Lucy Letby Case #19

[candyland_]

I’m wondering if she used the breast milk meant for her own designated baby. I found it odd that the text about that was brought up.

Baby Gs mum would know how much she had expressed and if some was missing she would notice. Whereas if she stole it from the baby she was looking after nobody would notice because she could say she fed baby with it.

 

[candyland_]

They will have door swipe records too.

 

[I’mThankyou_]

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 get what you're saying, but I don't think they're suggesting she attacked Baby G because she hit that milestone, i think they have just highlighted and focused on the 100days to get the Jury to see just how far this baby had come, before LL got their hands on her. 10 days, 100 days, 200 days I don't think that bares any significance on when LL would attack, they just want to highlight it was a celebration she had in COCH, one that LL very well may of joined in on, and then days later she had the bare faced audacity to harm her.

 

[Rippedjeanmaybe]

Well if she did commit the murders, which I believe she did then she would have known exactly what they were about to accuse her of. She was probably expecting it for a long time, she must have known she’d get caught eventually.

For me you just wouldn’t write a note saying “i am evil I killed them on purpose” if it wasn’t true.

If I was devastated over being accused, but I knew I hadn’t done anything wrong, then I’d write something like “I hate myself, why would they think I’d do something like this, I must be an awful person”. I wouldn’t say I killed them.

 

[riddleme89]

so Baby G was fine and doing brilliant so was allowed to go to Chester . Around three weeks at Chester she was doing amazing and they lucy was on days at this point . Then lucy did I think two night shifts and things started going bad for baby G

im sorry but for a baby to be doing so well from birth for 100 days to suddenly go downhill in Lucy’s care it’s so obvious now that she’s hurt these babies .

 

[Aberscot]

She did quite the number in the space (snapshot) of just a year. Imagine her in a 40 yr career span. (I don’t believe she would have go on that long though).

I also think there were more victims ,they just couldn’t get enough evidence to bring charges for.
If guilty who knows how many other innocent babies have been harmed by her

 

[candyland_]

I do remember that being given as a reason but it is piss poor, and I refuse to accept that. “Somebody tried to kill this baby, not to worry though cos he’s alright now” ridiculous reasoning

The worrying thing is they brushed it off again when Baby L was poisoned.

 

[OldBlondie]

Behind on thread will catch up shortly though. But just seen this now, not sure if it’s true, or if it’s already been posted but I know we have had speculation about possible ivf babies being a factor after hearing mum of A&B. Then saw this for G, it also occurred to me it would make sense if babies were twins/triplets and ivf was involved , as that’s usual for ivf to have multiples

 

[friedeggontoast]

Bsbdbsbs

I’m far from intelligent but I’ve researched the topic to the best of my ability and basically everything says low c peptide and high insulin means the presence of synthetic insulin I can’t find anything to contradict this. Which makes me wonder how the conclusion wasn’t reached at the time? That’s what I don’t understand

Because clearly the ward weren’t working to the highest standard it should’ve been. Just because they didn’t highlight it at the time, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. The ward can be shit and LL can be a murderer at the same time, they’re not exclusive to each other.

 

[Tofino]

That’s what I mean is strange - that it is so accepting that the other nurses records must be incorrect based on a ‘positive’ outcome, but any time LL’s records are incorrect, it’s because of a sinister reason. It just feels a bit messy.

it’s not as simple as that though. You have to look at each one and think is that reasonable or not.

you could also say the opposite - those that think Lucy not remembering something accurately is innocent becuase of the incidents being a few years gone. But this nurse’s memory must be accurate and correct because … it provides Lucy with an alibi ?

It’s not a one rule fits all. It’s about context and reasonableness. For example Lucy’s notes for baby E were not reasonable because they weren’t just a slight difference of timing. She denies what the mum said ever took place at all.

 

[Deeznutslol]

There have been so many discussions around this already on the last thread or two. So tonight it just feels like going round in a massive circle, with no further forward and some starting to feel frustrated at going over the same thing repeatedly. Regardless of whether the hospital did or didn’t follow up on tests, that has no bearing on the fact that the tpn bag was deliberately contaminated with synthetic insulin (which was actually the original point about synthetic insulin, but anyway). The staff themselves and the prosecution, have both said there is no way anyone would ever believe that F had been deliberately poisoned with insulin at that time. It being followed up or not, is a completely separate issue, and irrelevant to the fact synthetic insulin was being deliberately administered on purpose to F. I’m not sure what else there is to say on it

To be fair, not everyone has been around for every single discussion that happens on here because these threads move really fast. Some have been following the trial much more closely (and have done a lot of their own research into things so have a better understanding of things like how the insulin works and c-peptide levels etc). Where as others just simply don’t have the time to follow it constantly, or have joined late, prefer to dip in and out etc. which is why I think sometimes it can feel like we’re going round in circles a bit on these threads with people asking questions or suggesting explanations for things which have already been discussed.
I can totally understand how that can be frustrating to some, but at the end of the day it’s still relevant and legitimate discussion, so I would say the best thing to do is just scroll past it if you find yourself getting annoyed by it.

 

[abelleza]

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.

It’s about logistics really. In many areas insulin is such a commonly used medicine that it would be an absolute nightmare for nurses to have to get a colleague to double sign every time they needed to use it. I used to work on a ward where most of our 32 patient at any one time would be on it, we would spend nearly all of our time signing and checking if we had to do that. Not to mention that most of the time in adult medicine, adults bring their own insulin pens in and it’s best practice to let them administer it themselves so they keep some control and don’t become complacent. If we had to take everyone’s insulin pens off them and put them in the CD cupboards many people, particularly type 1 diabetics who are used to controlling their own diabetes often very strictly, would kick off.

Also there’s no reason to want to steal it except to try and kill someone else or yourself - its not like you can get high off it.

Also it needs to be kept in the fridge if it’s a vial, or if it’s a pen kept in the fridge until someone starts to use it - therefore it couldn’t be kept with all the other CD medication.

You are supposed to get it checked by another nurse before giving it as even a slight miscalculation, or giving someone the wrong type of insulin, could be fatal or at least dangerous, but unfortunately in a busy ward that’s not always adhered to. But a nurse wouldn’t stand a chance in court or in front of the NMC if they made a mistake with insulin and didn’t get a second checker.

 

[Tofino]

My head is fried. I don’t envy the jury members one bit. Some random thoughts.
1. How was LL identified as the suspect in a hospital consisting of 100s of people. Like how was she specifically pinpointed as the number one suspect? Was it because she was on shift every time? But then she wasn’t present when baby F deteriorated.
2. WHY wasn’t anything done at the time to challenge the collapses or deaths? Maybe it was and we aren’t being told in the reporting? Why were the reasons or explanations given at the time now not applicable? I also worry that where there have been such serious failings in the hospital identified, such as a missed opportunity to undertake an autopsy, it just highlights the failings of the hospital and makes it likely that this somehow contributed to the babies outcomes and this could undermine the jury’s ability to find her G beyond reasonable doubt.
I feel so conflicted!

she was present when baby F deteriorated. She signed for the bespoke TPN bag and hung it around 12.25am. Very few people had access to that bag. About half an hour or hour later he started to deteriorate and had low blood sugars. The debate has been over the second bag possibly hung later when she was not on shift (but which she did actually have access to).

 

[friedeggontoast]

If i was to hazard a guess, i'd say you didnt work in health care

I’m assuming you do? And are you implying nurses are often sent to trial for murder to cover up bad practice on a ward?

 

[EffingDust]

“Do matalan deliver to prison?”

“Can you run my Suzuki Swift round the block so the battery doesn’t go flat?”

anyone else got a feeling there’s going to be a big shocker to come out about Lucy’s past? Like something that won’t be allowed in court but will come out after?
Can’t shake the feeling. Like a sibling to die is mysterious circumstances or something.

 

[Tofino]

I know some people are struggling to understand how Lucy contaminated the second bag. But whether it was Lucy or someone else, they contaminated the first bag and the second bag. So whatever sounds far fetched for Lucy would also be far fetched for someone else.

At the end of the day, Lucy had access to the stock bags in the fridge. It’s not like the second bag was a bespoke one that came up on to the ward after she left for her shift that she never had access to.

 

[SamPam]

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.

 

[HappyGoss]

I want it noted here and now.

If this coward takes the stand I shall show my big bare bottom on the town hall steps

Absolutely no chance.

If this was my daughter who was going through this, who was protesting her innocence I would absolutely beg her with all of my being to take the stand, to say her piece, to get it on file that she didn't kill these babies.

But she won't. She won't do it for her parents, for herself and absolutely not for the families of her victims.

Because she is as guilty as sin (in my opinion)

*Please don't report this post Karen love...I won't really expose my bum, it's winter

 

[friedeggontoast]

I do remember that being given as a reason but it is piss poor, and I refuse to accept that. “Somebody tried to kill this baby, not to worry though cos he’s alright now” ridiculous reasoning

Clearly their first thought wasn’t that one of their own was trying to murder babies

Its a huge fuck up on their part but doesn’t absolve LL of guilt

 

[Sparkledarmer]

A lady at my daughters school had twins at 50! she thought she was going through the menopause but was actually pregnant. Needless to say they weren't planned, she found out at 22 weeks