Lucy Letby Case #2

[e.l.lofthouse]

Something doesn't add up. If multiple times in the case of one child she was ignoring instructions and was there when they child was deteriorating, WHY wasn't she pulled off duty and why didn't they look into it?

I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense. Whether they were short staffed or not, if she ignoring instructions and was around a child when they because poorly and deteriorating, they should have taken her away from her job and looked into it.

Something is very off about it all.

 

[stardust1]

Comments posted by a lady saying 2 babies are in her family. She made these comments on a post saying Lucy is innocent

 

[Orangesocks182]

I feel for her parents getting papped every day going to court. I can't imagine how they feel. Yes they are supporting their daughter, but they must have doubts about her. I wonder also how locals where she lived think? Imagine a story this big happening in your own small little village. I would love to know what the locals think who have known her since she was a small kid like school friends, neighbours etc.

Hey I’ve been lurking but popping on to say im a local - born and bred in Hereford and my friend used to live two doors from her when she lived with her parents before moving up north to do her nursing. The news when it first came out was shocking in the area and on our Hereford fb pages they’ve had to turn off comments to stop people giving their opinions - not sure if you know but Hereford is such a small place, everyone knows everyone sorta vibe. Me and my friends and fam have been discussing throughout and most have the view she is innocent! I’m super undecided and waiting to hear all the evidence and from the defence team. But yeah general mixed reviews in Hereford! Makes me shudder if she is guilty knowing she lived just down the road 🫠

 

[TrixieFranklin]

I'm sorry to pip in but I'm shocked at what you have been saying. From a sen parents point of view with experience with social workers and from a professional point of view in the same field this is not statutory intervention.

I'm assuming if you snoop on social media accounts you have obtained a RIPA warrant from a magistrate for that case? (Which wouldn't be granted for child safeguarding cases). Or you have a written agreement from the parent or carer? If not, your commiting a criminal offence which could really damage any case taken to a family court or see you personally liable for damages in a criminal court.

No you’re right, that would never be granted to us in the circumstances mentioned. Repeatedly looking at someone’s social media would absolutely not be advisable, even if the profile was open and viewable. We aren’t here to monitor criminal activity, log in to SM accounts or listen in on phone conversations, that’s for the police. Disguised compliance is very common and it’s difficult to obtain information.

Taking a photo from someone’s profile and saying “here’s your partner, we have concrete proof” would also never work and would not be carried out. Some parents might have their WhatsApp photo of them kissing somebody and I can see this when messaging them. Would this be snooping? I guess it’s all circumstantial.

My concern is not with the love life of a family, it’s the safety of the children and who they are around. If I pulled up to a house for a visit and a man was bolting out the door and mum said there was no man in her life, this is the context of SM I was referring to. If I ignored this and children were harmed because of him, I have failed those kids.

If a mother is actively lying then it’s a cause for concern because we want to know why. In the past I’ve had a mother say she didn’t tell us about a man because she didn’t want to be reported for benefit fraud. Again, this is none of my business and I wouldn’t pursue it.

 

[StrawberryCream]

I know it’s not illegal but I would be so creeped out if I found out the midwives that delivered my babies were creeping on my social media accounts after I had given birth. The woman is clearly unhinged.

 

[Medieval Victorian]

I have been wondering if there is any common denominator with any of the victims or if they have been targeted at random? I know twins have been mentioned, but it's not uncommon to see twins or multiples in NICU (in my limited experience as a parent to a child who was in NICU), so perhaps they were chosen just because they were accessible to her and not specifically because they were twins? I'm just speculating I guess, as it's very hard to work out what the motivation would be to do something like this

My other thought was about baby A and baby B. Supposedly baby A was killed on the 8th June, then she attempted to kill baby B between the 8th and the 11th. That's extremely close together. If baby A was the first baby she had killed, you would think that she would leave some time...maybe see how it played out and if she had got away with it before trying again? It makes me wonder if baby A was the first baby murdered or if there could have been babies killed before that one that she has somehow gotten away with

 

[nittygrittyditty91]

Anyone else noticing a theme of twins?

 

[Bellaboonew_12]

Couple of questions

1. Why 6 months, are they seating one day a week or is there really 26 full weeks of evidence to be presented? Has there ever been such a long trial before this one?

2. So babies were dying. Their cause of death was 'unexplained'. A previous poster said that air in the blood thing is notoriously hard to detect, as is insulin o/d. Obviously nothing was picked up on PM so how did they come to these conclusions? How do they expect a jury to find she is guilty beyond reasoble doubt if they can't even prove how they died?

 

[riddleme89]

I know a social worker who is a coke head and her partner is . fuck me if they can judge just from your Facebook then I’d love to see what dirt they would find on the staffs facebooks . Can’t stand social workers absolute hypocrites .

anyway this thread isn’t exactly about social workers

 

[RattyBumBum]

I definitely don’t think she’s attractive. I think she’s rather plain and gorky looking. I think when people say ‘did she get away with it because she’s attractive’ they mean she’s white, blonde, slim.

From the pictures I’ve seen she actually looks quite awkward looking, like the girl at school who did well, but no-one fancied.

I agree. I don’t think she’s an attractive woman in the slightest. She’s just a very beige, boring looking woman. Definitely not attractive or what I’d call good looking or striking in anyway.

 

[CoffeeandCookies]

Won’t she be one of Britain’s worst serial killers if she’s found guilty?

I think one of the sticking points here for me is that she’s female and was operating alone (again if found guilty) it’s so unusual. Usually murderers are predominantly male and if a female is involved, in most cases they’re operating alongside a man.

The whole case is heartbreaking

Yes I believe so. If found guilty she will have killed more children than Myra Hindley, Rose West or Beverly Allitt so she would be the worst female serial killer of children and as you say acted alone which is even more unusual

 

[catlady29]

I just read on an update the she searched I think Baby Es parents on Facebook on Christmas Day...I mean come on, that is not normal. Still waiting for the defence before I decide on my opinion as to guilt/innocence, but so far all looking a bit creepy.

 

[Grizzlybear]

Just looking over the timelines of attempts, something is a bit odd with them. Clusters of activity then weeks sometimes months between the others.

Would be interesting to hear the reasons they suspect this is the case. Is it down to staffing levels? personal issues within her life tipping her over? Was it something about those babies/family that somehow made them a target? Was it just completely random and she had an opportunity?

So many questions.

Thing is with these kinds of trials my opinion will go back and forth until I hear all the evidence and explanations offered by the defence.

BIB - we’re only seeing evidence and timelines related to charges brought. There may have been other alleged incidents which the evidence threshold to bring charges wasn’t met, so we won’t hear about those.

 

[ChampagneBox]

Day 2 today I think the prosecution finishes outlining their case, it’s going to be long and harrowing hearing about the rest of the babies murder and attempted murder charges.
I am so glad I am not in the jury, but as a parent imagine having to sit there and listen to how the accused murdered their child whilst she is sitting across the bench from them. My thoughts with all the parents today. Including Lucy’s mum and dad, at this moment she is still innocent and as parents they are having to listen to what she’s accused of.

How do you even comprehend that your child has potentially killed babies? That must be an absolute mindfuck

 

[OkTinkerbell]

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.

I’m not saying she is innocent, I’m just saying it’s a type of argument that the prosecution will use but has no actual ramifications on making her more or less likely to murder.

Agreed.

I’ve been chatting to colleagues about this today, and most people have admitted to Facebook or social media “stalking” a variety of people on occasions for various reasons (as also demonstrated by people on this thread including myself who will admit to “Facebook stalking”).

Half the jury will be thinking “oh that’s a bit weird” and half will be thinking “well shit, I do that too, what’s the big deal?”.

 

[nittygrittyditty91]

I find it strange she Google searched the parents every single month . That’s not just being nosey that’s not right surely . Almost like she was stalking the families to see if any did posts about child’s death being suspicious.

Typically those who commit horrible acts like this, find comfort and closeness with keeping connections with the incident. So her searching the families consistently after the death of the baby is really disturbing stuff.
I have a feeling this is going to be a really disturbing case. I wanted to believe she was innocent but I’m not so sure now. I would hate to be on the jury.

 

[catlady29]

Just a little random thought...does anyone now find that pic the newspapers use of her, the one with her holding a baby grow, now find it really a sinister pic...empty babygrow. God I hope so bad she didn't do it, its too horrible to contemplate a nurse doing this to vulnerable babies

 

[nittygrittyditty91]

The Facebook searching is creepy but at the same time (if there wasn’t other evidence supporting the prosecution) I kind of get it. I’m one of those people who does look people up sometimes. There’s a girl I went to college with who died very traumatically. It made the news. In fact, I found out via the news and she had such an unusual name that the minute I heard it my blood ran cold. I didn’t know her that well, but we were acquaintances - went to the pub with her and a group of us a few times. Even now, 15 years later I still occasionally check her parents facebooks to see how they are doing. Is that weird? I just think of her sometimes and her family because it was so awful.

No no no! That’s not weird at all. That’s traumatic for you because you knew that person. We’re talking about it in a professional position. Please don’t feel bad for that.

my friend applied to join the met police, and had to give consent to have his social media accounts checked (I assume to make sure he was a suitable candidate)

After the disasters with the Met police recently I don’t blame them! I agree with checking, I have absolutely nothing to hide. But, it’s made me very careful about opinion sharing or engaging in debates online. You have to be so careful.

 

[insectoverlords]

Yeah I don't think it's that odd to Google statements like "will x kill y", a colleague of mine once said insulin is commonly used in murder because it doesn't come up in an autopsy so I've certainly googled "does insulin show up in autopsy" before which probably wouldn't look good if I was arrested the following day!

 

[Milktray]

One thing that confused me is this...I'm not clued up about the police force, but this job advert went up in June 2022 for a 3 year period. Does this mean they are expecting to find more cases? Are other people involved? Why is a chief inspector needed from June 22 for 3 years purely for this 'Operation'?

Detective Chief Inspector - Op Hummingbird - Cheshire Police

ID: 697. Title: Detective Chief Inspector - Op Hummingbird. Location: Chester. Closing Date: 12/06/2022, 23:55. Salary: £58,332 - £60,732

cheshirepolice.tal.net