Lucy Letby Case #29

[AllieBee]

That's a fair point, I did think that too. I just wonder what the actual trigger was in 2015 given that she had been working in the hospital for a few years before then, usually something triggers mass murdering (most serial killers start killing or take breaks then start up again due to triggers). So many unanswered questions.

For me the trigger would have been the passing of the course that allowed her to work, unsupervised, with the babies with complex needs. It would be much harder to get away with it in the other nurseries, where the babies were relatively stable.

 

[avabella]

I am quoting you here but only to reply about this incident with Baby N, the rest of the post is not directed at you!

I was talking purely about the collapse/incident that happened that they focussed on in the podcast.

Morally, ethically and more importantly legally there is no way (from what was said in the podcast which seems to be a LOT more accurate than the live reporting on twitter and Chester live etc) she should be found guilty on that charge. To me (with my legal hat on) it’s just another example of the CPS over reaching and pushing boundaries of charging standards.

If someone has not been in the building, let alone the ward, then comes on duty and goes absolutely nowhere near the baby and then something happens to that baby, how on earth can she be guilty of that? If the jury find her guilty of this charge in particular then it just shows to me even more strongly that juries of peers needs outlawing. A sentiment I share along with many others in the legal profession.

I am still (this many months on) finding it very frustrating that some posters (not you in particular as I do not recall you doing this or even names of those that do, its a generalised comment) who effectively decided guilty from day 1 of the trial are so able to accept so many beyond flimsy pieces of circumstantial evidence as absolute proof of guilt or being “dodgy” “abnormal” “psycho” etc and yet so very, very dismissive when others give an opinion that actions aren’t necessarily important or “abnormal”.

Take the facebook searches as an example, some posters saying they indicate guilt. Then we hear now in the defence case that out of nearly 200 searches I think it was, only 2 were for babies in the indictment. Similar stats for handover sheets. Similar with the whole shredder thing. It was at her parents house and I am sure that much earlier we heard that it wasn’t her shredder but her parents. So presumably her parents put the shredder box in the wardrobe in their home. I am going to presume again that they helped her to pack her stuff to move in with them after the arrests so they could have been the ones to shove the paperwork in that box. No-one knows because we haven’t heard. It’s is likely the whole thing was explained in court but we aren’t getting anywhere near full reporting as that would be impossible.

Similarly when some posters (no idea who as I don’t look at posting names really) are talking about LL being caught in lies and inconsistencies. No-one can know that unless they are the jury/judge/prosecution or defence. The reporting is not word for word. It is also severely lacking. The wiki includes cut and pastes from the reporting.

I can just see the posts that will occur when the prosecution start cross examination. “Oh look they caught her there” etc.

In reality what happens is the prosecution will suggest (just as the police do when questioning) that she has said x, y or z and that contradicts what she said on a, b or c occasion even when she has done no such thing. It is literally what they do to defendants. They draw inferences and point those out irrespective of accuracy. Sometimes a judge will intervene if they can recall the truth, sometimes they won’t or can’t remember.

If you understand how police question suspects and how a prosecution or defence barrister/solicitor questions witnesses and the defendant then you understand that most likely she has not been caught in any lies or inconsistencies.

I said it months ago and I say it again we are not getting anywhere near close to a verbatim record from the reporting.

I just hope none of the jury are reading threads like this one on tattle. There’s bound to be at least one member of the jury not keeping to the rules. You could read the threads here and on Facebook, Reddit, other forums etc and be in the courtroom day in and day out and think you were watching a totally different trial.

Still on the fence here until all evidence has been heard. I use the word evidence lightly as I prefer to take it in its purest legal form. I was actually swayed slightly more towards guilty before LL started her evidence. I am very much hoping that the defence has medical experts to bring and I am going to be very interested in what they say.

This is an interesting post and I do agree with some parts - this trial has also again highlighted to me how clever prosecutors and defence lawyers are - and it’s why I really feel the need to listen to everything in full to make my mind up.

Like you say, the picture presented by the prosecution especially around the searches/paperwork is that it was only those related to the children involved that were kept, when in reality there were far more NOT related than related. Which changes the narrative massively.

So it’s only when the defence put their part of the jigsaw in that sometimes makes you go ‘ahh wait a minute’ - because like my 7 year old only tells half a story of what had gone on at school, it’s only when I investigate a wee bit further I get the whole story

 

[Haveyouanywool]

Hush now poppet or I'll put you back in the cupboard and won't let you out until Thursday

Point taken

 

[IGiveUp22]

This thread always turns a bit tit on a weekend

Happy for all views to be posted and everyone to contribute. Makes you think about your own viewpoint and consider things you might have missed/overlooked. I’m still confident in my own view point right now and why I think what I think.

There are a lot of people on here with varying experiences of the law/police/cps/medical backgrounds and from my experience, she has 100% contradicted herself/tripped herself up from police interview to the stand purely by giving answers she didn’t at her first opportunity

 

[tay65]

I remember a HV tried snooping on my fb. She appeared on my people I may know. So I rang up the main office in a fit of rage an they tried saying nooooo we aren't allowed to use our phones on shift. She stopped being our HV after that.

This is so hard. That poor baby must have been in so much pain and as for making out the mum is lying, of course she's not. The sight of her baby with blood on his face, screaming and herself being chucked out by Letby will have scarred her for life, she will never forget that. She knows what she saw and heard, it must be obvious to the jury too that Letby is lying. They will have seen the mums reaction to her lies as well.

LL told mum to leave and said "trust me I'm a nurse" yet LL says she never asked her to leave because that's not something they would do. Mum would never forget these details or any of the details after what happened to her baby and as we know her phone record timings are accurate following police analysis. These parents must be so upset by the lies they're hearing from Letby. I hope she and BM both rot.

 

[MrsDimSum]

This is an interesting post and I do agree with some parts - this trial has also again highlighted to me how clever prosecutors and defence lawyers are - and it’s why I really feel the need to listen to everything in full to make my mind up.

Like you say, the picture presented by the prosecution especially around the searches/paperwork is that it was only those related to the children involved that were kept, when in reality there were far more NOT related than related. Which changes the narrative massively.

So it’s only when the defence put their part of the jigsaw in that sometimes makes you go ‘ahh wait a minute’ - because like my 7 year old only tells half a story of what had gone on at school, it’s only when I investigate a wee bit further I get the whole story

I am the same, ever since the JD/AH trial at the beginning with all her evidence I was thinking JD was the biggest b of all time. And then by the end I was sobbing on my dining table and drinking a mega pint of wine as I was so happy it went in his favour.

I know it’s not exactly the same, but I always keep it in my mind.

 

[TapToBoreMeRigid]

I wonder if she began by hurting babies in minor ways that are undetectable - pinching them, making them uncomfortable etc and then maybe that didn't cut it for her anymore.

I've no idea of her motive so unsure as to whether the suggestion of ever-worsening behaviour to satisfy herself holds water.

I know it isn't a prerequisite but I wonder what the prosecution deem to be motive.

 

[Lynn’ssnazzycardigan]

@Haveyouanywool Thank you for clarifying about when the unit was downgraded, and good point about the gestation of the babies previously affected.

Re: people wondering about motive. Something just tells me it was to hurt the parents. I am an adult nurse and could never work with children although I have been called to do procedures that children’s nurses on our unit don’t routinely do. The thing that always stayed with me, why I couldn’t be a children’s nurse, it’s the distress of the parents. Children are pretty robust and generally very brave IME. But the parents are powerless to help, and suffer greatly seeing their child critically ill or in pain.
Merail here but I feel it’s relevant. I took my adult patient to theatre and in the receiving room was a TINY baby going for open heart surgery. The parents themselves were very young (late teens) and you could see they had been crying all night and were so terrified. I had to take some time to compose myself after handing over my patient.

 

[gigilouxx]

I wonder if she began by hurting babies in minor ways that are undetectable - pinching them, making them uncomfortable etc and then maybe that didn't cut it for her anymore.

I've no idea of her motive so unsure as to whether the suggestion of ever-worsening behaviour to satisfy herself holds water.

I know it isn't a prerequisite but I wonder what the prosecution deem to be motive.

That’s what I wonder too. Like maybe being a bit rough with them and even being verbally unkind to them. It makes me so sad even thinking about it. Defenceless little babies

 

[tay65]

Hello! I’ve got pages and pages to catch up on. I’ve been a bit busy today, at the crown court!!

They weren’t going to let me in but I said ‘don’t you know who I am? I’m Tofino. The creator of THE almighty wiki.’ And they let me in!!

haha joking, I was actually pleasantly surprised how un-busy it was. The overspill room was only two thirds full so unless everyone on this thread tries to go on the same day then I don’t think anyone wanting to go will have any issues getting in.

I picked a great day to go as the medical evidence and events surrounding the collapses are the most important for me. I knew they were starting on baby A but because I went expecting not to get in I didn’t think ahead about which babies I would hear about.
So I am so pleased I heard babies A-E and some of F.

I’ll try and catch up on the thread after putting my son to bed. And give you some more of my thoughts if you want to hear any!

Your our hero.

 

[Emmalouisa73]

This is probably a pretty big question to put out there, many of you have tried to answer this and I've trawled through Reddit too but I still cannot fathom why she did this. I looked through her Wikipedia history and it looks like she did a lot for raising money for charity, did interviews and was at the hospital for several years before the attacks started and I just cannot understand why she murdered these babies. I tried to look at her family history (as this can sometimes tell a lot) but I can't find anything. I'm a training psychologist so maybe that's why I'm asking myself these questions, and maybe we will never know the answer, but I'm honestly dumfounded as to why someone would do something so inhumane.

Maybe the charity work was for attention, recognition if she felt she needed to be validated or even more shallow just good old praise and well done. Maybe with the babies she got the attention she craved when she was in the thick of it all. I watched The Nurse on Netflix and she would harm the patients and then bring them back from the brink to receive praise and commendation. Not saying it’s a definite reason. Also could be that she did a lot for charity so no one would ever think she could be capable of such awful crimes. X
---

Me neither. Its unfathomable to me how anyone could be so bloody cruel. Re the charity work, Jimmy Saville also did a lot for charity and we all know how that panned out? Cover? Desperation to look like a 'good' person?

I was thinking about Jimmy Saville too. All done in plain sight and craved the glory it brought him

 

[MmmB777]

Maybe the charity work was for attention, recognition if she felt she needed to be validated or even more shallow just good old praise and well done. Maybe with the babies she got the attention she craved when she was in the thick of it all. I watched The Nurse on Netflix and she would harm the patients and then bring them back from the brink to receive praise and commendation. Not saying it’s a definite reason. Also could be that she did a lot for charity so no one would ever think she could be capable of such awful crimes. X
---

I was thinking about Jimmy Saville too. All done in plain sight and craved the glory it brought him

Kristen Gilbert American nurse, intelligent, graduated college early, was a soccer mom and ran a hospital charitable scheme to send flowers to bereaved family killed lots of people.

 

[Emmalouisa73]

I am the same, ever since the JD/AH trial at the beginning with all her evidence I was thinking JD was the biggest b of all time. And then by the end I was sobbing on my dining table and drinking a mega pint of wine as I was so happy it went in his favour.

I know it’s not exactly the same, but I always keep it in my mind.

Ha ha same here.

 

[od12839]

I don't think we'll ever know what the motive was really (why people act the way they do is endlessly complex). But if I had to guess I'd say it's an attention/sympathy thing.

Been wondering for a while if the "you're having a bad run" text message was about deaths/collapses or if Lucy had just been whinging a lot lately and it was more a "oh wow your life is so stressful!" thing.

 

[Tofino]

I am quoting you here but only to reply about this incident with Baby N, the rest of the post is not directed at you!

I was talking purely about the collapse/incident that happened that they focussed on in the podcast.

Morally, ethically and more importantly legally there is no way (from what was said in the podcast which seems to be a LOT more accurate than the live reporting on twitter and Chester live etc) she should be found guilty on that charge. To me (with my legal hat on) it’s just another example of the CPS over reaching and pushing boundaries of charging standards.

If someone has not been in the building, let alone the ward, then comes on duty and goes absolutely nowhere near the baby and then something happens to that baby, how on earth can she be guilty of that? If the jury find her guilty of this charge in particular then it just shows to me even more strongly that juries of peers needs outlawing. A sentiment I share along with many others in the legal profession.

I am still (this many months on) finding it very frustrating that some posters (not you in particular as I do not recall you doing this or even names of those that do, its a generalised comment) who effectively decided guilty from day 1 of the trial are so able to accept so many beyond flimsy pieces of circumstantial evidence as absolute proof of guilt or being “dodgy” “abnormal” “psycho” etc and yet so very, very dismissive when others give an opinion that actions aren’t necessarily important or “abnormal”.

Take the facebook searches as an example, some posters saying they indicate guilt. Then we hear now in the defence case that out of nearly 200 searches I think it was, only 2 were for babies in the indictment. Similar stats for handover sheets. Similar with the whole shredder thing. It was at her parents house and I am sure that much earlier we heard that it wasn’t her shredder but her parents. So presumably her parents put the shredder box in the wardrobe in their home. I am going to presume again that they helped her to pack her stuff to move in with them after the arrests so they could have been the ones to shove the paperwork in that box. No-one knows because we haven’t heard. It’s is likely the whole thing was explained in court but we aren’t getting anywhere near full reporting as that would be impossible.

Similarly when some posters (no idea who as I don’t look at posting names really) are talking about LL being caught in lies and inconsistencies. No-one can know that unless they are the jury/judge/prosecution or defence. The reporting is not word for word. It is also severely lacking. The wiki includes cut and pastes from the reporting.

I can just see the posts that will occur when the prosecution start cross examination. “Oh look they caught her there” etc.

In reality what happens is the prosecution will suggest (just as the police do when questioning) that she has said x, y or z and that contradicts what she said on a, b or c occasion even when she has done no such thing. It is literally what they do to defendants. They draw inferences and point those out irrespective of accuracy. Sometimes a judge will intervene if they can recall the truth, sometimes they won’t or can’t remember.

If you understand how police question suspects and how a prosecution or defence barrister/solicitor questions witnesses and the defendant then you understand that most likely she has not been caught in any lies or inconsistencies.

I said it months ago and I say it again we are not getting anywhere near close to a verbatim record from the reporting.

I just hope none of the jury are reading threads like this one on tattle. There’s bound to be at least one member of the jury not keeping to the rules. You could read the threads here and on Facebook, Reddit, other forums etc and be in the courtroom day in and day out and think you were watching a totally different trial.

Still on the fence here until all evidence has been heard. I use the word evidence lightly as I prefer to take it in its purest legal form. I was actually swayed slightly more towards guilty before LL started her evidence. I am very much hoping that the defence has medical experts to bring and I am going to be very interested in what they say.

A lot of the issues you have raised (BIB) seem to be related to the justice system rather than this triaI specifically.

All fair and interesting discussion in a general sense but what exactly is your intention here? Do you want to close the thread down?

I think it’s unfair to aim your comments at the guilty crowd (because let’s be honest, your entire post is trying to put down anyone who believes she’s guilty and interprets the media reports differently) when everyone here, no matter how much someone says they are on the fence, are getting involved with trial discussion based on media reports and personal opinions on social media platforms. Your comments could influence a lurking juror just as much as someone who thinks she’s guilty.

 

[avabella]

A lot of the issues you have raised (BIB) seem to be related to the justice system rather than this triaI specifically.

All fair and interesting discussion in a general sense but what exactly is your intention here? Do you want to close the thread down?

I think it’s unfair to aim your comments at the guilty crowd (because let’s be honest, your entire post is trying to put down anyone who believes she’s guilty and interprets the media reports differently) when everyone here, no matter how much someone says they are on the fence, are getting involved with trial discussion based on media reports and personal opinions on social media platforms. Your comments could influence a lurking juror just as much as someone who thinks she’s guilty.

Sorry but I’ve seen this before and wondered - what does BIB mean?

 

[MmmB777]

Sorry but I’ve seen this before and wondered - what does BIB mean?

I’m so glad someone has asked this

 

[IGiveUp22]

Bit in bold - I only learned this the other day! Was a revelation

 

[gigilouxx]

Not wanting to merail but I’ve said on the other thread I know someone with that type of personality, they love being surrounded by tragedy, they absolutely love drama and panic, they love bad things happening to them, and will seek out ways to ensure it happens
IF and a big IF at that, LL is this type of person, then the means and ways to gain attention and sympathy has no limit. It’s like an addiction, if they can’t satisfy it they’ll go to extreme ways to get that sympathy and attention, the person I know absolutely did

 

[Tofino]

Sorry but I’ve seen this before and wondered - what does BIB mean?

I know others have said ‘bit in bold’ but if you expand the post from Feisty I’m replying to on my last post you will see a few sentences throughout I’ve highlighted in bold.