Lucy Letby Case #29

[Dolly Daydreaming]

Just changed my profile pic, am I part of the crowd now ? Ps I'm female but couldn't find a funny ginger pic, other option was chucky

 

[avabella]

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.

Thanks that makes sense. Was coming up with all sorts of acronyms in my head!!

 

[AmeliaPevensie]

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

Agree entirely with your last sentence. I do think these people are rare, but some humans genuinely enjoy victimhood. They love the attention, the simpering and the chance to make others feel/look bad.
Thing is, over time, those around them get wise to it, so low level stuff doesn't get the same response anymore. So they up their game a bit. It goes from stories of real misfortune, to made up ones. Then when the made up stories don't get a reaction, they start fabricating injuries/events. Eventually they go to a real extreme such as hurting somebody close to them in some way to garner sympathy, or even accusing somebody of hurting them. Abusers do this to their victims too: often abusers will report their victims to the police for crimes that either didn't happen, or were purely self-defence. Others, apparently, turn to FII or murder.

 

[Tofino]

You could be completely correct that this one charge for baby N could get a NG.
I guess the issue is, Letby was there and the baby went from stable and 90% saturations to extremely quickly at 40% with extreme swelling and fresh blood in his throat? And that similar fresh blood is also seen in the throat of C, G and E . Perhaps this will be one of a few NG charges but when the jury are asked to look at the picture as a whole and wonder how likely it is that baby N who had no issues, who letby had described as having a 50/50 chance antenatally before any real knowledge about how he was doing (he was fine), just developed sudden throat swelling and bleeding that seemed painful. When she was his nurse, she failed to alert anyone or record more fresh blood, this seems very unusual and troubling given his haemophilia and previous problems. She had no excuse for this in PI but I imagine we might get one on the stand.
She goes on to record more blood in her handwriting but initials it as somebody else. Again seems a bit strange and a bit of a coincidence with the other troubling things like failing to tell anyone on shift that a baby with haemophilia was bleeding again.
The doctors trying to intubate child N had never seen anything like the swelling and blood behind his vocal cords. He was screaming on all occasions his throat was swollen and bleeding, which I think would tend to suggest pain stimuli. Especially as the chances of a spontaneous bleed are so incredibly rare and wouldn’t present in this fashion, episodes of bleeding with days in between and screaming. He was about to go home I believe when the most serious incident happened. Would you not expect after such serious issues with swelling and bleeding in the throat causing extreme collapse and distress, if it were a naturally occurring medical problem, that the cause would have been found and he’d have continuous issues in that area? He’s been unaffected since. For me that would be far more important if I was on the jury.

do you know which charge it is? I can’t find it. For baby N anyway.

oh I’m thinking it must be child G. But the reporting was limited even though she was on the stand. I’ll check the podcast out now but we definitely discussed it on the thread at time. Not sure why this staff member’s memory must be reliable but baby E’s mum isn’t!

 

[craftypudding]

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.

I would love for the people who profiled the (alleged) Idaho Killer on a podcast/youtube, before he was caught and got it spot on, to analyse LL. She could have a personality disorder I guess. In the 'Killer across the table' John Douglas talked about a lot of killers having low self esteem; power could come in to it because the victims can't fight back and nor can their families stop it, so is it someone with low self esteem suddenly becoming all powerful with the power of life and death, taking babies away. As for the killing, killers build up over time. Wayne Couzens obviously only killed once but we know of a clear of pattern of worsening behaviour over time, to a point when the compulsion to grape and kill presumably took over and he had the means to do it too. Ted Bundy was meant to have harmed animals as a child and so it progressed and it was a compulsion with him.
Did someone say there were rumours she was an IVF baby?, IVF often are multiple births, could there be a missing twin who didn't get born, hence the appeal for harming multiples because why should others have surviving siblings? Who knows? We don't even know yet that she is definitely guilty.

 

[MmmB777]

do you know which charge it is? I can’t find it. For baby N anyway.

I’m assuming it’s the first one where the nurse has changed from saying her back was turned. Although originally I thought perhaps it was baby M one, because she’s at a desk for that one as it takes longer to effect baby because she does it through the drip port thingy. If anything makes it more obvious in my eyes. I look forward to you doing a deep dive

 

[Daisydunn15]

do you know which charge it is? I can’t find it. For baby N anyway.

oh I’m thinking it must be child G. But the reporting was limited even though she was on the stand. I’ll check the podcast out now but we definitely discussed it on the thread at time. Not sure why this staff member’s memory must be reliable but baby E’s mum isn’t!

View attachment 2156666

I'm pretty sure it was the first charge for N, it was during cross examination the incident seemed slightly different to how it was initially presented, it was covered well in the podcast and they're usually good in terms of reporting.

 

[Wellthisisinteresting]

I honestly wish I wasn’t part of the “guilty club”
I really REALLY wish for the last 6 months I had been unsure or NG, it’s not where anyone wants to be as that admits to her being one of the the worst child killers we would of known. This isn’t a game or “win” but everything I have read and researched so far points to guilty to me, I deep down hope the defence has all the answers and shows another story (right now I am even more sure of her guilt) I think we are also fighting for those babies justice and voice that feels like they are silenced everytime someone says “ oh I look up lots of people on Fb Too” okay Sandra we get it but let’s look at the WHOLE picture here

 

[jedwad87]

I think the take on ‘it’s for the parents’ might have it spot on - I wonder what the targeted babies parents might have in common. For instance, like oh they’re happy in love either married or living together and got to have babies, while LL was in love with someone who’s married with kids of his own, while she/they didn’t have any kids.

 

[pissedandsad]

Yeah I mentioned this when I heard the podcast too. She went into the room to say hello to the other nurse which the other nurse confirmed was normal, then while she was stood chatting the baby collapsed. I agree I couldn't find her G of that incident, I think there were further incidents where she had more contact but this particular one seems to be a stretch.

I need to re-read as I had the impression she went in to chat & while the other nurse was at computer, she possibly tampered with something & baby collapsed. It just painted an image to me of someone so diabolical that she would sabotage your patient as you trustingly worked, back to her.

 

[feistyoneanddone]

I’m assuming it’s the first one where the nurse has changed from saying her back was turned. Although originally I thought perhaps it was baby M one, because she’s at a desk for that one as it takes longer to effect baby because she does it through the drip port thingy. If anything makes it more obvious in my eyes. I look forward to you doing a deep dive

I think it was discussed during one of the special podcast episodes not a baby specific one. I only had time to listen to a few maybe 4 total. I will try and work it out, as I said I can’t remember which baby it was.

 

[pissedandsad]

It’s hard to imagine someone could be so cruel to someone so small isn’t it?

Bully! Coward! Duplicitous witch!

 

[Tofino]

I’m assuming it’s the first one where the nurse has changed from saying her back was turned. Although originally I thought perhaps it was baby M one, because she’s at a desk for that one as it takes longer to effect baby because she does it through the drip port thingy. If anything makes it more obvious in my eyes. I look forward to you doing a deep dive

Well the deep dive is not really making things any clearer!

The first charge was when Christopher Booth was on a break around 1am. But no witnesses recall who covered for him on the break and I presume the person who responded to the desat whilst he was away didn’t make a note of it or it wasn’t reported. Because the note reported is from
booth, but he wrote that it happened when he was on a break.

the next incident might be the one being referred to. Lucy was due to start at 7.30am but went into room 1 first to see how baby N was doing. JJK was in the room feeding another baby. But this is different to what Feisty said, that it was accepted Lucy was absolutely nowhere near baby and they think she should be found not guilty. But this is the same incident Dr A recalls the blood when trying to intubate.

I don’t think the report of JJKs testimony is that clear in this podcast. It’s not in the wiki at all so it might not have been a live reporting day. But surely JJKs testimony and memory is up for scrutiny just as much as any other witness?

Pics are the transcript of YouTube versions of the podcast so spelling is a bit off.

 

[Wellthisisinteresting]

Does anyone know if the jury know about the charge that I believe the judge found not guilty before the trial?
Do we know anything about that baby or what the charge was? I wonder why it was found not guilty and if the jury know, how they interpret that, does it strengthen the other charges as they have strong evidence or does it cast doubt on the others?

Sorry me just rambling/ thinking out loud

 

[Sparagon/1]

Maybe she has munchausen by proxy

 

[Deeznutslol]

Does anyone know if the jury know about the charge that I believe the judge found not guilty before the trial?
Do we know anything about that baby or what the charge was? I wonder why it was found not guilty and if the jury know, how they interpret that, does it strengthen the other charges as they have strong evidence or does it cast doubt on the others?

Sorry me just rambling/ thinking out loud

I think they probably know about it as she was found NG of that charge nearly a year ago, before this trial started. It was another murder charge and the judge found her not guilty as there was ‘no evidence’.

Links to some sites auto removed

There's a couple of sites where links are automatically removed on tattle, explained for each one below. Hidden links - redirection links are removed as it needs to be clear where a user is being sent. Facebook story links - as they doxx the person that shared it. Try to post the photo or...

tattle.life

I can’t find anything else about it though, so I guess the exact details were never published. It’d be interesting to know if the jury do definitely know about this or not, because I suspect it’s something which could influence their opinion a lot.
---
Eta sorry, tattle doesn’t allow links from manchester evening news

 

[Wellthisisinteresting]

I think they probably know about it as she was found NG of that charge nearly a year ago, before this trial started. It was another murder charge and the judge found her not guilty as there was ‘no evidence’.

Links to some sites auto removed

There's a couple of sites where links are automatically removed on tattle, explained for each one below. Hidden links - redirection links are removed as it needs to be clear where a user is being sent. Facebook story links - as they doxx the person that shared it. Try to post the photo or...

tattle.life

I can’t find anything else about it though, so I guess the exact details were never published. It’d be interesting to know if the jury do definitely know about this or not, because I suspect it’s something which could influence their opinion a lot.

Thanks a lot Nuts
Yeah I’m really wondering what they know about it x

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

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.

It feels like we have been transported back 6 months with the whole chastising because we think she's guilty approach but you have summed it up perfectly there!

 

[Daisydunn15]

Well the deep dive is not really making things any clearer!

The first charge was when Christopher Booth was on a break around 1am. But no witnesses recall who covered for him on the break and I presume the person who responded to the desat whilst he was away didn’t make a note of it or it wasn’t reported. Because the note reported is from
booth, but he wrote that it happened when he was on a break.

the next incident might be the one being referred to. Lucy was due to start at 7.30am but went into room 1 first to see how baby N was doing. JJK was in the room feeding another baby. But this is different to what Feisty said, that it was accepted Lucy was absolutely nowhere near baby and they think she should be found not guilty. But this is the same incident Dr A recalls the blood when trying to intubate.

I don’t think the report of JJKs testimony is that clear in this podcast. It’s not in the wiki at all so it might not have been a live reporting day. But surely JJKs testimony and memory is up for scrutiny just as much as any other witness?

Pics are the transcript of YouTube versions of the podcast so spelling is a bit off.

View attachment 2156762
View attachment 2156764
View attachment 2156764

Yeah this is the one, she said the alarms went moments after she came in to say hello and then LL went over to assist, so the only witness who can put LL in the room prior to the collapse has really removed the opportunity to attack. I'm sure it was a reporting day as I remember questioning it once, then again when the podcast came out. Maybe it appeared to be an attack on paper but hasn't held up on the stand.

 

[avabella]

I think they probably know about it as she was found NG of that charge nearly a year ago, before this trial started. It was another murder charge and the judge found her not guilty as there was ‘no evidence’.

Links to some sites auto removed

There's a couple of sites where links are automatically removed on tattle, explained for each one below. Hidden links - redirection links are removed as it needs to be clear where a user is being sent. Facebook story links - as they doxx the person that shared it. Try to post the photo or...

tattle.life

I can’t find anything else about it though, so I guess the exact details were never published. It’d be interesting to know if the jury do definitely know about this or not, because I suspect it’s something which could influence their opinion a lot.
---
Eta sorry, tattle doesn’t allow links from manchester evening news
View attachment 2156817

This is confusing -

So we’ve heard that CPS require such a high standard of evidence for it to even get to court in the first place.

In that case, how could the charge for that baby have been put through even to the point where a judge is reviewing it / the prosecution say they have no evidence? So what happened to the evidence that the CPS would have required to have it even as a charge?