Lucy Letby Case #19

[avabella]

I know nursing and medicine is a very trusting profession in general, but considering how lethal insulin can be, and how little it takes to do some real damage, it blows my mind that it's not a controlled drug.

 

[Windowtothewall]

She said herself she was bored and ‘wanted out of room 3’.
I think it was part of her motivation, she liked the excitement and attention she received in the middle of, an often quiet, night. Then all the texts after.
She was then able to show what a ‘great’ nurse she was by being the one ‘capable’ of looking after the baby when they had deteriorated. I’m assuming Baby G’s original designated nurse was less experienced. I wonder if she came across as arrogant?
I do think she enjoyed other’s misery and lacked real empathy.

Ya, it's really shocking to me that all these horrible deaths and incidents were happening pretty much every month and then by child J she was telling colleagues working in such nurseries was not "sufficiently stimulating" for her. (from the wiki about child J).

At that point even her colleagues must have questioned her mental state right? How can a succession of sudden deaths and incidents and drama every month not be stimulating...Especially hearing how hard she took it in July after D with all her messages - then by J, she's bored. That's a very quick turnaround!

 

[Treesy19]

Give me strength We get it, you’re on the fence. As are plenty of others. It is simply that some (most?) of us have arrived at guilty given what we know so far. And before people get their knickers in a twist with the classic “oh you’d be awful on a jury making your mind up at this stage”, none of us are on the jury - it is mere interpretation on a discussion forum. If my bum was on that bench I absolutely wouldn’t state my own belief until the jury room end and sit and listen to the other 11.

 

[LittleMy]

Still unsure. Some good prosecution evidence lately.

@Lucyxxxx tbf the Facebook posting isn't nice, some of the comments made have been really unfair. I know this is tattle and we all like to gossip a bit but these are just people expressing their opinion, not influences or celebs opening themselves up to criticism. If we all agree to treat each other with some respect despite differing opinions, we should extend that to fb posters.

I agree with this. You don’t have to follow the FB groups if they wind you up, it’s a bit shitty to then post what’s being said from there over here and taking the piss. They’re not influencers or celebrities up for discussion so I wouldn’t say it’s fair game.

Regarding the poll, I voted guilty again. I believe at this point that all the evidence points towards LL. Of course, I’m open to hearing the defence as always and still enjoy following the discussion from all sides.

 

[Windowtothewall]

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.

 

[mRsKbRoOkS]

I get why the age of the child makes her less likely to encounter complications but my question is why is the 100th day deemed more significant than the 114th day surely an extra two weeks of life fan only be a good thing for her chances no?

slingo you are confusing me what is your point concerning the 100th/114th day ? Do you mean you don’t know why the date is significant to the nurses and staff ? Because regardless if you feel 114 day Is more of milestone it is not really relevant here. They celebrated it because baby G was born at 23 weeks and made it to 100 days. 23 weeks is below the legal abortion limit! It is something to celebrate that Baby G made it to 100 days. She had a 5 percent chance of survival at birth and the father stated this. Or have I really not grasped what you are saying this time?

or do you mean why did letby then attack on the 114th day ? Well baby G was moved back to arrow park then came back to the countess, perhaps she didn’t have the opportunity until the 114th day to try and finish what she started ? (I’ll be honest I have no idea if she attacked baby G on the 114th I haven’t looked at the timeline but I assuming that is what you are saying )…..but if you are wondering if there is any significance about September the 21st, there most certainly is baby G was due to be born on that day. Seems like a pretty significant and calculated move to me if we look at it this way!

The father says Child G was not due to give birth until September 21 and had "only a 5% chance of survival".
Just another coincidence that letby happens to attack child G on her expected due date? I mean wtf!

Regardless the 100th and everyday after is an important milestone for this Miracle baby who survived and is here against all odds, ivf, and prematurity and then she pulled through not one but three murder attempts! She really is a miracle, so so heartbreaking

 

[candyland_]

Omg it would have been her due date too

 

[Emrem]

I hope you’re ok. This must be incredibly difficult to follow being so close to home for you.

thank you, it’s all very sad and unnerving reading especially as I had my daughter in April 2016, she had to spend a bit of time in NICU and the thought of her being so close to LL during that time just makes me feel sick. I contacted the police when it first was in the papers to check she wasn’t involved as she had an unknown high infection marker for which we still don’t know why. I remember looking at the other parents when I’d take her down to nicu for her antibiotics feeling so sorry for them having babies in there and since this trial that feeling is so much stronger. Those poor families and babies deserve justice

 

[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.

 

[Tofino]

Also just to add in, LL after visiting the unit when OFF then txt about G so it’s clear she saw her when she was in unit that night

View attachment 1776642

why on earth would she visit the unit off shift and see the baby? Let me guess.. she can’t remember

 

[candyland_]

I think they point to Lucy because it always happens as soon as the nurse goes for the break. They get the baby cared for and settled and then she ends up in the room and within minutes the baby has collapsed. She administers care and the baby collapses, again within minutes. A monitor is switched off and again it’s Lucy that finds them. She shouldn’t have been in the room on most occasions and then she heavily involves herself in the aftermath.

The reoccurring theme is always Lucy.

 

[avabella]

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand what @slingo16 is trying to say - basically the prosecution are standing up there and saying IN NO DOUBT this child was poisoned by insulin, it's so indisputable by the c-peptide levels etc etc etc - BUT - these blood results came back how long ago? And were left unnoticed for such a period of time that more babies were hurt.

If I'm understanding correctly, the argument question being raised here is how can they be so SURE now, when back then, it didn't get taken any further?

 

[Rippedjeanmaybe]

I just think for me I’ve always been sure someone was guilty after hearing the circumstances around the babies deaths.

Most of the deaths do not have an explanation that leads to negligence or natural causes, they mostly all seem to be an unexplained death.

Premature babies are more resilient than they are given credit for and even though some of the care was poor, I don’t see how it would have caused their deaths.

So far all the evidence pointing to her makes sense to me and I do believe at this point that she was responsible. I’d be interested to hear the defence and obviously I’m open to changing my mind, I just have a strong feeling from everything that’s been heard that it was her.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

From today's report:
"In the early hours of September 8, Child G was moved to Arrowe Park, where she had been born weighing 1lb 2oz.

Medics suspected sepsis as Child G required ventilation support with 100% oxygen but gradually she improved and was breathing for herself a week later.

Her markers for infection also fell as doctors ruled she was clinically stable and no longer needed specialist care as she was returned to the Countess of Chester on September 16.

Letby is accused of overfeeding Child G with milk through a nasogastric tube (NGT) and/or injecting air into the tube."

It's evidence like this which really concerns me - the medics at Arrowe Park suspected sepsis, and clearly she had raised markers of infection which gave rise to this suspicion and which subsequently fell. It was also a week before she was breathing for herself again, so not the miraculous and instant recovery which I think they have tried to portray. That suggests to me that there was a very obvious cause for her deterioration, namely the sepsis. Surely that's a very easy one for the Defence to challenge?

Suspected sepsis isn’t sepsis.
Inflammatory markers can be raised for numerous reasons.
She was back to breathing, unassisted, in air in a week.
She was OK for a couple of weeks until…back in LL’s ‘care’.

 

[od12839]

I do understand as well that it’s perfectly possible that she is an exception to the “rules” of being a serial killer. She’s a women to start with so she’s already statistically an exception,

I know you put it in quotes but I do want to point out that things like profiling and the 'rules' of how killers act are really not that reliable, generally. They're actually quite controversial due to mixed results. Figuring out what's 'normal' for people who are inherently abnormal is quite a task.

Good example here, it's a general trend that killers get 'more efficient' over time, much like most people practicing a skill. But contextually....this is a hospital. Being messy and using various methods *is* more efficient in a hospital if you want to remain undetected. So whether this is 'in character' or 'out of character' for a serial killer is entirely up to your own point of view.

 

[Treesy19]

There is no innocent mistake whereby synthetic insulin gets inside of a TPN bag.

 

[OldBlondie]

Also can I just point out there are many reasons LL’s attacks may have been spaced out after a while. Firstly there was a consultant starting to get suspicious, maybe he wasn’t the only one, especially as the “something odd” texts showing also some nurses starting to realise something strange going on, so she may have had to lie low til the heat died down. We also know she bought a house (time consuming) and also she could very still well have been hurting/attacking babies in the times of gaps that there either isn’t enough evidence for, or they were minor attacks that went unnoticed, such as temporarily removing nose prongs, making babies wait for feeds etc
and they stopped when she went off on holidays also

It’s not clear is it. I thought maybe he was questioning her memory of the amount of vomit.

I am wondering whether Lucy did the excess feed/air and muted the alarm, then went to sit with the shift leader? I’m wondering how instant the vomiting would be, or if there was smaller vomit initially which she ignored and then the bigger vomit came shortly after?

Excellent points, we will hear evidence soon of LL muting alarms and switching machines off, so I find this extremely plausible. She seems to be setting herself up with alibis in notes and other times too, so this is also very plausible I think. And yes you well be right, maybe there could have been a minor vomit first, followed by the really projectile one that caused noise.

 

[Windowtothewall]

I'm with you 100%. What was very notable today was there was lots of detail about the incident and absolutely no evidence of her involvement.
This is starting to be almost a carbon copy of the Lucia de Berk case, and we all know what happened there

The Lucia case didn't just fail because it was ONLY backed up by statistics but because they got her whereabouts wrong - they thought she was with the patient when she was on holiday. They got her alibi wrong. Without that massive error, they wouldn't have overturned her conviction. Also Lucia was suspected ONLY on the say so of just one doctor. They've established here that even before the doctors got suspicious, other nurses and even parents noticed odd things.

They haven't got LL's whereabouts wrong because this case is in an era of technology with an audit trail of messages, electronic key cards and a number of witnesses including parents. So actually other than being nurses, there's nothing similar between the cases.

 

[friedeggontoast]

Later in the afternoon, the nurse messaged Letby that Child G's condition was still very poor.

Letby responds: "any idea what's caused in [sic]?"

The nurse responds, at 6.06pm, "Nope. Just seems to be a circulation collapse. Chest sounds clear."

Letby: "Hmm, what can cause that.

"Is it that she is an extreme premature who had long-term inotrope and vent dependency and now she is older and doing more for herself...it just takes a little...something to tip her over."

The nurse responds: "We are going with sepsis..."

________________________________________________
LL providing reasons why baby G might’ve deteriorated

 

[OldBlondie]

And another colleague not been sleeping after another event. Seems her colleagues really were traumatised by what was going on. Everyone but her again hey

Later in the afternoon, the nurse messaged Letby that Child G's condition was still very poor.

Letby responds: "any idea what's caused in [sic]?"

The nurse responds, at 6.06pm, "Nope. Just seems to be a circulation collapse. Chest sounds clear."

Letby: "Hmm, what can cause that.

"Is it that she is an extreme premature who had long-term inotrope and vent dependency and now she is older and doing more for herself...it just takes a little...something to tip her over."

The nurse responds: "We are going with sepsis..."

________________________________________________
LL providing reasons why baby G might’ve deteriorated

She’s great with all these natural causes that’s she now diagnosed every single baby A-G with, isn’t she. At this rate I’m amazed she hadn’t decided to train further and become a consultant seeing as she seems to know so much, and diagnose so many of these babies better than what the actual doctors have