Lucy Letby Case #19

[musiclover90]

If you kill someone you needed to have intended to kill them or cause them GBH, for attempted murder you have to intended wanted to kill them (no GBH - so actually quite tricky to prove sometimes that you didn’t just want to cause them GBH). Prosecution must feel confident they can prove the intention was to kill, or they’d have gone with a GBH charge instead (for context a s18 GBH - GBH with intent carries the same maximum sentence as attempted murder so often the preferred charge where you can’t quite prove they intended to kill, only that they intended to cause GBH). Hope that makes sense?

Oh yes thanks for explaining! They must know what charges to go with to make sure she get's sent down for the max possible and doesn't get off on some. I just can't get my head around her failing 3+ times when she was a nurse. I just think she didn't intend death those times, that's why I was trying to analyse the charges more.

Am still amazed someone could be doing what she was (allegedly) doing back in 2015/16, after Beverly Allitt I thought this would never happen again. Back then you didn't even have social media or mobile phones but they are painting quite a picture with this case aren't they.

 

[stardust1]

I agree with that word for word. I’m confident that the jury will make the right decision. And I’m confident that she will be found G (quite prepared to have that thrown back in my face). The fact the journalists are talking about it being the biggest case of their careers makes me think this too, if she’s found NG then it won’t be, only if she’s found G, and the podcast is something they’ve not done before. I really do think they’re expecting her to be found G too tbh or they wouldn’t be saying all this. I know some people think there’s not much coverage, but it’s in the local and national newspapers every night and live reporting most days, I just think it’s cos it’s 6 months the coverage doesn’t feel massive atm. Journalists also have inside sources, I really do think they’re expecting G and when that verdict comes in it’s going to go insane.


Was in not 2018 she was arrested? I think I’m getting mixed up. Think that colleague was JJK amd I think they were actually good friends

ETA yes she wasn’t arrested first until 2018. Back in early 2017 she was probably on admin at that stage. But have to point out that there may have been rumours about why she was on admin BUT colleagues would not necessarily have known due to confidentiality issues, and I doubt LL would be telling people the real reason

ah was it 2018, I thought the first arrest was 2017. So I guess that colleague at least didn’t have suspicions at that point then. I think if it was going around the hospital about her then there was probably some colleagues who thought guilty and some innocent just like this thread. The colleague I was talking about was not JJK, I cannot remember her name but Lucy seemed to spend a few nights out with her and she was an older colleague. (might be relevant to her personality might not!)

 

[allybongo]

Honestly it wasn't a dig just my opinion. Most people who have that big an age gap now have more than one child, as in they have that age gap with their 3rd or 4th, not their 1st.

It would be uncommon 30 plus years ago to wait until your 40's to have your first child. Completely different to now when it would be quite common.

Absolute nonsense. My husband was 45 when our first child was born. Completely normal.

 

[slidders]

Juror illness today, so no court.

 

[Blockedbyadmin]

Don’t think OP was trying to justify any killings to be fair…

No I’m just staying my opinion to the post not what she was implying or question. Maybe I should have said that

 

[slingo16]

It’s been discussed a few times and was mentioned during the agreed facts at the beginning.

I’ve seen this previously and I don’t think it’s a concession of anything, I thought there was something new, that confirmed the defence aren’t questioning foul play. I think this sentence is pretty meaningless without any context around it. And as I’ve said in another post, even if she concedes it in an interview what actually qualifies her to make that judgment

 

[mRsKbRoOkS]

It was exactly the point he was making right from the start of the conversation, you just didn't grasp it at the time.

Then you missed the discussion surrounding what other causes there were for insulin / c-peptide levels last night.

 

[OldBlondie]

Thanks, I’ll check it out!
If BMs strategy is to go down the route of someone poisoned the babies but it wasn’t letby, will he start pointing fingers at the pharmacy when the defense get their turn? Is he allowed to do that?

I’ve honestly no idea, but it seems pharmacy ruled out completely atm. It would be more likely it’s another nurse he’ll go after. Every single nurse on duty that night/day have all been asked whether they ever gave F insulin, or added anything to bag so I think that’s where he’s going, but that’s just my guess

 

[candyland_]

Originally they were looking at deaths from March 2015.

 

[candyland_]

Taken from the Wiki. I wonder if this is a different nurse because it’s a different recollection. The nurse on her break had no idea the baby was unwell until after her break and I can’t imagine three nurses would be sat around at the same time. There’s usually only 5 on night shift.

 

[OldBlondie]

And I think the fact that they had these test results at the time and no action was taken is a huge part of the defence, the prosecution seem to suggest that the results point to only one conclusion which is inconsistent with no action being taken at the time
I’m going to speculate that at the time the results were put down to something else. And BM will use this as part of his confirmation bias pattern he’s been alluding to throughout the trial

I see what you’re saying but I think the test not being followed up on is irrelevant. It doesn’t change that fact baby F was deliberately poisoned with insulin.

 

[Daisydunn15]

For me one of the most crucial things about the note was that it was written BEFORE her first arrest. At that point she’d only been moved to admin duties. Did she know the full extent of what she was being accused of then? I know the hospital had asked the police to investigate the amount of deaths but did anyone at the hospital know they were looking at murder at that point?

Defence opening statement said she knew at that point what she was being accused of.

 

[avabella]

Yeah, I'd message my friends from work about work, but I wouldn't message someone I had no rapport with and wouldn't usually speak to. Sounds like it was the norm, well it clearly was if they messaged each other about whether or not they'd given meds or feeds

Yeh that's what I mean. I know LL is on trial etc etc, but the fact is that the Dr no doubt messaged back or at some point had set the baseline that messaging about patients on Facebook was ok. Nothing seems 'right' from the top down.

 

[CabalofBolorneaise]

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?

It worries me too. Things like this and the confusion over the bags for baby F and whether she was there or had access to the second are the type of things that will start putting doubt into the juries minds. Along with the way the ward seems to have generally been chaotic and mismanaged, if she is G it could end up that she gets off on reasonable doubt.

The whole argument for most of the babies is the pattern and while that works in the prosecutions favour to prove, it will also work against them as if the jury start to doubt cases in the pattern they’ll start to doubt them all. Then add in one of the insulin ones doesn’t seem anywhere near as clear cut that it was LL as it originally sounded even if they’re all in agreement it was deliberately done by someone and the prosecution case is starting to crack.

 

[mRsKbRoOkS]

Ok so both the CS and the Dailymail are reporting the prosecution are suggesting there were infact two tpn bags contaminated with insulin, based on what Bohin said when giving evidence today; the practice for a long line replacement, is for the tpn also to be changed, so they believe there were two bags contaminated, one bespoke and one stock. The stock one was kept in fridge next to insulin . The only child on unit receiving tpn that night was F, so if LL also contaminated the stock bag, then she knew that F would definitely be the only baby to receive it that night. Link to full DM article here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/p...urse-received-two-bags-contaminated-feed.html

And the only baby receiving tpn that night:

View attachment 1772111

*ETA I do think there’s some confusion over the 2nd bag, whether a new one was actually given or the same one was rehung. I’m not sure whether this is down to the reporting or whether they (pros) can’t be sure which of the two scenarios is correct, they are going on the fact long line change should have also meant tpn change, but as we know just because that was procedure doesn’t necessarily mean it was followed. But the most important bit for me is it’s not really relevant about whether 2nd bag contaminated/used because if it had any significance, we can be absolutely sure BM would have definitely brought it up, the fact he didn’t means it’s not important. Both sides have had this evidence for years, so I doubt people on tattle are going to have discovered anything new, or relevant that both sides have potentially missed Either way we know for definite someone deliberately tampered with original tpn bag (and possibly 2nd stock), which meant a deliberate poisoning, and attempted murder on baby F

o wow. I’m not sure what this means if no other baby was receiving TPN bags that night, though it seems significant.
However, it still seems ‘off’ to me that she would have contaminated all the bags in the fridge. Not saying she wouldn’t, but what I can’t seem to ignore is if all bags were contaminated by letby prior to her leaving how come no other baby came into contact with these insulin contaminated bags in the following days ?
Or is it that these bags have a shelf life ? How long would they be stored for before they are thrown out ? Is it possible that Baby F was the only baby on the ward receiving TPN before they were disposed of? Anyone know if this is possible.

 

[OldBlondie]

Mersey hack also tweeting today for anyone interested, and also judith

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

It sounds as if she was using Facebook a lot, she even sent a message about a patient to one of the doctors using the facebook messenger feature. It's something I can't really get my head around, tbh - I have a facebook account, but only so I can keep track of a couple of companies I use, I don't have any personal or family information on there but that's partly on account of a very persistent stalker who would have hoovered up any info I posted. Is it normal to look up people you barely know? I know some people are never off it, and it sounds to me like LL didn't have much of a social life

She messaged a Dr about a patient on Facebook!!?? Wtf!!? She's the same age as me, this is definitely weird. Why was she not reprimanded for that?? I know GDPR wasn't as big a thing back then but it would still have definitely been considered wildly unprofessional and inappropriate.

 

[Deeznutslol]

Yeah and it doesnt mean they had any assistance to have her or anything, just could have worked out that way for them.


I'm in my early 30's and having my 3rd and I am still one of the youngest in the waiting rooms.

It's simply too unaffordable, this will be my last, childcare cost make having any more just impossible.

It’s such a shame that it’s the case tbh, I would love a big family but the costs are just terrifying!

 

[KVcrimes]

I would like to hear more from the prosecution on how they think LL went about tampering with the bags, if I have understood correctly is this how they are saying the insulin was administered, rather than a direct injection into the skin?

Would she have had to manually open the bag and add the insulin via a syringe before it was put up? How easy would it be to add insulin to an existing bag without it being obvious to others?

From the reporting this hasn't been explained well, I would have thought this would need to be explained to the jury to show this could be done easily without detection.

Maybe this will come up later? (sorry if I have got this completely wrong I have no medical knowledge, so please feel free to correct me)..

 

[OldBlondie]

That was me. I think they included that part for a reason - (the designated baby milk text)

Excellent spot, the more I think about it, the more I think you’re onto something. Hopefully today’s roundups will have more info, and provide some more context and detail for some of what we’ve already heard yesterday. I don’t like this no live reporting, although if it is all technical bits today then I understand why there’s nothing. At least we know Liz from DM is definitely there today so there should at least be a round up from her in DM tonight