Lucy Letby Case #3

[SamPam]

Sky are back reporting.

 

[Lucyxxxx]

The scapegoat conspiracies hold no weight with me. Even if in some mad world a whole organisation conspired to have one person done for murder to evade failings, or if she was a whistleblower, that’s relying on a whole team of people not having a conscience and never revealing the truth. It just isn’t likely. Sadly there are bad people in the world. The CPS wouldn’t be prosecuting with no evidence that they think is strong. And the police don’t have time/manpower to spend wasted on “fake” investigations. There were no doubt failings at the hospital which are evident anyway so there will likely be an investigation and enquiry anyway. Plenty of hospitals have inquiries into failings. There was another not so long ago, I can’t remember which, that was on the news a lot due to inquiries into numerous deaths and failings. It isn’t unheard of

*Barry George has entered the chat*

 

[Milktray]

I think guilty . I know people say it’s not much evidence so far but makes no sense to be a scapegoat .
she was on every single shift day and night . The pattern went from nights to days when she moved from nights to days .
the Wierd stalking the families even Xmas day just odd behaviour. All these things happened why she was caring for the babies .

And so far, she's not denied being present at each of these events.

If I was defence, I would be picking apart deaths/deteriorations where the hospital claims she wasn't involved in. Even one similarity could throw this case into doubt.

 

[MrsDimSum]

My understanding from what we’ve read so far is that if it was a single overdose, the baby would have responded to treatment. But the baby’s blood sugars didn’t respond so they must have been receiving a continuous supply of insulin. The baby only responded to treatment when the bag was replaced with another one.

It doesn’t sound like the bags were tested but if that is the only possible explanation for continuous low blood sugars I think everyone would agree that somebody must have tampered with the bag. (Lucy has already agreed the insulin can’t be an accident).

They opened the case with the insulin poisoning remarks so I think as they go into the specific evidence, if they prove beyond reasonable doubt that somebody MUST have purposely tampered with the bags, it then just becomes a question of who and the timeline of who had access to the bag and insulin between pharmacy and the baby having it will be key.

and then if you prove somebody tried to murder those babies, it makes the other cases stronger that they might have been attempted murder/murder too even if a different method (because they have proven somebody intended to harm babies). Even if she is guilty I’m expecting some individual charges may come back not guilty for not enough evidence but it doesn’t mean she didn’t do it.

My child is diabetic, I have sat with him for long spells due to insulin miscalculation/ faster absorption/various reasons - what isn’t mentioned in the notes is the fact synthetic insulin is a short acting which this sounds like it is can stay in and affect the body for 6 hours easily and although a sugar boost can spike the level back up there is always a risk of dropping -back down, I would also question if the child had a way of producing his own insulin as that along with a synthetic dose by injection would also explain the inability to keep increase the levels.

I am not saying this is the case, but I just feel like the comments need a balance

 

[DipsyDoodle]

Could they have been looking for the bag that they seem to have been confused by? The insulin one?

Is she likely to have taken it? Surely it would be better (from a "disposing of evidence" POV) to bung it in the medical waste bin, which will have been collected and destroyed. It would also have gone in with other items, therefore even if there were suspicions and it was pulled out to be examined, it could be argued it could have got contaminated by the other things in the bin. Unless when they were having discussions about the particular bag and whether it had been tampered with while it was still in use and she managed to get it and take it home without anyone else noticing, it seems unlikely.

 

[Tofino]

It’s just occurred to me that we are also hearing about the babies in chronological order, not order of which charge has the most evidence. The prosecution opened with the insulin poisoning so I think they are going to be the indidents with the most direct evidence and what they will be heavily relying on to prove babies were intentionally harmed and it was her that did it.

And this report yesterday implies that the second insulin poisoning may bring evidence that links both incidents to her.

 

[Lackofimagination]

I also find it awful that the trial has started on baby loss awareness week. I know this is one of the biggest cases ever but just seems abit tit to me, another thing for the parents to battle through

 

[MrsJones83]

My understanding from what we’ve read so far is that if it was a single overdose, the baby would have responded to treatment. But the baby’s blood sugars didn’t respond so they must have been receiving a continuous supply of insulin. The baby only responded to treatment when the bag was replaced with another one.

It doesn’t sound like the bags were tested but if that is the only possible explanation for continuous low blood sugars I think everyone would agree that somebody must have tampered with the bag. (Lucy has already agreed the insulin can’t be an accident).

They opened the case with the insulin poisoning remarks so I think as they go into the specific evidence, if they prove beyond reasonable doubt that somebody MUST have purposely tampered with the bags, it then just becomes a question of who and the timeline of who had access to the bag and insulin between pharmacy and the baby having it will be key.

and then if you prove somebody tried to murder those babies, it makes the other cases stronger that they might have been attempted murder/murder too even if a different method (because they have proven somebody intended to harm babies). Even if she is guilty I’m expecting some individual charges may come back not guilty for not enough evidence but it doesn’t mean she didn’t do it.

Thanks for clarifying, makes more sense when you put it like that.

 

[dustyrhodes]

In all my years 31 of them working for the NHS I have never ever heard anyone say 'trust me I'm a nurse' to a patient. Just saying.

 

[Tofino]

My child is diabetic, I have sat with him for long spells due to insulin miscalculation/ faster absorption/various reasons - what isn’t mentioned in the notes is the fact synthetic insulin is a short acting which this sounds like it is can stay in and affect the body for 6 hours easily and although a sugar boost can spike the level back up there is always a risk of dropping -back down, I would also question if the child had a way of producing his own insulin as that along with a synthetic dose by injection would also explain the inability to keep increase the levels.

I am not saying this is the case, but I just feel like the comments need a balance

yes the medical experts will explain this in more detail. One is already quoted saying there is no doubt the bag was contaminated. But they need to explain this to jury when they go into the evidence in detail.

 

[emilylpl]

One thing about professionals. They are birds of a feather and they flock together. They can and do single people out for terrible things, of this magnitude? Maybe not? Would I put it past them fully? No.

Glad to see you here! . This thread is interesting as it’s showing the ability of some to start to question the NHS and the staff. All is not as it seems, as we know. Encouraging though, it’s planting seeds

 

[wishiniwasskinny]

*Barry George has entered the chat*

Although he was deemed wrongly convicted, I don’t think Barry George and this case are comparable either the offences or the motivations for conviction or situation. Im not suggesting people aren’t wrongly convicted, I just don’t believe that in this case a hospital/NHS would conspire to scapegoat one person… AND even if they did the Police and CPS would collude with it and pursue a massive case/trial to prosecute that one person

 

[OH.FFS]

The scapegoat conspiracies hold no weight with me. Even if in some mad world a whole organisation conspired to have one person done for murder to evade failings, or if she was a whistleblower, that’s relying on a whole team of people not having a conscience and never revealing the truth. It just isn’t likely. Sadly there are bad people in the world. The CPS wouldn’t be prosecuting with no evidence that they think is strong. And the police don’t have time/manpower to spend wasted on “fake” investigations. There were no doubt failings at the hospital which are evident anyway so there will likely be an investigation and enquiry anyway. Plenty of hospitals have inquiries into failings. There was another not so long ago, I can’t remember which, that was on the news a lot due to inquiries into numerous deaths and failings. It isn’t unheard of

When you’ve been used as a scapegoat or as an example you could never doubt these theories, because you know it happens. And trust me, it happens. It happened to me years ago. And I can 100% tell you what I was accused of I did not do. It wasn’t no where near as serious as this. But I lost my job and walked straight into another in the same field via the manager who accused me and let me go ‘SACKED ME’. Proof he knew I wasn’t guilty. But I was used as an example others or the actual culprits.
but I know for a fact this happens …

 

[MrsDimSum]

yes the medical experts will explain this in more detail. One is already quoted saying there is no doubt the bag was contaminated. But they need to explain this to jury when they go into the evidence in detail.

View attachment 1644661

Again I would say if there was no doubt that the bag was tampered with - why oh why wasn’t she arrested then?

 

[MrsJones83]

yes the medical experts will explain this in more detail. One is already quoted saying there is no doubt the bag was contaminated. But they need to explain this to jury when they go into the evidence in detail.

View attachment 1644661

(I’ve got covid and I can’t think straight so apologies if my questions seems stupid)

I’m guessing they don’t actually have the TPN bags as this investigation was too long after the death, so they can theorise all they like, but how do they actually prove it without the physical bag as evidence?

 

[Lucyxxxx]

Glad to see you here! . This thread is interesting as it’s showing the ability of some to start to question the NHS and the staff. All is not as it seems, as we know. Encouraging though, it’s planting seeds

Hey I seen you quote me in this thread and thought I was tripping lol. As someone else below me has said and I've said previously. Professionals can and do stitch innocent people up with zero fucks given. Professionals also hate being wrong and will go to extreme lengths to keep their rep in tact.

 

[Milktray]

I feel the same! Although in regards to her appearance she looks more “plain Jane” to me. You genuinely wouldn’t look twice at her in the street. She doesn’t strike me as looking evil, but doesn’t strike me as looking kind either. I agree with PP’s theory of being a bit of a loner and probably only having friends through work.

Really intrigued to see what the defence are going to bring.

I do think socially awkward and someone who struggles to strike up a conversation.

 

[MrsJones83]

Again I would say if there was no doubt that the bag was tampered with - why oh why wasn’t she arrested then?

I’m guessing at the time they didn’t think that, it’s only afterwards when they’re looking into it deeply that these theories seem plausible.

 

[Stiltoncheese]

These threads move so fast. We are going to have hundreds by the end of the 6 months

 

[MrsJones83]

Glad to see you here! . This thread is interesting as it’s showing the ability of some to start to question the NHS and the staff. All is not as it seems, as we know. Encouraging though, it’s planting seeds

i find that a bit patronising tbh