Lucy Letby Case #2

[Lucyxxxx]

iirc he used to wear an arm cast or have a crutch, so would basically pretend to not be able bodied and that he needed to carry some shopping etc back to his car.

fully agree with the rest of your comment though, it wouldn’t have worked with me

I'd have told him to do1 and ring his carers. on yer bike lad.

 

[Tangerine Cat]

Anyone else just feeling more and more sick as they read?

I want to hug my daughter extra close tonight.

There are many stories over the years that have made me think/hug/love my child more.

 

[Stiltoncheese]

With this Facebook talk, I can’t see any instances where Facebook searching a victim’s families makes her more likely to be a murderer. I think it’s a weak prosecution argument using the fact she was looking them up to indicate anything more sinister (its a basic slippery slope argument fallacy). Searching for specifics on how to carry something out etc. is another matter.

Yep you might think it's a bit weird or creepy, but it doesn't actually prove anything by itself

 

[Tangerine Cat]

Have Sky been removed from reporting in the court after printing the babies name in error?

it could be lunchtime, unless someone else has already mentioned this

 

[MrsDimSum]

Playing devil's advocate here and trying to look at everything objectively.

Child E was the sibling to child F who they will discuss after lunch and who is one of the 2 who was allegedly poisoned by insulin. If I remember correctly, both of the children of the insulin incident survived.

If LL is innocent, then I guess she could have been searching to see how the other child was doing as they had also been very unwell whilst on the unit.

Again in isolation, it may not be weird. And perhaps she thought of them on Christmas day as its a day lots of people reflect on.

So hard to say at this stage

I also wondered this

 

[super grateful]

I’m following this trial closely, very interested in it. I don’t know too much about NICU but I worked in a geriatric ward (old people). We had a lot of staffing problems there, not just lack of staff but a lot of very lazy staff who just tended to do as little work as possible. They tried to install cameras but the back lash from the staff (ironically the ones who didn’t do any work) was crazy. We dealt with a lot of dementia patients who would wonder around, sometimes with no clothes on, and the staff were in uproar about this being on camera to the point where they retracted their decision and only had cameras on the exit/entrance rather than actually in the ward.

One girl was particularly passionate about the cameras not going ahead, talking about how she’d feel if her nan was on camera in a ward. She felt so strongly that she handed her notice in over this. Interestingly, a week after handing her notice in in protest, she was sacked as she was witnessed hitting a patient…. I was so surprised and this seemed so out of character from what I knew of her and how she’d acted working alongside me. You never know what goes on behind closed doors…

As for the Facebook things, I’m the worst at this. I’m a big Facebook stalker and will admit I’ve looked at families of people I’ve cared for. Nothing sinister, just really nosey. I know this will be frowned upon and people think I should get a life.

That’s interesting, and sadly people who have strong opinions of these things usually have something o hide!

1 Emergency Department I agency in is trialling the use of cameras in their Resus bays. It’s passed ethical councils etc and we inform family members (if the patient is unconscious) that they are there. Usually it gives an extra sense of “safety” if anything. They were installed to help with a research programme focusing on staff communication and human factors.

I’ve also worked on an ICU that had a television crew filming for a documentary. It felt strange as goes against all we learn / value about patient privacy and dignity, but deep down I think it corrected everyone’s communication issues and mad everyone triple check what they were doing.

I’m all for cameras personally. Sad if they are to be used because staff can’t be trusted, but definitely highlight those who don’t want their practice being seen.

 

[riddleme89]

With this Facebook talk, I can’t see any instances where Facebook searching a victim’s families makes her more likely to be a murderer. I think it’s a weak prosecution argument using the fact she was looking them up to indicate anything more sinister (its a basic slippery slope argument fallacy). Searching for specifics on how to carry something out etc. is another matter.

But obsessibe searching is odd especially Christmas Day . She searched the same child’s family many occasions . Apart from that some of the other evidence is not looking good for her . I could maybe understand searching the families once but to do it regularly and after that baby died seems odd . Did she search other babies that died that wasn’t suspicious deaths .

 

[gummy-bear]

I’m honestly really interested (not in a sadistic way) to see the rest of the evidence that comes out on this. I don’t know the case totally inside out but at the moment is seems as though LL is being prosecuted and potentially convicted of multiple murders based on correlation (am in no way saying I think she is innocent btw!) - but we have seen people convicted of terrible things based on statistical likelihood who then do turn out to be innocent. I think the further details that come out are going to be extremely telling

 

[MrsDimSum]

2 things that are going on in my head

1. to prove that the Facebook thing is not normal practice - they would surely have to check other nurses on the ward? And also be able to prove that she doesn’tlook at the FB of parents with healthy babies from the ward she worked on? Would they?

2. will there be a lot of cases against the hospital if she’s found guilty but all this evidence so far is making people question why nothing was done. And we’ve only heard about 5 of them. Surely the parents by now are thinking earlier intervention by the hospital and things could have been different for them?

 

[lattenosugar]

I dont think so as the death occurred before an investigation took place. Ideally there should of been one. It was still an unexpected death but if the parents have chosen not to have one, that's their right
[/QUOTE]

I could be wrong with this but a death after 24 hrs of hospital stays doesn’t require a post mortem if the doctors are satisfied with the cause of death?

Ive personally known of people who have had medical malpractice and I guess initially the nhs wanted to protect themselves first even if the parents had called for an investigation or complaint it takes a long time to be done. One case was done in secret courts and took 2 decades to finalise, the nhs protected themselves legally at first.

I guess this may also explain why it’s taken years for this all to come to court, as it’s potentially a member of nhs staff poisoning and murdering babies, the nhs may still be liable towards all the families.

 

[Palmyra.]

I don’t find searching for someone you have came into contact on Facebook weird but to search for the family 8 times including on Christmas Day, surely this is a bit unhinged.

I was hoping she wasn’t going to be guilty but with every detail it gets worse

 

[e.l.lofthouse]

She can give opinion if she's classed as an Expert Witness. However, expert witnesses also have to address alternatives that can't be ruled out.

But she's saying that natural causes can't be ruled out due to no PM so how can the prosecution ask for her to be taken seriously about it being deliberate

 

[riddleme89]

I would read other news outlets because not everything is being said on some . Sky news has more being said .

intresting how a couple times she text people from work . She later agreed aswell

 

[Milktray]

Exactly. I think they were short staffed and didn't have time to look into it until they realised there were many babies. They failed.

The hospital are not on trial though. Yes they have failed but this trial is purely to determine if LL is guilty of a crime. Regardless of that, the hospital will be under incredible scrutiny and following this trial, there will potentially be a separate investigation/inquest raised to work out how this was allowed to happen. The parents may decide to pursue the hospital for negligence...but at the moment, hands are tied until they have an outcome from this trial.

 

[mchammerr]

It really annoys me that court starts late, and has an excessively long lunch break

 

[DipsyDoodle]

How can you not realize someone is in the process of attacking your child

I think the word "attacking" probably misleads you thinking of it as something violent that you'd notice, in this case by "attacking" I imagine they mean she was likely doing something with one of the tubes or something, I guess it could easily look to an untrained eye that she was checking some medication or equipment.

 

[super grateful]

Your last comment about being a Facebook stalker, makes me a feel a little uneasy.
It’s one thing stalking your ex or old best friend to see what they’re up to. It’s another doing it to a person who has been in your care. I respect you say you know and you’re aware of how people will feel towards your comment.
At the same time. I’m a teacher. I’ve worked in all sorts of situations and I’ve never felt compelled to search anyone I’ve taught or their families. I find it really odd, I don’t get when people cannot separate the job from their life.

I doubt they’re an actual stalker. I’ll admit that I find detaching from my job extremely difficult. Caring for someone and their family who have been in a life altering or ending situation isn’t something you forget when you get home at night and pop the dinner on. Like I said previously, I often think “oh I wonder how John’s lovely wife is doing after his accident. Let me check that charity the family set up in his name” - I never interact, but it gives me closure. Which in somewhere like ICU, you rarely get as they move on to a ward, another ICU or a rehab facility.

Selfish maybe, frowned upon maybe, but not malicious or endangering.

 

[e.l.lofthouse]

The hospital are not on trial though. Yes they have failed but this trial is purely to determine if LL is guilty of a crime. Regardless of that, the hospital will be under incredible scrutiny and following this trial, there will potentially be a separate investigation/inquest raised to work out how this was allowed to happen. The parents may decide to pursue the hospital for negligence...but at the moment, hands are tied until they have an outcome from this trial.

But it can be used in her defence. Them not being on trial doesn't matter if they failed and it can be used in her defence

 

[IGiveUp22]

Regarding all the ‘she doesn’t look the type’ stuff, I find it fascinating from a psychology POV! Anyone know of any books/papers on the phenomenon of doubting someone’s guilt who has a pretty face over someone less so?

It’s called the halo effect/ halo attractiveness effect whereby our bias makes us believe someone we deem as physically attractive also has attractive /positive qualities & likewise, someone physically unattractive is viewed as having negative qualities. Very interesting psychology wise.

I know it’s early days & im struggling with this case but ultimately I think she is guilty & I also think the hospital failed too. I believe some of that may come down to it being incomprehensible that a nurse on this type of ward would be deliberately harming premature babies. So yeah maybe there were medical alarm bells but would their first thought have been one of the nurses is murdering babies? I’m not sure I’d want to believe that if I worked closely with someone in this line of work (I don’t want to believe it now & I don’t know the woman).
Also, I imagine some of the parents maybe did have uneasy feelings about the care/things they saw but a) they’re not medically trained & are trusting the nurse & b) it could have been passed off by LL that the mothers were just unstable/stressed due to the circumstances of their babies being on the ward etc.
the Facebook stalking is odd in my opinion. Stand alone you might think it was innocent as it’s highlighted on here, a lot of people are guilty of a social media stalk. But the repeated searches & of the babies that passed etc, I think that is too much to be considered as “innocent curiosity”.
I’m sad to think about what more might come out of this.
Also interested in what her defence will be.

 

[super grateful]

I am struggling to get my head round all the glaring anomalies that the prosecution are pointing out. Like baby E and the volume of blood loss, surely that alone should have been looked into more? On top of the number of deaths previously being a greater number than normal. But nobody is thinking there’s anything strange going on here??

Yeah this is confusing me too. It’s normal for the NGT to cause some blood. But not for blood to hose out. That’s a whole other issue…