This is what I was asking earlier. I really do understand for some of the unsure/NG that they can perhaps put A-E down to hospital failings (I don’t see that at all, but given some of the poor practice we’ve seen, I do get that others aren’t sure whether it’s down to LL or bad practice at this stage). But I can’t see any other innocent explanation for F, I’m genuinely curious for anyone that is unsure or NG (for A-E) then what possible other explanation they can come up with for F? What do people that are unsure/NG think is going on in that unit that explains the deaths/collapses so far, and how does that fit in with what they believe has happened to F?
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Like you I just can’t see any other explanation other than it was a deliberate case of someone trying to harm a baby.
I am not an expert but the CPS are and they have studied this case and decided it was Lucy and not anyone else, so it’s either she is guilty and is an evil witch or else they have it wrong and it was someone else….
These babies need justice and I really hope the jurors are able to come to the correct decision
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.
I just think for me I’ve always been sure someone was guilty after hearing the circumstances around the babies deaths.
Most of the deaths do not have an explanation that leads to negligence or natural causes, they mostly all seem to be an unexplained death.
Premature babies are more resilient than they are given credit for and even though some of the care was poor, I don’t see how it would have caused their deaths.
So far all the evidence pointing to her makes sense to me and I do believe at this point that she was responsible. I’d be interested to hear the defence and obviously I’m open to changing my mind, I just have a strong feeling from everything that’s been heard that it was her.
Most of the deaths do not have an explanation that leads to negligence or natural causes, they mostly all seem to be an unexplained death.
Premature babies are more resilient than they are given credit for and even though some of the care was poor, I don’t see how it would have caused their deaths.
So far all the evidence pointing to her makes sense to me and I do believe at this point that she was responsible. I’d be interested to hear the defence and obviously I’m open to changing my mind, I just have a strong feeling from everything that’s been heard that it was her.
I know I’m very biased as I can’t see anything but her being Guilty. But today I thought I would try and open my mind up, and try and consider other viewpoints/possibilities.
I just don’t know what would be plausible for what could have happened to F, when even the defence aren’t questioning it being accidental or a mistake, (neither did LL eventually) so it goes back again to it’s not a question of if this baby was deliberately harmed, but who did it.
Which again goes back to if you concede there is a poisoner on the ward, then what’s the chances we have two different people harming babies, but only one of them was present for all 22 incidents (that’s not just a couple of incidents 22 is a phenomenal number to be present for really), and also just happens to have other circumstantial evidence that ties them to these crimes too. And what happens when we get to insulin poisoning number 2, do we have three possible suspects, or is it the same person all along.
If there is an alternative explanation I would really love to hear someone’s theory on F and then how that fits in with a theory on A-E. I also think some of the repetition we will hear for baby G, will stop LL being given the benefit of the doubt, when it becomes a choice between it being her or being hospital failings. Look forward to the discussion that will come around baby G, but G is a particularly harrowing case, and think quite a lot will struggle with some of what we will hear
Also just to add, regardless of what I think, I’ll be fully accepting of the jury’s decision, whatever it may be. As they are hearing everything in detail, and are being given the correct/relevant information, and actually seeing what is going on each day, knowing far more than any of us. So I trust they will make the right decision. And ofc the judge reminded them yesterday not to do any independent research,
so at least we know they’ll do it the correct way, only going on what they are hearing/seeing themselves in court each day
Last edited:
Another little thing that's popped in my head. Ben asked if the baby could be screaming cause he was hungry. When I had my youngest the midwives stressed to me that I had to feed him every 3 hrs and that cause he was so small sometimes babies that little forget they need to be fed. Although very small he was discharged within 24 hrs of birth so if my approaching 5lb baby was liable to forget to be fed why would a premature smaller baby be screaming out of hunger?
I think there is truth in that because my full term baby seemed the only one to be able to actually scream cry like a newborn. Every other baby in the same room were really tiny prem babies and you never heard them. Mine was on fluids etc and we used to have to set alarms to feed him so I’m not convinced they scream in hunger.
I wish we heard more detail on letbys police interview today, I thought once they got to that more would be revealed. But we had more information during the opening statement. I suppose perhaps this will be gone over in more detail once letby takes the stand, that is, if she takes the stand.
They do scream in hunger.
My twin was 33 weeks gestation when she was made NBM she weighed 2lb and she screamed the whole first day she was NBM eventually they let her root for my breast and she settled. So they absolutely can scream with hunger.
By the time she was 35 weeks gestation I could set my watch by her that as soon as I walked on the unit at 9am she would be in her inc rooting and crying.
That doesn't mean to say I believe it applies here. I categorically think she's guilty. But preemies can scream with hunger. I wouldn't expect a 26weeker too, but 31/32 weeks can and will scream
What I keep thinking is if she's done this, and is found to be beyond reasonable doubt that she's guilty - then I don't think baby A was the first baby she harmed 
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:
*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
. 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.htmlAnd the only baby receiving tpn that night:
*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
Last edited:
If she was a creepy old bloke I don’t think it would have gone on as long as it did before she was caught.
people always have a lower threshold for suspecting men of wrongdoing around children
That explains a lot!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
And the only baby receiving tpn that night:
View attachment 1772111
It would be the insulin that would be given in the 50ml syringe driver.
I wonder what volume of fluid would be in a normal neonatal TPN bag. Anyone know?
Such hideous injuries could have been inflicted on that baby! He’s very lucky to have survived unscathed.
Lucy hung the bag and the baby deteriorated within an hour and then she took a keen interest in their updates.. That’s enough for me.
I would have liked to have heard details of what she said in the police interview. Far what it’s worth she seems fairly cooperative.
When I was watching 24 Hours in Police Custody they showed the officers forming opinions about their suspects after their interviews - I’d like to know what they thought of Letby because they didn’t stop pursuing her until they were able to charge her.
I would have liked to have heard details of what she said in the police interview. Far what it’s worth she seems fairly cooperative.
When I was watching 24 Hours in Police Custody they showed the officers forming opinions about their suspects after their interviews - I’d like to know what they thought of Letby because they didn’t stop pursuing her until they were able to charge her.
o wow. I’m not sure what this means if no other baby was receiving TPN bags that night, though it seems significant.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
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
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.
I think it might be covered in the podcast. They are usually good at sharing more details about the texts.
oh yeah good shout! I still haven’t gotten round to listening to them all yet.
I totally agree with you! And also why the investigation is confirmed until 23/24 (operation hummingbird) if she is convicted this will allow them the time to now go back and look into all previous cases in her care.What I keep thinking is if she's done this, and is found to be beyond reasonable doubt that she's guilty - then I don't think baby A was the first baby she harmed
Originally they were looking at deaths from March 2015.
Not had a chance to read all the posts today yet, so sorry if this is repeating anything but my thoughts from baby F evidence over the last few days...
If Ben Myers accepts that baby F was intentionally poisoned with insulin, which he appears to have, then he needs to hope that the evidence for babies G to Q isn't overwhelming in any way otherwise I can't see how the jury will find her not guilty.
I feel like we need to hear the evidence for the other baby (sorry, mind escapes the letter) who was also victim of attempted insulin poisoning. If that is more compelling and has even more links to LL than this one (which they argue is just her hanging a bag) then I suspect it will be the evidence which convinces the jury she is guilty, and by default guilty for the others.
They surely cannot accept there is another person on the ward who added this insulin and got away with it when LL is present for all the 22 incidents where they collapsed with questionable practice
If Ben Myers accepts that baby F was intentionally poisoned with insulin, which he appears to have, then he needs to hope that the evidence for babies G to Q isn't overwhelming in any way otherwise I can't see how the jury will find her not guilty.
I feel like we need to hear the evidence for the other baby (sorry, mind escapes the letter) who was also victim of attempted insulin poisoning. If that is more compelling and has even more links to LL than this one (which they argue is just her hanging a bag) then I suspect it will be the evidence which convinces the jury she is guilty, and by default guilty for the others.
They surely cannot accept there is another person on the ward who added this insulin and got away with it when LL is present for all the 22 incidents where they collapsed with questionable practice
- Status