Lucy Letby Case #19

[Treesy19]

What you’ve got to remember is the scene of all this. Hospital ward. A serial killer isn’t going to operate here with a dagger or a gun in such a setting. It always has to be medical sabotage. I doubt any healthcare serial killer would choose suffocation with a pillow for instance either - or strangulation - that’s so easy to spot in a post mortem. The only way to operate as a killer here is to cause utter confusion and go for victims not always assigned to you. I feel like I’m giving out a manual here, but I believe she operated very cleverly but in such a setting it was only ever going to have a short expiry date at the same hospital. I wonder whether if not caught when she was, she would have moved around more, changed hospitals. Charles Cullen went for many years moving hospitals. Granted, the hospitals knew but didn’t act…because America… and threat of law suits from victims’ families. He moved and wasn’t their problem anymore.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

It's not clear - hopefully it was in court - when that refers to. It says at one point "The blood sample for Child G is taken at 3.59am."
If so, that is prior to the severe desat at 17%. Also they were apparently shown the full blood gas record, which we don't get to see. Some of the clinical decisions seem questionable to me, such as the decision to extubate which was followed by that severe desaturation and then a reintubation, but maybe they are getting a clearer picture

If child G had not been sabotaged by milk and air bolus she would not have required emergency intubation, which carries risk, in the first place. This whole scenario played out again some weeks later after child G had spent an uneventful week at AP and the same at CoC. Until LL happened by.
It’s a wonder the Drs managed to keep her alive after that much sabotage.

 

[Daisydunn15]

I've been re-reading a lot of the Wiki, and I have to say I have massive concerns about how that unit was being run, and I don't mean the staffing levels. It is claimed she was moved to non-clinical duties when one consultant became suspicious about the number of incidents when she was about, but this seems like a massive under-reaction; I mean we are not talking about a suspicion that she was nicking supplies or making off with NHS toilet roll. Then there was the lack of response to blood tests showing that two children had been given exogenous insulin on the basis that "they are okay now". That's a bit like not bothering to investigate a shooting on the basis that the victim pulled through. Oh, there is so much which bothers me and I'm sure that whatever the outcome of this trial, there will be some very difficult questions for the management to answer in the fullness of time.

It's hard to sack someone in the nhs but it's common to move someone non clinical pending an investigation. If they noticed this pattern sooner (which they claim they did when they moved her to days) then she should have been moved to non clinical or suspended at that point.
Even if she is guilty this ward has allowed her to continue by not acting properly and being poorly led. I know the nurses and Dr's aren't on trial but their practice was shocking at times and that's just what we're hearing in relation to LL.

 

[kazizzle]

Only started following this case this week and wanted to thank you all for your insightful discussions and the really well put together Wiki!

Totally fascinated by this and really interested in her motive, if she is G. I’ve recently been on a jury so trying to keep an open mind as we likely aren’t hearing all the evidence due to the reporting. I do think the defence stance of it all basically being poor practices by the hospital is a bit washy, but I can see how some charges right now are hard to establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

From reading all the text convos she had with staff and finding out about how she involved herself with the parents it really sounds as if she thrived on the drama, sympathy and attention these incidents brought to her. It’s fascinating.

 

[mRsKbRoOkS]

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?

They obviously weren’t sure then, and they put it down as accidental and moved on. They arn’t detectives seeking out a poisoner. They are medical staff there to do the job of treating patients, which they did baby F survived. It’s only after the internal and external investigation happened and in hindsight that they became sure. I don’t know how much clearer that point can be made.

 

[I’mThankyou_]

In addition you’d also check the positioning of the NG. For those without experience of this you remove a small amount of stomach contents and check the acidity. For G, having been fed 45ml of milk minutes before, would clearly show completely undigested milk in babies stomach. At this point you’d realise baby was already fed. There is no accidental over feeding.

This too @slingo16
It is almost impossible for an over feeding error to occur.
A medication one, like insulin can happen. But overfeeding. Absolutely not.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

I agree with you both.
If you took any of these cases in isolation, there would be extremely scant evidence to bring a case against anyone, frankly, at least not a case built on causing deliberate harm. I am concerned about some of this just being a case of confirmation bias.

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

 

[raspberryjuice]

My son was in nicu so I owe his life to the staff they were great in my experience interestingly I actually spent a week sleeping in the NICU in the family room with my partner so I can appreciate the measures that are taken but it’s well established that the care in this hospital was below par to say the least, over feeding imo has to be more likely than say accidental insulin over dose

I hope your son is doing well now.

I agree, the care in the unit is definitely not perfect. However, accidental over feeding is impossible for the reasons already explained. You have to test the placement of the NG before giving anything through it and this would clearly show the undigested milk fed minutes before. It is no mistake.

 

[Rippedjeanmaybe]

The baby showed no signs of brain damage before being moved to Chester. That’s just awful for those parents. There’s always a risk with prem babies that they might end up with brain damage or learning difficulties, but for her to be doing fine until going to Chester just shows how evil LL really is.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

Do you think there is something in LL causing harm to raise the level of nursing care. Seems like she often will become the named nurse after significant event due to her experience : often back into room 1. This could then serve the purpose of a God like / saviour complex.

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 babies when they had deteriorated. I’m assuming Baby G’s original designated nurse was less experienced.
I wonder if LL comes across as arrogant?
I do think she enjoyed other’s misery and lacked real empathy.

 

[tay65]

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?

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.

Also the baby didn't become ill because her body failed her which could happen with an extremely premature baby. She became poorly because someone overfed her on two occasions which caused the emergencies and this has been proven with the amount of vomit and amount of milk in her system. Therefore BM shouldn't be able to go credibly down the line of extreme prematurity being responsible. She was overfed and whilst nobody saw anyone do this the amount of coincidences and other circumstantial evidence points to only one person.

 

[riddleme89]

Surely at this stage there is absolutely no way it can be just another coincidence

No I think we are past coincidence now . How can the baby be under the care of staff in Chester for nearly a month doing well after being discharged from arrow park to then suddenly take a turn when Lucy is watching them . She didn’t see baby G at all prior to that . Then baby G goes back to arrow park does well again for some time and goes back to Chester into Lucy care then collapses again

she’s pure evil . Poor parents

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

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 also don't like making fun of people that I genuinely think could be a bit emotionally and mentally impaired in some way. I feel there are people who are NG and G who fit into that category but it only seems to be the NG ones that are being shared.... it just feels a bit mean tbh.

These people are just ordinary Joe soaps who aren't in the public lime light...

I mean some of the theories have been funny but... it's still just a bit mean I think!

My counsellor ages ago told me actually people who have intrusive thoughts are LESS likely to cause any harm and they are disturbed and distressed by the thoughts

Well that's somewhat comforting as a person who had them a lot growing up and still the odd time now!! Mostly about myself mind but I hope that would still be covered!

 

[Treesy19]

She’s fishing to find out whether her own name is coming up in conversations about these collapses isn’t she. All part of trying to test the waters about how “well” she’s doing in continuing her assaults.

 

[Treesy19]

A coincidence then that the unexplained collapses and unexpected deaths ceased occurring when Letby went off the scene. The real culprit must have had an instant change of heart about their impulses and got their empathy back. At the same time.

 

[mRsKbRoOkS]

I’m still leaning to the theory the first bag was never changed. Even though that is what should happen, we are well aware what should happen and what does happen doesn’t always marry up. I mean it was 7 years ago now. The nurse probably doesn’t remember either way. They are just going to state what is expected at the time I would have thought.

 

[LilyRose1234]

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.

My reading of it was that they were using the 100 day thing as context for the jury, rather than a motive of specifically targeting because she was 100 days old. Also, if I remember Baby G was transferred out of COCH after the first incident, then transferred back, hence the delay until day 114..

 

[mRsKbRoOkS]

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.

Don’t forget the note stating -

“I killed them on PURPOSE…..”

 

[raspberryjuice]

Honestly, the days he does do always seems to fall on a day my little one is at home and he’s not live reporting when she’s at nursery.

Very annoying as it means I don’t get to follow any live reporting .

He’s always live reporting when I’ve finished a night shift and need to go to bed. A day off and he’s nowhere to be seen. This week I’ve got the whole week off and he’s been off 2 days already. I’m off to the hairdressers later and had planned to sit and follow rather than engaging in boring chit chat about Xmas shopping but he’s let me down. Bet he’s live reporting tomorrow when I’m busy all day tho!

Why can’t he just do mon-Fri, 9-5, they’re cushty hours

My intrusive thoughts usually involve car crashes. Things like wanting to grab the steering wheel to swerve the car, flicking the handbrake switch on the motorway, not braking coming up to traffic etc my bf actually let me try the handbrake thing once because I wouldn’t stop asking about it and he was insistent it wouldn’t do anything. But we were only doing about 10mph through a quiet village so it didn’t quite satisfy those intrusive thoughts - we just juddered to a halt. I’d never act on them in normal circumstances though because I’m not a psycho.

 

[wideningperspective]

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

For me there is a very clear pattern emerging. A pattern of changing tactics, a pattern emerging of what could perhaps be described as an addiction. She gains self-worth through being one of the main characters in dealing with tragedy. She wants to be noticed more for her work and secondary gain is for being the unlucky one, “feel sorry for me”, but “I can manage all of this”. A pattern emerging here…she is becoming more manipulative, callous and impulsive!!


The pattern is emerging and I wonder if she meets the following characteristics …..low vulnerability, low self-consciousness, low anxiousness, fearlessness, boldness, assertiveness and dominance. PSYCHOPATH

This to me is not about looking for a pattern in relation to this precious babies. Step into her shoes, that is where the pattern is. This is about her