Notice
Thread ordered by most liked posts - View normal thread.

DianaBanana

Chatty Member
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?
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 22

candyland_

VIP Member
I’m behind on the thread and reporting today but I think the nurse fed her, got her settled and went for her break and that’s when Letby over fed her, injected her with air and hurt her 😔
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: 22

Sparkledarmer

VIP Member
Can I just say whoever is doing the Wiki updates is amazing.......so much detail and explanation. I get overwhelmed on this thread and struggle to keep up, so having the Wiki to reference is brilliant. Thank you so much lovely people ;)
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 22

IGiveUp22

VIP Member
Just wanting to go back to the whole her getting “worse” & that not following the SK “rules”.
SK tend to get sloppy due to an increased opinion that they’re untouchable hence they usually get caught.

my speculation (& that’s all it is) is that she switched methods because she thought people were on to her. I’m not even sure I think the death part is what she aimed for as I believe her motive, if I had to settle on one, was more related to the attention/excitement. Therefore, the fact she wasn’t “successful” (awful word sorry) in some cases didn’t matter - she still got what she wanted out of it. She still got the attention/excitement at the time, she got the sympathy of her colleagues, she could still check up of the victims parents who would likely show a different type of grief but still grief to an extent if their baby was permanently disabled.

again, we’re all trying to apply “logic” or findings from previous research of SK to explain her behaviour when there is also the possibility that there are no explanations as to why she did what she did, why she switched methods, why some were killed & some weren’t. She purely could have just gone rouge & was doing whatever she felt like at the time purely because she could, with no real explanation other than she is evil.

Obv I am aware some people are still on the fence/NG so this is just a disclaimer to say I’m looking at it, for this particular topic, I am looking at it that she is G (although imo, she is).
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 22

DianaBanana

Chatty Member
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.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: 22

HappyGoss

Member
I foster kids, some of them come to me a bit messed up, full of emotion and not really knowing how to convey their thoughts.

I always, always get them to smash out their feelings on paper, it's so very cathartic, helps them get their muddles in order. If you can't say it, write it down. Keep the ones that mean something and throw the ones that don't away. Read them in a few months time and see if you feel the same.

Obviously I don't read what they've wrote (unless they want me to) but I'm damn sure none of them have written that they are a murderer.

I absolutely cannot just disregard LLs notes as something unimportant and irrelevant. They are an admission and I fail to see how anyone can twist it any other way.

'THE PEN IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD' and it always will be.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 22

OldBlondie

VIP Member
Doing this on the babies 100th day, beyond sick and evil. I can’t even think about this, there’s no words 😩
 
  • Sad
  • Like
Reactions: 22

mRsKbRoOkS

VIP Member
I think letby has been ruled out as the reason for collapses in other cases not in the trial because these collapses ARE medically explainable. If you look at child H (the weakest link imo), then you will see that professional’s did not automatically assume letby was responsible for many of baby H’s collapses. They ruled her out on several occasions because they could explain them. I’ll need to go back and look but I’m pretty sure there were only two a occasion’s where baby H collapsed that they couldn’t explain other than Letby. If you consider this then it somewhat throws out the theory that they have assumed guilt because she was merely there. They haven’t, as if they did I’m sure they would have added many more charges to the indictment.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 22

od12839

Member
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?
Was going to type something similar out but you've already put it perfectly. It's a valid question - how was it originally explained, and why does that explanation not apply now?

I think the issue might in assuming everything gets a full explanation. Information gets fragmented between departments, people get half stories. The test results don't mean murder, they mean overdose. I can fully imagine a scenario where that information get passed to some management type who reads it and assumes one of the nurses has fucked up, and either covers it up or puts out some half-arsed "please remind people to be diligent and double check!!" type advice, because they don't know or don't care enough to investigate and realise the baby was never prescribed it in the first place.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 21

Treesy19

VIP Member
Completely agree. This case is not plucked out of thin air based on her presence alone. Her presence is a huge factor but there is overwhelming evidence for a crime of this nature - copious amounts of air in many babies that have had interaction with the accused (that expert radiologist had never seen the likes of), deaths very sudden and unexpected (quotes from the accused to prove this), the accused having given cares before sudden collapses of babies previously stable on almost all cases, physical signs of air emboli- pink secretions, fleeting rash, strange responses to cpr, evidence of physical harm- throat multiple cases, excessive bleeding and damaged liver, causes of death unknown or sketchy at PM, large doses of insulin to patients not prescribed and not legitimately given, many witness accounts of suspicious behaviour- eg monitors not sounding, standing at bedside of babies “on the brink of death” removed breathing tubes and doing nothing, tons of background evidence that she hasn’t offered an innocent explanation to, other suspicious behaviour such as accused’s handwriting initialling for other people, collapses and deaths having strange similarities that don’t seem like chance (such as frequently happening when designated nurse was on a break), recoveries outside of her care meaning collapses are more likely sabotage than pervasive problem.. I have probably missed a few points. If you don’t find any of that compelling then sure, it could just be that she was there.
Is there a way to pin this post. I feel it needs to be wheeled out every now and then.

Don’t forget the note stating -

“I killed them on PURPOSE…..”
Yet some people say this note carries no weight whatsoever 🥴 An actual written admission. Probably the only time she’s come clean. Because she didn’t think anyone would come by it. So arrogant at not being caught. Oh but she has been caught. If innocent, she could have written, “I killed them” or “I accidentally killed them”. But no, it says on purpose.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 21

Appletiser

Active member
I think I had intrusive thoughts when I was babysitting. What if the mirror falls over her Moses basket? What if I’ve made her bottle wrong and it makes her poorly? What if she’s crying because I’ve accidentally hurt her? Is she too warm/cold and worrying about her blankets. I think these were probably just overprotective thoughts to keep her as safe as possible.
very normal and innocent, I have those ones about my toddler ALL the time,
I’ve also experienced ones much darker 😄 about family, strangers, colleagues… violent ones, sexual ones all sorts .. I thought I was evil, but since have found out so much more about them and know I in no way wanted to act on them and they repulsed me. They’re very common.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 21

candyland_

VIP Member
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.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
  • Sad
Reactions: 21

friedeggontoast

Chatty Member
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
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 21

OldBlondie

VIP Member
Slingo, I’m logging off for tonight, but before I go, I really don’t understand your points/question tonight at all. They just seem as if you’re looking for an argument. The same thing has been gone over I don’t know how many times, yet you keep asking the same thing that many different posters have tried to answer for you. I really don’t understand what your question/point is. If it’s genuine then I’m confused as I say it’s been answered I don’t know how many times. And if it’s not genuine well, I’d just like to think that’s not the case at all
 
  • Like
  • Heart
  • Haha
Reactions: 21

Haveyouanywool

VIP Member
He does indeed unfortunately go down the route of the baby being so premature, I read briefly what he said in opening about it this morning 😩

View attachment 1774184
[/QUOTE]

That’s total BS, IMO. She was 100 days old and 4lbs!
Regardless of how premature she was at birth she had been tolerating 45mls of milk by bottle.
Being premature 100 days before does not make you suddenly and inexplicably start throwing up more feed than you have been given and have 100mls of air in your stomach.
I’m calling total BS on that defence.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
  • Sad
Reactions: 21

raspberryjuice

VIP Member
Not more significant than another baby, more significant than the attack which took place later in her life when she would even more stable than at the 100 day mark, the prosecution are trying to give a reason for the 100 day attack but they can’t give one for the 114th day because there is no significance around that number
They’re only bringing up that it was 100 days because it was cause for celebration on the ward. They had a banner, someone bought in cake. It was a massive achievement that she had made it to Day 100. I don’t think they are saying it’s more significant than any other day or attack, just that baby was doing so well they were celebrating because 100 is a good milestone to celebrate.

LL had just made her a target. She would have done the same regardless of day, as we know she attacked her again and we know other babies were attacked at days or weeks old. So 100 days isn’t significant in terms of LL attacking her, but it is significant in Baby G’s life.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 21

Blockedbyadmin

VIP Member
Just to clarify I’m only sharing what I’ve seen on Twitter. I’m not saying I believe it by doing that. Pls don’t jump on me for sharing something
 
  • Like
Reactions: 21

Lucyxxxx

VIP Member
I had to leave the Archie B thread as I started getting intrusive thoughts about hanging myself. I have suffered severe PND twice the second time round I've only just recovered from really so I stopped taking part in that thread.
 
  • Sad
  • Heart
  • Like
Reactions: 21

OldBlondie

VIP Member
This case is so sad born at 24 weeks got to 34 weeks and moved from arrow park to Chester assuming because child G was getting better . from Aug 14 to sep 6th baby G was in Chester doing ok . Then Lucy who was on days picked up night shifts for the time baby G collapses I assume


utterly heartbreaking those poor parents with how well baby G was doing 😓
Baby G is a really hard read, whether you think G or NG this one is going to be so emotive. Just glad the parents haven’t been called this time

LL not the designated nurse AGAIN and supposed to be in a different room, sounds familiar already 😔
 
  • Like
  • Sad
  • Sick
Reactions: 21