Lucy Letby Case #39

[Miscanthus]

It's human nature to try to understand the motive but we'll likely never know. One of my cousins grew up in Hereford and is the same age as her. We only see each other at Christmas, so it would be a bit weird if I contacted her to ask if she went to school with LL....but I've been very tempted

I found her home disturbing (along with all of you) but because it really reminded me of a friend's house. She was molly coddled growing up because of some health issues and her decor almost seems stuck in quite a childlike version of home decor (we just have very different tastes!), with lots of quotes, cuddly toys and furniture that's what you might expect in a teenagers room. However she is a fully functioning, stable, non murderous adult. It made me wonder whether Lucy was equally mollycoddled and made the centre of everything and that unfortunately mixed with a narcissistic personality (or whatever she has) has led us to where we are now. However it's not really fair on her parents to lay blame with them when I don't have a clue. She might have had a terrible, indulged or balanced childhood- it was still her who made the choices.

One of my friends murdered his parents in a case that hit the national press front pages. It was a long time ago and he will be out of prison now. His sister and grandmother visited him in prison with his girlfriend who was my best friend. She asked me to go too but I refused as my boyfriend at the time had just lost his father to cancer and was devastated.
It seems he was never able to live up to his father's expectations of him but to this day I will never really understand it.

 

[tay65]

It's human nature to try to understand the motive but we'll likely never know. One of my cousins grew up in Hereford and is the same age as her. We only see each other at Christmas, so it would be a bit weird if I contacted her to ask if she went to school with LL....but I've been very tempted

I found her home disturbing (along with all of you) but because it really reminded me of a friend's house. She was molly coddled growing up because of some health issues and her decor almost seems stuck in quite a childlike version of home decor (we just have very different tastes!), with lots of quotes, cuddly toys and furniture that's what you might expect in a teenagers room. However she is a fully functioning, stable, non murderous adult. It made me wonder whether Lucy was equally mollycoddled and made the centre of everything and that unfortunately mixed with a narcissistic personality (or whatever she has) has led us to where we are now. However it's not really fair on her parents to lay blame with them when I don't have a clue. She might have had a terrible, indulged or balanced childhood- it was still her who made the choices.

Someone once posted that she went to a school called Bishops School. If you knew your cousin went there then he/she might have gone to the same school.

 

[melisnusty]

Someone once posted that she went to a school called Bishops School. If you knew your cousin went there then he/she might have gone to the same school.

It’s my hometown. The Bishop of Hereford’s Bluecoat School (Bishops) is in Tupsley.

 

[Tishtushmush]

Someone once posted that she went to a school called Bishops School. If you knew your cousin went there then he/she might have gone to the same school.

I wouldn't know annoyingly. There are cousins who I would quiz but they would be too old to have crossed paths. I'd task my Dad with finding out except he's a useless gossip

 

[Londonlady68]

I see over on twit Face they're still on the fence! Seriously, bar a videoed confession from Letby, they refuse to believe the pretty little blonde nursie could be guilty. What the actual duck!!! Talking about the biggest miscarriage of justice in British history.
Nope. Those will be the poor sods who were hanged whilst NG you dumb fucks!!

 

[sebanna]

I see over on twit Face they're still on the fence! Seriously, bar a videoed confession from Letby, they refuse to believe the pretty little blonde nursie could be guilty. What the actual duck!!! Talking about the biggest miscarriage of justice in British history.
Nope. Those will be the poor sods who were hanged whilst NG you dumb fucks!!

There is only two scenarios where she could be innocent,

1. The babies died of natural causes or an innocent medical mistake

2. There was an unknown murder who sneaked into NNU only on Lucy's shifts, hid until her back was turned then quickly attacked

There seems to be no evidence for either scenario

 

[Lynn’ssnazzycardigan]

I’ve no legal knowledge at all so might be talking shite, but is it better to say categories, and not tiers, of evidence?
Were Dr Jayram and baby E’s mum’s evidence not direct?

View attachment 2248041
View attachment 2248042

This just brings home again that she has called baby E’s Mam and Dr. J liars, as they gave their direct evidence under oath in court. Either everyone else has lied or she has. That’s what I appreciate about this thread, it’s really helped me to see from other’s perspectives to make sense of what has happened and what has been said.

 

[Katkitkat]

I hope the daft bint ends up admitting her guilt once this trials done so we can see what the Lucy letby freedom fighters have to say then. Bloody bunch of idiots.

 

[LittleMy]

This just brings home again that she has called baby E’s Mam and Dr. J liars, as they gave their direct evidence under oath in court. Either everyone else has lied or she has. That’s what I appreciate about this thread, it’s really helped me to see from other’s perspectives to make sense of what has happened and what has been said.

Exactly and what cause would they have to lie? They just want to know what happened to their babies.

 

[JCMSadie]

I hope the daft bint ends up admitting her guilt once this trials done so we can see what the Lucy letby freedom fighters have to say then. Bloody bunch of idiots.

They're so deluded though, they'll claim she was either forced to confess or did so as it was her only chance at a lighter sentence

 

[justkeepscrolling111]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the witness experts aren’t “hired” by the defence/prosecution to fit their version of events are they? BNE didn’t write to Dr Evans and say “aye up pal, can you review these cases so it fits that this nurse Lucy Letby killed the babies?” They will have reviewed the evidence presented to them completely objectively and their findings will either support the defence or the prosecution. In this case, all the expert witnesses clearly supported prosecution because defence didn’t have any! If Dr Evans reviews supported the defence, he’d have been used as a defence expert witness wouldn’t he? Please tell me if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick here

Witnesses are independent insofar as they are to assist the court, not either party. However they’re not hired by the court and are instructed by one side or the other. They can’t be persuaded into taking a certain position and have to simply present their expert opinion based on the facts. That said, you would specifically look for an expert who is likely to agree with the version of events you want to present. It’s not a case of an expert being approached by the court and them producing a report and being allocated to either prosecution or defence depending on what it says. Experts are approached by the prosecuting/defence Counsel and any reports they produce are generally confidential, albeit there are some rules around disclosure.
---

Yeah you’re right. I think they’re there ‘for the court’ but you’d presume BNE would know what the experts are likely to say else why call them up and ask for their expertise. Like you said, BM obviously couldn’t find anyone to suggest otherwise.

They’re there for the benefit of the court and their duty is to the court but they’re instructed by the prosecution/defence directly. Each side will have approached their own expert(s) and had reports prepared and then decided whether to call them as a witness. Whether you think she’s guilty/not guilty it is important to remember that the defence not calling any expert witnesses cannot be used to infer guilt. It is for the prosecution to prove guilt, not for the defence to prove innocence. The defence can, if they like, do nothing at all.

 

[Maisiemouse]

What really gets me is why her really odd jaw/ chin is never shown in the court drawings. I’m super critical of my self so I’m not being nasty, I just don’t know why the drawing are so off with regards to her jaw/chin. Without an accurate depiction of that, I just can’t take those court drawings seriously. I am patiently (kind of, sort of, all in its own good time, BUT, hopefully sooner rather than later) waiting for the mug shot, it will be epic!
---

Not medical, can you explain that please, I love learning about the how’s or why’s. That’s the difference between us here and others, we are willing to learn and investigate to form an opinion.

@Deeznutslol explained it much more in depth than I could .

But to put it in to context, if a baby or child comes in to hospital with extremely high blood sugar (diabetic ketoacidosis) this is how you make the insulin infusion up.

The baby TPN bags are 500ml, so in comparison to make up an insulin infusion to quickly drop the blood sugar you would literally only inject 0.5ml(!!) In to a 500ml bag of saline. If the child only weighed 5kg, the infusion would run at 5ml/hour (0.1u/kg/hour).

For babies under 10kg though, we would actually only start the infusion at 0.05u/kg/hour. So hypothetically, a 2kg baby you would only need to run the 500ml bag (with only 0.5ml of insulin) at 1ml per hour to get a responsive drop in (very high) blood sugar.

That is how potent insulin is!

So, imagine a tiny tiny baby with a normal blood sugar, how quickly it would drop low and stay low.

That's why it's laughable that 'experts' are throwing out the 20ml of insulin in a 500ml bag. I would be extremely concerned to be that diabetic specialist nurses patient

 

[Deeznutslol]

@Deeznutslol explained it much more in depth than I could .

But to put it in to context, if a baby or child comes in to hospital with extremely high blood sugar (diabetic ketoacidosis) this is how you make the insulin infusion up.

The baby TPN bags are 500ml, so in comparison to make up an insulin infusion to quickly drop the blood sugar you would literally only inject 0.5ml(!!) In to a 500ml bag of saline. If the child only weighed 5kg, the infusion would run at 5ml/hour (0.1u/kg/hour).

For babies under 10kg though, we would actually only start the infusion at 0.05u/kg/hour. So hypothetically, a 2kg baby you would only need to run the 500ml bag (with only 0.5ml of insulin) at 1ml per hour to get a responsive drop in (very high) blood sugar.

That is how potent insulin is!

So, imagine a tiny tiny baby with a normal blood sugar, how quickly it would drop low and stay low.

That's why it's laughable that 'experts' are throwing out the 20ml of insulin in a 500ml bag. I would be extremely concerned to be that diabetic specialist nurses patient

We’re actually up to 55ml of insulin now in their latest version of the calculation!

I think I’ve actually discovered the source (or one of the sources) of their confusion though, at one point I believe a journalist misreported that Hindmarsh claimed that the baby would’ve needed to recieve the insulin at a rate of 0.56ml/h, but that makes no sense because on the exact same day in court it was also reported that Hindmarsh claimed that 1.8 IU/h were required to take the insulin level to 4657pmol/L, (1.8 IU/h = 0.018 ml/h -> 0.432 mL total in a 24h tpn or 0.864 ml in a 48h tpn) which ties in with what he and the other expert witnesses have claimed that the amount of insulin required would have been throughout the trial, which is a mL or less.

 

[docmum]

@Deeznutslol explained it much more in depth than I could .

But to put it in to context, if a baby or child comes in to hospital with extremely high blood sugar (diabetic ketoacidosis) this is how you make the insulin infusion up.

The baby TPN bags are 500ml, so in comparison to make up an insulin infusion to quickly drop the blood sugar you would literally only inject 0.5ml(!!) In to a 500ml bag of saline. If the child only weighed 5kg, the infusion would run at 5ml/hour (0.1u/kg/hour).

For babies under 10kg though, we would actually only start the infusion at 0.05u/kg/hour. So hypothetically, a 2kg baby you would only need to run the 500ml bag (with only 0.5ml of insulin) at 1ml per hour to get a responsive drop in (very high) blood sugar.

That is how potent insulin is!

So, imagine a tiny tiny baby with a normal blood sugar, how quickly it would drop low and stay low.

That's why it's laughable that 'experts' are throwing out the 20ml of insulin in a 500ml bag. I would be extremely concerned to be that diabetic specialist nurses patient

exactly. Plus how easy for her to have say a 5ml syringe (for those non medical it’s the same size as a calpol syringe) hidden on her to have contaminated either all the storage bags or repeatedly add amounts to the newly hung bags.

loving the insights from all you clever medical/psychology-minded posters

 

[Maisiemouse]

We’re actually up to 55ml of insulin now in their latest version of the calculation!
View attachment 2248420
I think I’ve actually discovered the source (or one of the sources) of their confusion though, at one point I believe a journalist misreported that Hindmarsh claimed that the baby would’ve needed to recieve the insulin at a rate of 0.56ml/h, but that makes no sense because on the exact same day in court it was also reported that Hindmarsh claimed that 1.8 IU/h were required to take the insulin level to 4657pmol/L, (1.8 IU/h = 0.018 ml/h -> 0.432 mL total in a 24h tpn or 0.864 ml in a 48h tpn) which ties in with what he and the other expert witnesses have claimed that the amount of insulin required would have been throughout the trial, which is a mL or less.

Oh dear lord I love that they are correcting Dr Hindmarsh, because he clearly has no clue about his area of expertise

 

[Appletiser]

It's human nature to try to understand the motive but we'll likely never know. One of my cousins grew up in Hereford and is the same age as her. We only see each other at Christmas, so it would be a bit weird if I contacted her to ask if she went to school with LL....but I've been very tempted

I found her home disturbing (along with all of you) but because it really reminded me of a friend's house. She was molly coddled growing up because of some health issues and her decor almost seems stuck in quite a childlike version of home decor (we just have very different tastes!), with lots of quotes, cuddly toys and furniture that's what you might expect in a teenagers room. However she is a fully functioning, stable, non murderous adult. It made me wonder whether Lucy was equally mollycoddled and made the centre of everything and that unfortunately mixed with a narcissistic personality (or whatever she has) has led us to where we are now. However it's not really fair on her parents to lay blame with them when I don't have a clue. She might have had a terrible, indulged or balanced childhood- it was still her who made the choices.

I have a similar childhood friend! She’s 31 but seems about 14 due to having leukaemia as a child and a life of meds, chemo and epilepsy no school since about yr 8.
Shes completely mollycoddled too but she’s not at all narcissistic, just v childlike, it just feels like hanging out with a kid though which is quite odd and sad.

Her room is covered in Disney posters and cuddly toys etc (I do love a bit of Disney though myself ngl- I know some of you said you are anti Disney I have eeyore pjs and slippers )

Ps If I was you I’d have contacted that cousin months ago!

 

[dorydaryl]

Hundred percent get you, but, you're thinking about the reasoning behind her actions from the perspective of someone without the desire and compulsion to harm and kill babies. It might be easier to imagine trying to stop yourself from doing something that you enjoy very much to the point of compulsion, smoking for example. So, in effect, she's surrounded by temptation and is unable to resist. (I hope this doesn't sound like I'm excusing her, I'm not, I'm trying to make sense of it).

However, someone who had a smoking compulsion and was surrounded by cigarettes, and WANTED to not give in to the compulsion, would remove themselves from that location. She chose to stay. She chose to fulfil her cravings. And it's that which makes her evil.

(Long time lurker on this thread, I've a psychology degree and PGCE and taught A Level psychology, there's so much I don't know though and am certainly no expert. I guess I'm trying to make some sort of sense of it all. Back to lurking, hope this post doesn't offend anyone).

Not offensive in any way. My background is (postgrad) Health Psychology (ironically, but sadly not Forensic) and there will be much more revealed about motivation revealed if she's found guilty (cautious optimism- I think she is). As has been said on different levels, most of us see this through a prism that defines these actions as horrific, something we would never even contemplate. As has been shown with other serial killers, it's not the same for them. There will have been a pathway to her actions, information that won't have been available in the court sessions but when it comes out will perhaps illuminate her motivations in clearer detail. That will be a whole other minefield to tread through.

What we do know about convicted serial killers is that their behaviour usually escalates before they are stopped, either by law or circumstance. It becomes a bit like a runaway train that they lose control over, as the compulsion grows. They get reckless and find it more difficult to cover their tracks. Some, like Dennis Nilsen (I think) have often reported feeling relieved when this happens. IMO, LL was getting to that stage.

 

[MmmB777]

Is anybody going tomorrow? Do you think we’ll have all the press again for closing? Dan and Sky sacked it off as soon as cross stopped!

 

[DellaC]

Not offensive in any way. My background is (postgrad) Health Psychology (ironically, but sadly not Forensic) and there will be much more revealed about motivation revealed if she's found guilty (cautious optimism- I think she is). As has been said on different levels, most of us see this through a prism that defines these actions as horrific, something we would never even contemplate. As has been shown with other serial killers, it's not the same for them. There will have been a pathway to her actions, information that won't have been available in the court sessions but when it comes out will perhaps illuminate her motivations in clearer detail. That will be a whole other minefield to tread through.

What we do know about convicted serial killers is that their behaviour usually escalates before they are stopped, either by law or circumstance. It becomes a bit like a runaway train that they lose control over, as the compulsion grows. They get reckless and find it more difficult to cover their tracks. Some, like Dennis Nilsen (I think) have often reported feeling relieved when this happens. IMO, LL was getting to that stage.

What will prison be like for someone like Letby? In terms of psychologically?

I assume the biggest difficulty for her will be loss of power/control but I'd love to hear what you and our other professionals think

 

[Tishtushmush]

What will prison be like for someone like Letby? In terms of psychologically?

I assume the biggest difficulty for her will be loss of power/control but I'd love to hear what you and our other professionals think

That's such an interesting thing to consider. Looking forward to hearing what people think. Control is clearly important to her.