- Notice
Tofino
VIP Member
Er, because those unemployed but able to work will have work commitments for job hunting, and those unemployed and not able to work have caring commitments or disabilities. Many on benefits do actually work but have low income that needs topping up. Making it a job for the retired becomes just that - a job when they are meant to be retired.
Do you have any idea how hard it is being a full time unpaid carer or disabled so severely you are unable to work? Why do you think your time is more valuable or challenging than someone who isn’t employed? Bit of a sweeping generalisation there about people on benefits. The fact you call it ‘the dole’ and ‘sign on’ shows what little you know about the current system for benefit claimants.
The jury selection process is fair. For many people it’s not a problem taking time off work and a lot of people want to do it anyway. You were able to be discharged because the courts agreed your specific circumstances were too difficult, others will too. I don’t really see what the issue is
Rippedjeanmaybe
VIP Member
I think she’s guilty.
I’m basing that firstly on the deaths of the babies. They have found no obvious cause of death for the babies so far apart from an air embolus & this wouldn’t have occurred randomly and not over several different babies.
These were also babies that died totally suddenly and unexpected. Despite being premature, these babies were not expected to die and they were classed as stable when they did.
Again with the insulin poisoning, even LL herself has admitted it can’t have been in the bag by mistake and there’s no other explanation other than someone added it to the bag. This isn’t something that would have done in error, it would have been deliberate.
Also there was a huge spike in deaths during this time period.
Based on this, I concluded someone was guilty for certain.
Now the reason I believe it to be LL.
Firstly she is present for all instances, other nurses/drs aren’t, she had paperwork from babies that died in her house, she send a card and took a photo of it, she was said to have made odd comments and forced herself into situations she wasn’t involved in, she sent numerous texts about the babies and it was like an obsession and she searched their parents on Facebook numerous times. She also falsified records. And she wrote a note saying she did it.
I’m willing to hear her defence and of course I’m open to other possibilities, but I do totally believe someone murdered them and so far I believe it was her.
Just my personal view and I have nothing against those on the fence or in the not guilty camp. It doesn’t matter to me what others think, I just want the truth for the babies and their families.
Treesy19
VIP Member
And then we experience Groundhog Day again with the searching,
“Facebook (child g)
She was asked about Facebook searches done on the day of the second vomiting incident that Letby looked up the parents of Child G. She said "she had no recollection of them". The prosecution say that, within a minute or two of looking at the mother of Child G on Facebook, she then looked at the mums of two other babies listed in the charges. One was the mum who, the prosecution said, "interrupted the attack" by Letby on Child E.”
Now really, would a completely innocent nurse, who had nothing to do with any of this, just so happen to look up the Mum of Child E a minute or two after looking up the parents of Child G? Both these children had blood behind their vocal cords I believe which suggests to me they suffered the same injury. She’s feeding off the memory of these attacks.
“Facebook (child g)
She was asked about Facebook searches done on the day of the second vomiting incident that Letby looked up the parents of Child G. She said "she had no recollection of them". The prosecution say that, within a minute or two of looking at the mother of Child G on Facebook, she then looked at the mums of two other babies listed in the charges. One was the mum who, the prosecution said, "interrupted the attack" by Letby on Child E.”
Now really, would a completely innocent nurse, who had nothing to do with any of this, just so happen to look up the Mum of Child E a minute or two after looking up the parents of Child G? Both these children had blood behind their vocal cords I believe which suggests to me they suffered the same injury. She’s feeding off the memory of these attacks.
Treesy19
VIP Member
If she’s gone to barbaric lengths such as insulin, air, forceful attacks causing bleeding, I don’t doubt in my mind at all that she started off small on other babies like not giving a feed at all so they’re starving and hungry tummies, some pinching, detaching a breathing tube, who knows. Started off “small”.
“I am evil. I did this” “I killed them on purpose”. Them. Purpose.
“I am evil. I did this” “I killed them on purpose”. Them. Purpose.
Tofino
VIP Member
I think today was very compelling, which I wasn’t expecting actually.
I think BM is clutching at straws with the infection and only because baby developed one later. Just because he says ‘what if’ doesn’t mean it’s a reasonable doubt or explanation. He needs to back it up with expert evidence later if he wants me to believe it as a possibility. Even if baby had an infection though, it still doesn’t explain the severity of the projectile and volume of vomit and aspirates when baby had only 45ml feed. (If it’s the kind of reaction infection can cause then surely it would be seen more often).
Lucy has also given herself away saying babies can 'take on a lot of air when vomiting' which has been discredited by two experts. Strikes me as another example of her offering alternative explanations to deflect. I suspect this means she did force air as well as excess milk.
I thought this was interesting from the judge in Stephen Bear’s trial today (directions to jury).
The judge said that it’s like “a jigsaw puzzle”, continuing: “A single piece of the jigsaw does not take you much further, two or three pieces may give you an idea. It’s only when all the pieces you have painted a picture that you can be sure.”
I know there is often debate here on small bits of evidence like Facebook, the post it note, interactions with family, messages to colleagues etc. Each on their own may not seem much but piecing everything together paints a somewhat different picture IMO.
I think BM is clutching at straws with the infection and only because baby developed one later. Just because he says ‘what if’ doesn’t mean it’s a reasonable doubt or explanation. He needs to back it up with expert evidence later if he wants me to believe it as a possibility. Even if baby had an infection though, it still doesn’t explain the severity of the projectile and volume of vomit and aspirates when baby had only 45ml feed. (If it’s the kind of reaction infection can cause then surely it would be seen more often).
Lucy has also given herself away saying babies can 'take on a lot of air when vomiting' which has been discredited by two experts. Strikes me as another example of her offering alternative explanations to deflect. I suspect this means she did force air as well as excess milk.
I thought this was interesting from the judge in Stephen Bear’s trial today (directions to jury).
The judge said that it’s like “a jigsaw puzzle”, continuing: “A single piece of the jigsaw does not take you much further, two or three pieces may give you an idea. It’s only when all the pieces you have painted a picture that you can be sure.”
I know there is often debate here on small bits of evidence like Facebook, the post it note, interactions with family, messages to colleagues etc. Each on their own may not seem much but piecing everything together paints a somewhat different picture IMO.
Last edited:
tennis ball michael
Member
I’ve been selling a load of old clothes on a popular selling platform and I’ve had to resist the urge to list certain sparkly ‘going out’ tops as ‘very Lucy Letby’
Nutmeg.
Nutmeg.
Attachments
Haveyouanywool
VIP Member
Oh where is this Shangri-La where people retire at 55?
Deeznutslol
VIP Member
So basically you want to exclude over 75% of the countries working age population from jury service and replace it with only unemployed people and pensioners?
The whole point of having a jury is that it’s randomly selected and therefore should include a variety of different people which represent the demographics of the country. The idea that someones guilt/innocence should only be decided by certain members of society is deeply disturbing to me tbh. Also I don’t really get what you mean about retired people should have to do it in order to get their pensions… they already earned their pensions through work?
MmmB777
VIP Member
I also think it is highly likely she was inflicting smaller amounts of harm on the babies for a long time. As well as using treatment to kill, I wonder if she withheld treatment and medications in order to exasperate pain and prevent the babies from improving. I think removing breathing equipment to see them struggle is highly likely as she is caught doing so. I am not sure we will ever know the full extent of what she’s done.If she’s gone to barbaric lengths such as insulin, air, forceful attacks causing bleeding, I don’t doubt in my mind at all that she started off small on other babies like not giving a feed at all so they’re starving and hungry tummies, some pinching, detaching a breathing tube, who knows. Started off “small”.
“I am evil. I did this” “I killed them on purpose”. Them. Purpose.
raspberryjuice
VIP Member
I think the hospital obviously had many failings, nobody is denying that. But not one nurse, doctor, consultant etc would have suspected one of their own was causing harm to all these babies. For a lot of them they’re seeing these events as a one off unexplained event. They’re not present for all of the collapses, they’re not seeing the similarities because they can’t and they’re not all seeing LL’s constant presence at all of these events. A look through the notes for each collapse doesn’t even make it clear that she was the connection because she was often not the designated nurse for these babies. It’s only when you can step back and look at it all laid out that the dots start joining up. That’s why the police investigation lead to LL.
None of her colleagues would have even considered she was to blame at the stage we’re currently at (Baby G) because it’s unthinkable somebody would be doing all of this intentionally.
None of her colleagues would have even considered she was to blame at the stage we’re currently at (Baby G) because it’s unthinkable somebody would be doing all of this intentionally.
MmmB777
VIP Member
Today was very compelling I thought. It showed clearly a few points to me.
- people were talking about her competence/manner/link because the things that were happening on her shift, with her presence were noticeable. It shows she presented in a way that meant she was thought of negatively by the manager.
- it’s another occasion where someone has said there was something strange going on for a baby, as in what on earth could be wrong.
- this baby was incredibly quickly from room 1 level care to cardiac arrest with no trigger, no pervasive problem, and remarkable recovery when away from LL
-she is searching this baby’s parents at 1am with the other parents from this case- what linked them then?
-things had been awful again. There are 3 babies in this case at this time when it was so awful. She was sabotaging them and that’s why.
-she was on faceyb just before the baby collapsed, no doubt liking inspirational quotes, so if things were so tough and awful and hectic, that’s a bit odd, just a short time before a baby that for no known reason has a cardiac arrest.
- AP Hospital also found nothing wrong with this baby.
- the presentation of the baby in cardiac arrest sounds odd to me again but we’d need our medics to comment more on that. Oh and the mottling. This baby was at deaths door and then back again and then fine. It sounds incredibly odd to me.
- sorry Letterz but your texts are fucking weird mate. And yeah of course you watch Corrie and watch strictly on your laptop. #beige #basic
- people were talking about her competence/manner/link because the things that were happening on her shift, with her presence were noticeable. It shows she presented in a way that meant she was thought of negatively by the manager.
- it’s another occasion where someone has said there was something strange going on for a baby, as in what on earth could be wrong.
- this baby was incredibly quickly from room 1 level care to cardiac arrest with no trigger, no pervasive problem, and remarkable recovery when away from LL
-she is searching this baby’s parents at 1am with the other parents from this case- what linked them then?
-things had been awful again. There are 3 babies in this case at this time when it was so awful. She was sabotaging them and that’s why.
-she was on faceyb just before the baby collapsed, no doubt liking inspirational quotes, so if things were so tough and awful and hectic, that’s a bit odd, just a short time before a baby that for no known reason has a cardiac arrest.
- AP Hospital also found nothing wrong with this baby.
- the presentation of the baby in cardiac arrest sounds odd to me again but we’d need our medics to comment more on that. Oh and the mottling. This baby was at deaths door and then back again and then fine. It sounds incredibly odd to me.
- sorry Letterz but your texts are fucking weird mate. And yeah of course you watch Corrie and watch strictly on your laptop. #beige #basic
MmmB777
VIP Member
I think it’s quite clear the evidence today was highlighting that it is the way in which the baby vomited that was highly unusual. The baby could not have had an allergy or a condition that made it vomit excess milk to which it had been fed. In my opinion, that cannot be accidental (due to the nature of how this baby is being fed and because once this baby came into trouble and nobody admits their mistake that’s no longer accidental either) that is somebody causing serious harm with intent to seriously trouble or kill the child. If it was accidental, which I do not believe, we are to assume that it’s coincidental it happens again when Letby is there and that the person doing this would not admit their mistake either at the time or now, the same with the insulin if accidental (again completely not possible in my eyes for multiple reasons). There is also no evidence before or since other than the episodes when Letby is there, which to me shows that this baby doesn’t have an allergy or a condition that would require surgery.
I think it was an incredibly strong day for showing that somebody was intentionally harming this baby.
Link to bbc write uphttps://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-63947039.a
I think it was an incredibly strong day for showing that somebody was intentionally harming this baby.
Link to bbc write uphttps://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-63947039.a
Attachments
candyland_
VIP Member
Consultants spoke out and they were told not to make a fuss. I imagine a nurse would have been told the same if they had raised concerns officially.. We know they were chatting amongst themselves and found it odd very early on and by the time we got to Baby E their tone had changed slightly. Nurses were having a hard time and they couldn’t be arsed with Letby going on about it, their sympathy was dwindling and they had their own stuff going on, gossiping had started and there was some bitching. Letby was slagging people off with another nurse and talking to her about bringing sweets in and told her not share which I thought was petty and bizarre. There’s been a couple of occasions where she’s guessed who was talking about her so I’m assuming things were being said behind her back.
I’ll be very interested to hear how this progressed as we move through the other cases.
I’ll be very interested to hear how this progressed as we move through the other cases.
Pulltheotherone
VIP Member
Imho this is good for the prosecution.
The doctors have accepted the monitor issue was their responsibility so the defence can’t go down the “ LL is a scapegoat “ bollocks and all is transparent.
Perfect opportunity whilst the monitor is off to attempt to harm.
The doctors have accepted the monitor issue was their responsibility so the defence can’t go down the “ LL is a scapegoat “ bollocks and all is transparent.
Perfect opportunity whilst the monitor is off to attempt to harm.
MmmB777
VIP Member
I think it gets into victim blaming territory when we accuse the staff of not being better at spotting Letby. How do some parents miss that their child has been groomed by somebody trusted to them. It isn’t a crime and doesn’t make you culpable if you don’t notice people doing unthinkable things. I think there is a duty of care involved but it is a lot to expect people to have at the front of their mind that someone is out to kill babies. Especially if that person is highly manipulative and appears ultra dedicated. People naturally come to other conclusions, and yes it’ll be up to the jury to decide if there were any, over and over again. Unfortunately for the defence it is another case of obvious harm, whether there was another excuse given at the time or not. I assume people working with Cullen thought that many more people were having cardiac arrests suddenly and gave another reason until toxicology proved otherwise. And even when it did it wasn’t simple to convict or investigate. Until that pattern goes on and on then however unbelievable it looks with the gift of hindsight, it is not as simple as someone shouting murder. I don’t necessarily believe it’s extreme burn out or anything else which is used to muddy the water around babies having excess air, physical trauma, large insulin doses when not prescribed etc. I think it’s a busy unit and they’re treating multiple other children in that same day, same hours even, like any up and down the country. As we know from Letby’s texts, sometimes these events happen on slow nights anyway. I do believe there could be suicides around this case but I don’t believe it will be Letby. This will be extremely hard for those that were manipulated by Letby to live with and as with BA, many will never get over it and impact them for their whole lives. Seeing as they’ve not committed a crime, I think that will be punishment enough.
I feel like the medical evidence today has been very damning (still camp guilty for me anyway) but I don’t think BM did what he set out to do when questioning one of the drs. This stuck out for me:
Mr Myers says that does not rule out an infection being present prior to the vomiting.
Dr Evans: "There is no clinical evidence to back up that hypothesis."
He adds: "I don't deal with 'ifs', I deal with evidence."
Mr Myers says that does not rule out an infection being present prior to the vomiting.
Dr Evans: "There is no clinical evidence to back up that hypothesis."
He adds: "I don't deal with 'ifs', I deal with evidence."
DianaBanana
Chatty Member
I think the most credible evidence is from the medical experts, as it’s not reliant on memory in any way, but years of medical experience. Plus we have the door swipes, texts, notes etc that again, don’t rely on memory. And in my opinion that evidence points to her guilt.
Also the parents….I believe all of their statements/testimony. They have no reason to lie about anything, all they want is the truth about what happened to their babies.
But I still think the reporting is shit, we’re not hearing the half of it. So whatever the jury decide, I’m sure it’ll be the right decision.
Also the parents….I believe all of their statements/testimony. They have no reason to lie about anything, all they want is the truth about what happened to their babies.
But I still think the reporting is shit, we’re not hearing the half of it. So whatever the jury decide, I’m sure it’ll be the right decision.
candyland_
VIP Member
It goes beyond over feeding and vomiting
These poor babies didn’t stand a chance around her.
OldBlondie
VIP Member
Taken from the Dailymail today, think it’s very relevant to what has been discussed in detail on here tonight:
