

As an e.g - With Covid, 14 days (or whatever it was) was the end of self isolation i.e you were considered much healthier and ready to return to the world at that milestone. Now if you suddenly died on day 14, Covid wouldn't automatically be considered the killer because you passed the threshold of it killing you.

The 14 days is like the 100 days. 100 days is milestone for premature babies that shows their chances of survival now are much higher.

Baby G was given a 5% chance of survival at birth - it's reasonable to think that at 100 days this was much much much higher.

It’s not air embolus it’s a bolus of air into the NG tube, no baby is surviving 3 air emboli, and this isn’t the same thing, if you had covid and were in hospital for 14 days and then died on day 14. You’d have died because of covid

I’mThankyou_ · Dec 1, 2022

slingo16 said:
Are we really saying nurses can’t make mistakes? Come on now, I’m sure there’s protocol for a lot of things in life and mistake still happen in all sorts of professions, just a hypothetical scenario I’m not any sort of expert but given the retrospective taking of notes I think it’s possible for feeds to not be documented and done twice accidentally. Again not saying that’s what I think happened just a scenario off the top of my head I’m sure there are millions of way a mistake like that could happen

Retrospective notes are sometimes the safest way to document your shift. You can't stop in the middle of a treatment to document it.
Perhaps the feed wasn't documented (though I believe court heard it was) you would still aspirate the NG, you would still ensure the feed would be given correctly. She would of still been high risk for NEC so checks would of been carried out to ensure she was tolerating her feeds.

slingo16 · Dec 1, 2022

I did see a second ago mrs brooks post about the 21st/114th day being the original due date. That ties it in a little better

DianaBanana · Dec 1, 2022

slingo16 said:
Are we really saying nurses can’t make mistakes? Come on now, I’m sure there’s protocol for a lot of things in life and mistake still happen in all sorts of professions, just a hypothetical scenario I’m not any sort of expert but given the retrospective taking of notes I think it’s possible for feeds to not be documented and done twice accidentally. Again not saying that’s what I think happened just a scenario off the top of my head I’m sure there are millions of way a mistake like that could happen

So do you think she made this same mistake 3 times? There are 3 attempted murder charges for this baby. All overfeeding and air.

Windowtothewall · Dec 1, 2022

slingo16 said:
It’s not air embolus it’s a bolus of air into the NG tube, no baby is surviving 3 air emboli, and this isn’t the same thing, if you had covid and were in hospital for 14 days and then died on day 14. You’d have died because of covid

No, you wouldn't have. That's exactly the point. It's incorrect causation - and also the point Dr Bohin made for baby C and pneumonia.

Dr Bohin said: "I think he died with his pneumonia, not because of his pneumonia"

slingo16 said:
It’s not air embolus it’s a bolus of air into the NG tube, no baby is surviving 3 air emboli, and this isn’t the same thing, if you had covid and were in hospital for 14 days and then died on day 14. You’d have died because of covid

Those were the charges read out by the prosecution in the opening statement.

Air embolus was their wording, not mine.

Lucy Letby Case #19

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency