Lucy Letby Case #2

[stardust1]

To be honest I’d probably say it depends on the nature of the groups that would suggest anything strange or sinister.

This is just purely speculation and I may be wrong ..
I’m guessing the Facebook groups you’re in are very much information and educational based. Whereas the groups Letby was in could have been support pages made for parents and families or poorly babies, a bit of an online community where parents can share their stories and gain support and advice from others in a similar situation.

I think it’d be strange for Letby to join and read a type of “support” group rather than anything educational based. Especially if she is guilty.

Yes I read it was support groups for prem babies

 

[Milktray]

I think this may be where the hospital failures may play a part. Whatever the outcome those babies were failed. Even if Lucy is guilty I hope there is a full inquiry to how a serial killer was able to go so long unnoticed. And if she isn’t a killer then what the hell actually happened.

My initial thoughts, and maybe some HCPs could shed some light on this, is that the prosecution are saying LL was a constant, which means the other staff members for each incident would vary. I’ve no idea how big these teams are. So for example, these first 5 babies, could they have each had a different senior medic respond (not sure what role, excuse my ignorance) so whilst that individual doctor may think something was unusual, they may not be privy at that stage about the other cases so there wouldn’t initially be any concern?

I’m wondering who at the hospital would oversee the whole department and look at all deaths and serious incidents and should be alert to unusual trends?

i don’t mean to belittle the case by this comparison but in my old role as a CS manager, I would review all complaint cases but probably on a monthly basis. It might not be until a few months I could spot a particular trend. Who would be the equivalent in the hospital. And if the hospital had significant failures, then what processes fell short to pick up on these incidents - whether it was Lucy harming them or some other cause.

ETA: I said before the trial started that both a failing hospital and serial killer could exist at the same time. Maybe she knew the hospital weaknesses and thought she could get away with it.

That's what I was saying yesterday, the hospital isn't on trial, so won't be legally held accountable for its failings. Regardless of the outcome of this, the parents are likely going to have to go through this again in order to get justice.

I see this in 2 parts.

The 1st being the act. The intentional/malicious element of why the babies died. Which LL is on trial here for.

The 2nd being the actions. The negligence element of how it was allowed to happen.
(The poor safeguarding and lack of communication, that meant doctors/consultants didn't recognise that a pattern was forming sooner etc) Which I think the parents will have to campaign for.

LL can use the failings to form part of her defence and it will put the hospital under the 'spotlight' but until an investigation/inquiry is raised, CoCH will take no responsibility.

Personally, I don't like the combining of both. If LL did commit a heinous crime, then she needs to be punished and held responsible for that, I just feel like it's saying 'Yes Lucy, you did poison all those babies but the hospital failed, so you're not fully responsible'.

The hospital was negligible but the deaths were not intentional.

 

[HoGi]

To be honest I’d probably say it depends on the nature of the groups that would suggest anything strange or sinister.

This is just purely speculation and I may be wrong ..
I’m guessing the Facebook groups you’re in are very much information and educational based. Whereas the groups Letby was in could have been support pages made for parents and families or poorly babies, a bit of an online community where parents can share their stories and gain support and advice from others in a similar situation.

I think it’d be strange for Letby to join and read a type of “support” group rather than anything educational based. Especially if she is guilty.

I disagree.

How many times do you see on here or on Facebook an advice or support thread and someone chimes in with "I'm a nurse in this field" "I haven't experienced this myself but I work closely with people who do" or similar.

I was in a lot of dementia support groups when my dad was ill. A lot of it was celebrating the little wins, moaning about the NHS lack of compassion or understanding, tips for moving your loved one into care etc. And it was FULL of nurses who had no personal experience of dementia but were "the professionals" defending the NHS or giving "tips" that were clearly straight out of some handbook that anyone who lives with someone with dementia knows are bollocks.

It was very frustrating but a fact of life that some nurses have a bit of a hero complex and feel the need to almost continue their work on social media.

 

[Tofino]

I’m struggling with a few bits so far.

This is the prosecution opening, right? So it has to be strong. So far it seems largely circumstantial and it feels that they have thrown some contentious charges in with the more solid cases which could have one of two results. It could totally damage the prosecution case as it seems like some of the evidence they are discussing can be explained away.

“That case really affected me so I checked up on their parents Facebook on Christmas Day as I expected they would post about baby X’

“I regularly take information home, I revise before shift/on public transport so I can familiarise myself with my patients before I get to work’

‘ I was in that room with that baby because that staff member was a new agency worker and I wanted to keep an eye on them/support them’

Plus I felt it was strange of them to say that the mother of one of the babies walked in on her ‘attacking’ the baby but didn’t realise. I feel that extreme language like that might put the jury off.

Likewise the comment of a death that was definitely caused by insulin, but can’t rule out natural causes, that’s an oxymoron.

Oh and the poor baby who was bleeding so much it lost a third of its total blood- no post-mortem? No immediate investigation? Absolutely bizarre.

I just feel that it’s all v weedy at the minute. You would think the prosecution would come out swinging in this case?

This will depend on whether she testifies. If she doesn’t then we really only have her police interviews to go off and so far her response to the looking up the families on Facebook was that she couldn’t remember doing it which I think is bullshit. The prosecution will read out the interviews in full so hopefully we get a transcript.

If she doesn’t testify the defence could still challenge it but they can’t put words into Lucy’s mouth and say that was the reason why she did some of these things.

If she does testify and changes her response then that also wouldn’t look great for her credibility and she will be cross examined on that.

So whilst people on the thread are coming up with possible explanations for Lucy’s behaviour, Lucy is the only one, in my opinion, that can explain HER behaviour and actions and I will be listening carefully to that in the trial.

 

[Lucyxxxx]

Seen this on websleuths from 2018.

 

[mchammerr]

Seen this on websleuths from 2018. View attachment 1644349

I don’t think you can trust what people say on the interest as truth but I am interested to see what the defence come back with.

 

[Tofino]

Just another thought on the social media stuff, the prosecution have said she looked up one family within hours of the baby dying. That is not fitting with checking the family are ok is it? Because the family would definitely not be ok, they would probably still be at the hospital. So what could she have been looking for?

 

[Weeder]

I'm torn over the social media stuff.

I've looked up stroppy customers. I cant recall ever looking up patients back when I was nursing (I stopped 2014), but I don't think it screams murderer.

I'm fairly patients have looked me up
Not that it makes it ok, just I'm not sure what significance I can attach to it.

 

[Ittybittytittyclub]

I just don't understand any of it.

How can they say that the babies have been killed with insulin and air, but it wasn't picked up in a post mortem at the time as this would have obviously would screamed something was going on?

Its not like they could dig up the babies and do tests on them now as it's already been said on here that these 2 methods are hard to prove as they are quickly absorbed.

I just can't see what their evidence for this method of killing will be at all.

I believe, and anyone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but a) some of the babies didn’t even have post mortems and b) like you say these methods are quickly absorbed. I think because they were in NICU already, their deaths may have been put down to problems they were already suffering from. Although some of these illnesses weren’t life threatening, it’s known that, unfortunately, babies that small can suddenly take a turn for the worse

 

[crumpets2]

There’s a lot of debate over the Facebook searching.. have I done it as a nurse? No. However the wording is ‘an unusual interest’ which suggests it was more than once and at unusual times. This does ring alarm bells because it suggests there was possibly a bit of an obsession, along with the fact she doesn’t seem to know why she did it. Surely she would just say she was being nosey or wanted to see how they were doing?
I don’t think we’re dealing with one or two searches here.

 

[Ittybittytittyclub]

There’s a screen over her so only the jury can see her I think - this was said on sky news

Also you are told by your solicitor to not react to things Being said by prosecutors or witnesses. Don’t make faces, grimace, roll your eyes etc. Anything at all.

 

[Lackofimagination]

I just want to refer back to someone who said about people still being in the search bar on Facebook months after and it would appear they had searched that person recently but they actually searched the person ages ago and pointing to the dates not being right for LL search’s.

that Will not be the case here. They won’t of just opened her phone/laptop and looked at the search history. Her computers will of been sent for analysis, hence why the police can tell us the exact time and even date she searched a family after a death. 3.53pm after a night shift I believe they said potentially the first thing she did when she woke up. It will be far far deeper than a quick search of her devices that’s all I wanted to say basically sorry for the word vomit

 

[Weeder]

There’s a lot of debate over the Facebook searching.. have I done it as a nurse? No. However the wording is ‘an unusual interest’ which suggests it was more than once and at unusual times. This does ring alarm bells because it suggests there was possibly a bit of an obsession, along with the fact she doesn’t seem to know why she did it. Surely she would just say she was being nosey or wanted to see how they were doing?
I don’t think we’re dealing with one or two searches here.

I haven't followed closely tbh, but I agree the language is interesting.
I think, like others have said, it's only the prosecution opening. More facts and minutae will come out. It's hard not to have an opinion though and I fully expect mine to change.

It's all sounding quite circumstantial at the moment. At one point I was wondering who else could tamper with fluids or feeds in PICU, but I guess that will all come out too.

 

[pommynoir]

I just want to refer back to someone who said about people still being in the search bar on Facebook months after and it would appear they had searched that person recently but they actually searched the person ages ago and pointing to the dates not being right for LL search’s.

that Will not be the case here. They won’t of just opened her phone/laptop and looked at the search history. Her computers will of been sent for analysis, hence why the police can tell us the exact time and even date she searched a family after a death. 3.53pm after a night shift I believe they said potentially the first thing she did when she woke up. It will be far far deeper than a quick search of her devices that’s all I wanted to say basically sorry for the word vomit

I think the point that person was making was not that the police would have seen it in her search history, and assumed it was multiple / recent searches… it was that when someone is in your search history you’re more likely to click on them again, like “oh I wonder if there’s anything new since I last clicked their profile” rather than actively typing their name each time.

 

[Tofino]

I don’t know how many of you followed Stars trial. But this opening the things may sound odd and circumstances. but as the trial moves forward everything seems to all come together and click into place. Things that sound like nothing end up being quite a big point to it all!

i remember people saying there wasn’t enough evidence for Brockhill murdering star because it could have been Frankie and only the two of them would know who actually delivered the blow. But it was really tiny details that I think made it beyond reasonable doubt. Like Brockhill saying on the 999 call ‘I called mum in’ but then later saying Frankie was already there. So minor, just a few words, but incredibly damning.

 

[Lackofimagination]

I think the point that person was making was not that the police would have seen it in her search history, and assumed it was multiple / recent searches… it was that when someone is in your search history you’re more likely to click on them again, like “oh I wonder if there’s anything new since I last clicked their profile” rather than actively typing their name each time.

I read it as it would appear they had been searched recently. But isn’t that strange too how she wouldn’t of had friends or family’s profiles she would of recently looked at? All these family’s months and months after the event and they hadn’t moved off her search bar like been replaced by a friends profile she was looking at

 

[stardust1]

There’s a lot of debate over the Facebook searching.. have I done it as a nurse? No. However the wording is ‘an unusual interest’ which suggests it was more than once and at unusual times. This does ring alarm bells because it suggests there was possibly a bit of an obsession, along with the fact she doesn’t seem to know why she did it. Surely she would just say she was being nosey or wanted to see how they were doing?
I don’t think we’re dealing with one or two searches here.

I think it’s telling that she went out her way to search on Xmas day. Surely she had better things to be doing on Xmas. I am definitely guilty of having a nosey at people but I am not convinced I’d remember peoples names to have a look on xmas day.

 

[Upintheair83]

IF she is guilty.

Im by no mean a psychologist but heres my ideas on her personality! I reckon she's been a bit of a loner all of her life for one reason or another, maybe an only child. I reckon she was fully into her studies and her job, and I bet her mum and dad doted on her and were so proud of her. But I reckon she was addicted to the sympathy and attention she was getting when people knew she had interacted with these babies that had passed. The pats on the shoulder, the hugs, the words of comfort, the texts pinging all the time. I reckon she searched the families on Facebook to look at the reaction to what she did. To see if maybe she is mentioned. To see the carnage she had created.
I reckon she revelled in interfering in other people's lives and the control of life over death. I have no idea what would have made her that way. Maybe some trauma in early life? Maybe never fitting in with peers? Not that any of it would be any excuse. Because if she is guilty the only word for her is evil. Iv never heard of such evil in all my life, those poor innocent babies were never given a chance.

 

[stardust1]

Obviously take with a pinch of salt but I saw a comment on tiktok (looked to be posted by a genuine account) say she knew the parents of one baby who died and they were both doctors.

 

[CrazyGiraffeLady]

Either way, it’s utterly horrendous for both the NHS and the hospital. Personally, my eyes would be on the hospital, as an outsider, than the individual. Utterly dispicable

It’s a dreadful hospital, I went for one maternity appointment a couple of years ago (I wanted Arrowe park and was waiting for my care to be transferred) and the countess wanted me to stay there and offered me “any pain relief I want during labour” after telling me if I had the water birth I wanted if anything happened they wouldn’t attempt to save me because I’m fat basically. Utterly horrific. Wouldn’t go there for anything.