Lucy Letby case #28

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Why the rit have you got a crown and I haven't?

I'm gonna kick right off in a minute!
I noticed this too. Was silently fuming, like when you see someone tagged somewhere and wonder why this is the first you’ve heard of them going and weren’t invited.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 11
I think my mind is telling me that what she’s accused of can’t of been done by her because it seems too cruel.
You're obviously a lovely person who cannot fathom why anyone could be so deliberately cruel. Sadly, history is peppered with stories of mass murderers unleashing large-scale, unimaginable evil for all sorts of reasons -- power, ideology, fanaticism, revenge, etc. And if you browse Netflix or the internet, you'll hear stories of serial-killers, child rapists, sexual offenders, torturers, and 'Angels of Death' who happily inflicted untold amounts of pain, suffering and misery on their victims and then took away their lives for the measly price of satisfying a few fleeting moments of sadistic pleasure. You probably can't bring yourself to believe she's guilty because she looks so sweet. But looks can be deceiving; and they're not evidence of innocence or guilt anyway. Take a closer look at the evidence (check out the fabulous case Wiki @Tofino has put together). And even if it doesn't make you change your mind, I'm sure it'll make you see why so many people think she's guilty.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 21
It can be both; a badly run hospital and a serial killer on the loose. The serial killer was able to go undetected for so long because of the badly run hospital. The head honchos like Karen Rees’ failure to take Dr SB’s concerns seriously honestly makes me feel sick and heads should roll for it. What a grave mistake.
The key senior staff involved all seemed to leave the hospital pretty damn quick too!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Angry
  • Heart
Reactions: 25
Because they were recording them not trying to interpret them and they didn’t notice the significance of the c-peptides being low. How come every tiny mistake the hospital makes is usually a sign of Letby’s innocence and yet here we can’t believe that they’re chaotic and rubbish all of a sudden? Again, there’s countless times this has happened with medical poisoning cases. It’s not that shocking and changes nothing about the actual categorical fact that they were poisoned with synthetic insulin by somebody.
They did know about the c-peptides though when the test for baby F came back a week later. So my question is - why was the place not shut down immediately and investigated? What is it that went through the board or the consultants etc to explain it away? Because it must have been explained away *somehow* at the time? Simply saying 'oh we couldn't recreate the test because the levels were back to normal' is bull. They had one test clinically done so they had the data right there in their hands, they didn't need to 're-create' it, the facts were there. Or maybe they didn't want the other substandard care that that baby received to come to the forefront? By all accounts child F did seem an unwell baby also.

And that's not me making it a sign of LL's innocence - I find this real defensiveness of any other viewpoint or conversation really tiring. I can ask questions and analyse things without having some hidden agenda.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 15
With all due respect. Serial killers do this. A lot. It’s not serial killer 101 at all. For example..
without going into too much detail- a case that’s quite famous, serial grape and murder. One person was caught but while in prison, after many years, finally admitted he had not only had an accomplice but that the other man was the ring leader. This person had been free for a long time. Every time they offended, on the way back, they would listen to a certain song on cassette in the car. That cassette was found under the other man’s floorboards in his home when they searched. Despite almost getting away with such heinous crimes, he couldn’t part with it.
Almost every medical serial killer I’ve read about has kept things. Many of them still kept them despite knowing eyes were on them and even police had begun investigating. One of my faves is a book of poisons with all the corners turned down in the pages of the poisons she used 😅 clever woman, graduated early from college, mum, socially skilled. Killed lots of patients for kicks.
I mean, David Fuller kept video tapes FFS 🤢 thank god for the families sake he pleaded guilty because that would have been a horrific trial.
 
  • Sick
  • Sad
  • Like
Reactions: 17
They’ve openly said they’ve basically used the process of elimination to draw there conclusions so not a direct diagnosis it’s all based off of old notes and records that were taken at an under performing ward, and mostly written retrospectively. Why should we rely on this data? A pathologist also didn’t rule any of these deaths to be due to foul play at the time either. You’ve also got another 10 death in the time frame that haven’t been talked about, if they can’t link them to LL then why are this many children dying when the yearly average is 4 at a push… if 10 die because of a failing hospital why can’t 17? Air embolism can only be proven via ct scan and they don’t have any, they find air in some cases yea but we’ve heard countless reasons why air can be found in these cases. The insulin was clearly not seen as foul play related at the time. All we know is a child had synthetic insulin in its body that shouldn’t have been there, I don’t think that’s any where near establishing foul play. They’ve managed to reply to pretty much everything that’s been said and I find it telling that the defence have been able to plausibly challenge almost every piece of prosecution evidence when it’s not even there turn to speak yet. I absolutely accept I’m in the minority here. But for me they’ve barely shown foul play is possible let alone proved that is what definitely happened beyond doubt.
I'm with you 100% and my thinking has not changed since the beginning. Even during the opening statement I was very concerned about how robust the prosecution's case was and it has transpired that it is even flimsier than I initially thought. There is no evidence that any of these children were murdered, let alone by her, and I feel she has been made a scapegoat for a poorly performing unit. I rarely post here any more as frankly I cannot abide the nonsensical and purely imagined insights into her character by people who know absolutely nothing about her, but seem to think they can tell a lot by looking at pictures of inherited wallpaper.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Wow
Reactions: 27
I'm with you 100% and my thinking has not changed since the beginning. Even during the opening statement I was very concerned about how robust the prosecution's case was and it has transpired that it is even flimsier than I initially thought. There is no evidence that any of these children were murdered, let alone by her, and I feel she has been made a scapegoat for a poorly performing unit. I rarely post here any more as frankly I cannot abide the nonsensical and purely imagined insights into her character by people who know absolutely nothing about her, but seem to think they can tell a lot by looking at pictures of inherited wallpaper.
Mate, it’s all purely speculation here. Nobody knows any more than anyone else. There’s no need for that :/
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 28
I'm with you 100% and my thinking has not changed since the beginning. Even during the opening statement I was very concerned about how robust the prosecution's case was and it has transpired that it is even flimsier than I initially thought. There is no evidence that any of these children were murdered, let alone by her, and I feel she has been made a scapegoat for a poorly performing unit. I rarely post here any more as frankly I cannot abide the nonsensical and purely imagined insights into her character by people who know absolutely nothing about her, but seem to think they can tell a lot by looking at pictures of inherited wallpaper.
My issue with the scapegoat theories is…why Lucy? A woman who by all accounts was a relatively well liked and well respected nurse. A woman who was supported by higher ups throughout doctors raising their concerns about her, with one going so far as to say that she would take responsibility for any future deaths etc that took place with Lucy back on the ward. IMO the scapegoat theory makes literally no sense. She was there for all of these incidents/deaths; the next person was there for 7/22. There’s not much comparison surely? And if I were a nurse there for 22 deaths/near misses I sure as tit would be raising concerns about the ward or taking a step back or doing whatever I could. Not just plodding along then writing bizarre post it’s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 31
The hospital have soooo much to answer for. I’m only guessing here but I think it was a combination of a few things that made them not do anything sooner.

These are just my thoughts btw -
- it was chaotic & had many issues but no one wanted to actually take any responsibility & get some checks done through fear of being thrown under the bus & losing their own jobs (senior management)

- they couldn’t afford to take a staff member, who worked every shift under the sun of an already understaffed unit, off because of a “hunch”

- insulin: as bad as it sounds, it wasn’t taken further as the baby survived. Let’s just push it under the carpet so the parents don’t find out & put a claim in.

- no one there wanted to think they had a serial killer running about

- also, it was being raised. But higher up the chain weren’t listening. In hindsight, should those drs have bypassed the chain of command & got the police involved? Yes. Why didn’t they do that? Well they probably thought it was accidental so no police but the need to retrain her etc

- I believe (I might be wrong) that a lot of the babies were dealt with by different drs so it took some time to actually make a connection. But even when that happened, it appeared the higher management wanted to safe face & like some people have expressed on here who don’t actually know LL in the slightest, they didn’t want to believe one of their “best nurses” was at fault
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 25
They did know about the c-peptides though when the test for baby F came back a week later. So my question is - why was the place not shut down immediately and investigated? What is it that went through the board or the consultants etc to explain it away? Because it must have been explained away *somehow* at the time? Simply saying 'oh we couldn't recreate the test because the levels were back to normal' is bull. They had one test clinically done so they had the data right there in their hands, they didn't need to 're-create' it, the facts were there. Or maybe they didn't want the other substandard care that that baby received to come to the forefront? By all accounts child F did seem an unwell baby also.

And that's not me making it a sign of LL's innocence - I find this real defensiveness of any other viewpoint or conversation really tiring. I can ask questions and analyse things without having some hidden agenda.
Not defensive, it’s an observation based on seeing multiple criticisms of the hospital for being so shoddy and then being shocked when they duck up again 🤷🏻‍♀️
They knew of the c-peptide level not of the significance. The results were simply recorded not discussed or dissected. This will partly be because the baby had recovered fully, it wasn’t needed to provide a diagnosis. Prem babies have hypos. They were not looking at the results to find out if the baby was poisoned. Baby F was suffering a serious hypo, that’s why he was very poorly. Again, nothing about their mistake in not seeing the significance of the cpeptide levels changes that the baby was 100% poisoned with synthetic insulin.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 15
I don't think, by current NHS standards, that COCH was particularly understaffed or badly run - and I know that's a pretty low bar. LL seems to have been very good at getting herself into the 'right place at the right time' for what she wanted to do. Yes, she could have been picked up on earlier - but I think it would be very difficult for anyone working in an NICU to come to the conclusion that someone was deliberately hurting the babies they were there to care for - and then to voice concerns. I am firmly in the guilty camp.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 29
I'm with you 100% and my thinking has not changed since the beginning. Even during the opening statement I was very concerned about how robust the prosecution's case was and it has transpired that it is even flimsier than I initially thought. There is no evidence that any of these children were murdered, let alone by her, and I feel she has been made a scapegoat for a poorly performing unit. I rarely post here any more as frankly I cannot abide the nonsensical and purely imagined insights into her character by people who know absolutely nothing about her, but seem to think they can tell a lot by looking at pictures of inherited wallpaper.
ok I’ll bite.

simple question: what evidence is there that these babies died and collapsed as a result of a poor performing unit?
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 29
ok I’ll bite.

simple question: what evidence is there that these babies died and collapsed as a result of a poor performing unit?
The docs literally demanded investigation upon investigation. They requested having the unit and incidents scrutinised repeatedly. They prob should have kept quiet and just got away with it 🤪
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 15
So off the back of this thread I watched The Good Nurse on Netflix. Based on true story. Either google or watch it if you have not yet. I’d never actually heard of this case. Not even that long ago. Pretty easy to get away with it when the majority of people don’t put two and two together until eventually someone does.

Easy peasy to be alone and give a patient someone they shouldn’t. That’s all it takes, opportunity.

Even a well run fully staffed fully equipped unit could fall prey to a serial killer - nurses and doctors aren’t joined to another so seconds or minutes is all they need to inflict chaos.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 17
I'm with you 100% and my thinking has not changed since the beginning. Even during the opening statement I was very concerned about how robust the prosecution's case was and it has transpired that it is even flimsier than I initially thought. There is no evidence that any of these children were murdered, let alone by her, and I feel she has been made a scapegoat for a poorly performing unit. I rarely post here any more as frankly I cannot abide the nonsensical and purely imagined insights into her character by people who know absolutely nothing about her, but seem to think they can tell a lot by looking at pictures of inherited wallpaper.
After hearing the evidence presented so far, I think she’s murdered those babies so therefore yeah, her character is crappy & it’s got nothing to do with her wallpaper 🙂
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Heart
Reactions: 26
Not defensive, it’s an observation based on seeing multiple criticisms of the hospital for being so shoddy and then being shocked when they duck up again 🤷🏻‍♀️
They knew of the c-peptide level not of the significance. The results were simply recorded not discussed or dissected. This will partly be because the baby had recovered fully, it wasn’t needed to provide a diagnosis. Prem babies have hypos. They were not looking at the results to find out if the baby was poisoned. Baby F was suffering a serious hypo, that’s why he was very poorly. Again, nothing about their mistake in not seeing the significance of the cpeptide levels changes that the baby was 100% poisoned with synthetic insulin.
I'm confused what you mean by not knowing the significance? Do you mean the staff didn't know why the numbers were so 'off'? How would they have known to do that test? They clearly did know the significance, because they wanted to repeat it but decided not to because the baby had returned to normal levels. This may not change who or how the baby was poisoned - but the investigation into these levels was not robust. So I guess the question would be how can the other evidence presented by sure to be robust now? Perhaps BM will bring medical experts to testify how the previous insulin could have skewed the numbers, I don't know.
My underlying question is - what reason was given and why for not investigating more thoroughly at the time, and why was it deemed appropriate then? Hopefully the hospital will have a case to answer in this scenario amongst others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 12
So off the back of this thread I watched The Good Nurse on Netflix. Based on true story. Either google or watch it if you have not yet. I’d never actually heard of this case. Not even that long ago. Pretty easy to get away with it when the majority of people don’t put two and two together until eventually someone does.

Easy peasy to be alone and give a patient someone they shouldn’t. That’s all it takes, opportunity.

Even a well run fully staffed fully equipped unit could fall prey to a serial killer - nurses and doctors aren’t joined to another so seconds or minutes is all they need to inflict chaos.
It was such a good watch wasn’t it? I’d not heard of him before it but it really highlighted how easily he duped other people into believing he was a good, normal person and also the blind eye by upper management that let him move around from hospital to hospital continuing his killing spree undetected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.