Lucy Letby Case #19

[Pulltheotherone]

One thing struck me …. Probably barking up the wrong tree but she looks absolutely nothing like her parents. No similarities whatsoever I can see.

 

[avabella]

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’ti 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

I reckon even if she was found NG it would be a massive landmark case.

 

[housebythesea]

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'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

 

[Aberscot]

With the overfeeding, I am guessing the baby would not have been bottle fed so would it been a syringe or tube does anyone know? How quickly would it take for someone to deliberately do this?
just thinking with the other attempts if she’s guilty would be quick and not so obvious, eg injecting the air or TNT bags.
with this attempt she has to get extra milk from somewhere to do, more risk at being caught?

 

[Milktray]

I don’t remember is definitely less suspicious than “no comment” in my head anyway,

I think re her not remembering the fb searches, it’s a tough one because it sounds like she did a lot of searches for children not involved as well, she can’t be expected to remember every detail and reason why she made each search, I think G/NG she’d end up in knots if she started answering questions about them, I’d imagine she wouldn’t be able to justify every search from memory without getting muddled up, she might remember searching x y z but not others and I’d say that could be used against her aswell. so I think that part has to have been advised, I think there must be enough searches for the defence to be confident that they can plausibly say “I don’t remember” and it not raise too many eyebrows

I agree. Of course, she knows why she searched the families but in terms of her defence, saying anything too 'taxing' could open a can of worms for her.
Either/or, it was always going to be used as evidence against her.

 

[OldBlondie]

I can’t find anyone doing live reporting at all, is court definitely sitting? @Tofino would you be able to check I don’t know how it’s done. Has mark done his 3 days this week? I’ve searched Twitter too and can’t find anyone there. Looking like no live reporting today at all If anyone starts live reporting I’ll post it on here, but none of the usual so far seem to be

 

[candyland_]

Despite all the tragic deaths well outside the normal stats for a unit of the size that shook all her colleagues to their core! Mad to think she was still "bored" isn't it!!?

It’s shocking. I can’t remember when it was said but it was quite late into the cases.

 

[IGiveUp22]

Yeah they aspirate the fluids from baby to check if the feed has been digested. Which from the trial today that looks like that was done. So the only explanation is she was over fed.

thank you, I had a feeling there Would be a way to know this but I just wanted to get it straight in my own head

 

[SamPam]

I can't see LL's name in court today.

 

[CabalofBolorneaise]

To be fair though none of us are on the jury and we aren’t hearing all the evidence and we don’t know what it’s like to be in that court room. So what may seem like doubt to someone external to the case it could be completely different to someone on the jury.

In fairness though that surely goes both ways. What seems like a certain conclusion to us could be completely different to the people on the jury.

I don’t think LL is a scapegoat, but I’m not certain the prosecution are going to manage to get her convicted on everything. And while ultimately the guilt and responsibility lies with LL if G, I think the hospital have a lot of questions to answer with respect to the general conduct on the ward helping her get away with it for so long.

 

[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

 

[Haveyouanywool]

BA's tariff expired November 2021 but I don't think she can apply for parole unless she's found fit to be transferred to prison. Happy to be corrected ofc.

That’s what I thought too. She’s kept herself in Rampton this far, so is she even going to try?

 

[slingo16]

The “10% dextrose” that they used to treat child fs hypoglycaemia, I’m not sure exactly what this does or even is lol but I guess it’s used to raise blood sugar levels? Anyway how does this treatment effect C peptide levels?

 

[slingo16]

Bsbdbd

Overfeeding a premature baby, can kill them.
Knowingly overfeeding a premature baby is deliberate harm.
Which is why every feed is measured and documented whilst baby is in NICU.

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

 

[Weeder]

Yes there has been a mysteriously unwell juror the day after a couple of England games now ! Don’t blame them to be honest, getting smashed and watching the football must be a welcome break from such a horrendous case

Agreed. I thought there was sickness after one of the other games.. I wonder if it's the same one.

 

[candyland_]

Can u watch the case?

Cameras aren’t allowed in.

 

[housebythesea]

So even though the defence and LL have agreed that the insulin poisonings are deliberate, you’re trying to say they are not?

Did I say that?
I think the blood results put it 99% certain that the insulin was exogenous, although I would hope the tests were repeated to rule out any assay problems. However, that is neither evidence nor proof that she did it, or in fact that it was deliberate. In fact, if the prosecution's case is that in the case of child F there were two bags containing insulin, that could be used to exclude LL, as you would need a very convoluted plot to have her responsible for poisoning the second one when she wasn't on shift.
The problem is that if there was an innocent mistake somewhere along the line, all the evidence to confirm that is gone.

 

[friedeggontoast]

Hdhdhhan

The reason they gave to justify the results xxx

Yes what reason are you putting forward that they justified the results?

 

[slingo16]

The specialist could interpret them. And advised that they send the bloods for further analysis, the hospital didn’t do this. That specialist doesn’t work for the hospital though. What the doctors who requested the bloods did with the results after is down to them, not the facility that actually tested the blood. I said this back along there should be some sort of multi agency safe guarding framework in place when a testing facility finds something suspicious, and they should have a duty to see what went on after and do a follow up.

They don’t already have that responsibility then? Seems wild

 

[slingo16]

Yeah it probably is more likely than insulin in a TPN, but happening to the same baby three times?

The prosecution haven’t even proven the baby was over fed yet, there’s still plenty to learn with regard to child g