Lucy Letby Case #43

[Wackie Jeaver]

Do we think Letby is making it up about the baby being left on the trolley, blue and with the monitor switched off? That seems absolutely improbable to me.

 

[ravenhood]

hahaha xxx

how does it feel to be allowed to use the laughing emoji?No seriously, I think at the beginning, there were a lot of people on here with differing views which allowed people to critically analyse the evidence. A good discussion often helps others see things they may have missed. Here that’s resulted in a lot of people who think guilty. Im not sure they would be nasty to anyone with an opposing opinion and would be interested to hear why such an opinion was formed? That’s my thinking anyway.

 

[Beigerac]

This will probs cause me abit of hate but if this is an open discussion about the trial why is it so wrong to think she’s innocent, everyone is entitled to their own opinion And I’ve noticied on here a lot of horribleness from people only just expressing their opinion. On the other hand I am not too sure what to think STILL and I voted not sure.
Have a nice day x

I mean I don’t hate anyone who thinks differently but I just can’t see what they think the other explanation is. Who planted the insulin, was it the plumber? It’s been pretty obvious to me since day 1. She killed then on purpose, and she wrote a bleeding note saying as much. Then you go through the evidence and it’s pretty bloody obvious but maybe that’s just me.

 

[Futtrit]

Go for it xxx

I only get angry when people like Turkish Delight.......

How do you feel about the stuff?

 

[Tofino]

4:13pm

Care had been transferred to a nursing colleague on September 21.

She said Child G's heart rate was high when she first took over, but had settled by 12.45pm.

After the vomits, Child G was 'nil by mouth'.

Dr Chang noted Child G was pale and had a feed delayed, and the baby was "not herself".

The tummy was "soft and distended" so a screen for sepsis was planned.

Child G needed to be cannulated, and this required seven attempts, successful on the seventh attempt by Dr Gibbs, by which time Child G had been without fluids for six hours.

A nursing colleague remembered Dr Harkness and Dr Gibbs arriving, and believed Child G was behind screens and on a trolley.

She said when the doctors finished the procedure, they would let a nurse know, and the baby would be put in the cot.

She next saw Child G when Letby called her for help.

She saw Letby providing breathing support for Child G, and the nurse could see Child G was 'a poor colour'.

The monitor was switched off.

She shouted for nurse Caroline Bennion, and Child G responded to treatment, and was transferred to room 1.

Child G was placed in an incubator.

Letby, in evidence, said screens were put up for the procedure for Child G.

She said it was 'common practice' for nurses to look behind screens, and said she saw Child G behind the screen, alone, on a trolley, blue and not breathing, and the monitor was switched off.

She said she was keen to put a Datix form about the incident.

She said she did not take it further as the nursing colleague said the situation was in hand.

She said in police interview, it was 'bad practice' for the monitor to be switched off and 'somebody had made a mistake' in leaving Child G unattended behind screens on a trolley with the monitor off.

She did not remember making numerous searches for Child G's mother on Facebook. She had no comment to make about them.

Dr Gibbs accepted the monitor should not have been switched off.

He admitted he had no recollection after the cannulation, and accepted it was possible, and said if the nurse said it had happened, then it happened, and he apologised for doing so.

Dr Harkness said he did not recall the monitor being detached, and would probably have told a nurse when they were finished.

He said it was "possible" Child G was behind a screen unattended.

Caroline Bennion recalled Child G needed to be cannulated.

Eirian Powell had no recollection of anything untoward clinically being brought to her attention.

---

4:23pm

The prosecution say Letby was incorrect when she messaged a colleague to say Child G 'looked rubbish' when she took over care for her that morning.

Letby accepted she made an error on recalling the timing of the vomit, but said Child G looked pale on handover.

Dr Evans said he had 4,000 pages of material for Child G alone, and concluded the episode of projectile vomiting was "life threatening", and said Child G had been given far more milk than intended, more than 40ml.

He accepted the events on September 21 were not as serious as those on September 7.

Dr Bohin said the "feeds didn't add up" and the events of September 21 were "strikingly similar" to September 7, but the consequences were not as serious for the September 21 event.

Prof Arthurs said if a baby had been deliberately overfed, that would not necessarily show up on an x-ray.

4000 pages for one baby!

 

[AmeliaPevensie]

Do we think Letby is making it up about the baby being left on the trolley, blue and with the monitor switched off? That seems absolutely improbable to me.

Personally, I think this is one incident where there's at least a kernel of truth. The monitor removed/switched off and the baby being blue I'm more doubtful of, but something about the whole story and the response of the other staff makes me wonder if perhaps Baby G was left there unsupervised. And Letby took full advantage of that

 

[Beigerac]

No hating here, though myself and others have said before that it would be really interesting to hear from someone who had genuine doubts about her guilt when all of the evidence paints such a damning picture, but as far as I know nobody has ever replied. What is it for you that makes you unsure?


If the horribleness you reference is that directed at Ceri and Richard Gill, there’s a difference between saying you think she’s innocent and being outright offensive and spouting wildly unrealistic theories all over social media.

I feel sorry for those two. I’m not an expert (bit like old Bowel Movement eh) but I don’t think they’re very well. I wish them the best.

 

[amsmall]

4:13pm

Care had been transferred to a nursing colleague on September 21.

She said Child G's heart rate was high when she first took over, but had settled by 12.45pm.

After the vomits, Child G was 'nil by mouth'.

Dr Chang noted Child G was pale and had a feed delayed, and the baby was "not herself".

The tummy was "soft and distended" so a screen for sepsis was planned.

Child G needed to be cannulated, and this required seven attempts, successful on the seventh attempt by Dr Gibbs, by which time Child G had been without fluids for six hours.

A nursing colleague remembered Dr Harkness and Dr Gibbs arriving, and believed Child G was behind screens and on a trolley.

She said when the doctors finished the procedure, they would let a nurse know, and the baby would be put in the cot.

She next saw Child G when Letby called her for help.

She saw Letby providing breathing support for Child G, and the nurse could see Child G was 'a poor colour'.

The monitor was switched off.

She shouted for nurse Caroline Bennion, and Child G responded to treatment, and was transferred to room 1.

Child G was placed in an incubator.

Letby, in evidence, said screens were put up for the procedure for Child G.

She said it was 'common practice' for nurses to look behind screens, and said she saw Child G behind the screen, alone, on a trolley, blue and not breathing, and the monitor was switched off.

She said she was keen to put a Datix form about the incident.

She said she did not take it further as the nursing colleague said the situation was in hand.

She said in police interview, it was 'bad practice' for the monitor to be switched off and 'somebody had made a mistake' in leaving Child G unattended behind screens on a trolley with the monitor off.

She did not remember making numerous searches for Child G's mother on Facebook. She had no comment to make about them.

Dr Gibbs accepted the monitor should not have been switched off.

He admitted he had no recollection after the cannulation, and accepted it was possible, and said if the nurse said it had happened, then it happened, and he apologised for doing so.

Dr Harkness said he did not recall the monitor being detached, and would probably have told a nurse when they were finished.

He said it was "possible" Child G was behind a screen unattended.

Caroline Bennion recalled Child G needed to be cannulated.

Eirian Powell had no recollection of anything untoward clinically being brought to her attention.

---

4:23pm

The prosecution say Letby was incorrect when she messaged a colleague to say Child G 'looked rubbish' when she took over care for her that morning.

Letby accepted she made an error on recalling the timing of the vomit, but said Child G looked pale on handover.

Dr Evans said he had 4,000 pages of material for Child G alone, and concluded the episode of projectile vomiting was "life threatening", and said Child G had been given far more milk than intended, more than 40ml.

He accepted the events on September 21 were not as serious as those on September 7.

Dr Bohin said the "feeds didn't add up" and the events of September 21 were "strikingly similar" to September 7, but the consequences were not as serious for the September 21 event.

Prof Arthurs said if a baby had been deliberately overfed, that would not necessarily show up on an x-ray.

Thank you for your posts today @Futtrit, I thought they'd all gone home for their tea and the hearing was finished for the day

 

[KatieMorag]

Personally, I think this is one incident where there's at least a kernel of truth. The monitor removed/switched off and the baby being blue I'm more doubtful of, but something about the whole story and the response of the other staff makes me wonder if perhaps Baby G was left there unsupervised. And Letby took full advantage of that

I agree, I can imagine this happening. But I still think Lucy killed that poor baby. In a way I hope that getting the blame for some bit of it that she actually didn't do will eat her up forever, worse than getting convicted, because she'll never be able to convince anyone she's telling the truth when the whole world knows she's a murdering liar about everything else.

 

[kabukigirl]

Was just thinking about wee little baby G and being 2lb 1oz at birth - and then being forced fed 45ml of milk which is 1.5oz - like that’s huge amount for someone so diddy (I know she was a bit older and would have been bigger than birth weight) - my 1st born behemoth 9lb 3oz baby used to only drink about 2oz for the first few weeks. I don’t even know if you scaled it up what the equiv amount would be - probs like forcing her 8oz of milk into her

 

[Faith61]

4000 pages for one baby!

Really puts it into context, just how much work has gone into this investigation and bringing it all to trial!
Those little babies deserve no less

 

[pissedandsad]

Mumsnet lurking is my guilty pleasure… rooster washing goblet has just done me in.

I’m confused ! Thought it was a beaker!

 

[Lililyly]

This will probs cause me abit of hate but if this is an open discussion about the trial why is it so wrong to think she’s innocent, everyone is entitled to their own opinion And I’ve noticied on here a lot of horribleness from people only just expressing their opinion. On the other hand I am not too sure what to think STILL and I voted not sure.
Have a nice day x

I’ll bite- So passive agreesive with a hint of “x”

 

[wine o clock]

Can't even have a leisurely stroll on my lunch without something reminding me of LL my heart bleeds for her that she'll never step foot in Matalan again

I mean I don’t hate anyone who thinks differently but I just can’t see what they think the other explanation is. Who planted the insulin, was it the plumber? It’s been pretty obvious to me since day 1. She killed then on purpose, and she wrote a bleeding note saying as much. Then you go through the evidence and it’s pretty bloody obvious but maybe that’s just me.

It’s only when I read things like “she’s been threw enough even if she has done it she has learned her lesson … set her free” am open to listen to any1 with anything sensible to say about why she is innocent …. Maybe av missed something that could explain this whole sorry god dam awful situation away. Xx

 

[Lililyly]

From what I’ve just read a couple of pages back soon as someone voices an opinion of she’s innocent or like me, not sure the whole army comes bombarding the poster with messages. Just like how it’s being done to me now lol.
---
I’m so sorry to affect anyone’s mood

Then you should have gone back to read from thread 1 (I did) and see for yourself how heated discussions between NG vs G but there was no hate. Don’t try to divine this lovely group please. I do not think people hate the witch Stan but don’t police people’s interest in ridiculing her fannie

 

[Beigerac]

Yeah I understand , im not saying she’s innocent but I feel like there’s just not enough solid evidence that’s all. To me, it’s like there’s only evidence on paper work, which as everyone knows can be altered , that’s why I asked in my previous question on the last thread I think(?) if there is any cctv.
---

Thanks xx

I understand what you’re saying but if solving all crimes relied on CCTV then no one would’ve been convicted of anything before about 1985. The evidence is in the findings of the causes of death. I know it’s boring to go through it all but read what the expert witnesses have said and you’ll get the idea. These deaths were caused by malicious intent, there are no natural explanations for them. So you look at who was involved in the care of the babies and you’ll find that only Letby was present for each. Then you go through her texts, you go through the fact that she took home souvenirs (including a flipping blood gas report she took out of the bin), and then quite frankly you see that note.

If you couldn’t convict someone based on the above, I understand. But that lot alone is more than enough for me.

 

[ravenhood]

When do we think the judges summing up will finish?

 

[Futtrit]

Yeah I understand , im not saying she’s innocent but I feel like there’s just not enough solid evidence that’s all. To me, it’s like there’s only evidence on paper work, which as everyone knows can be altered , that’s why I asked in my previous question on the last thread I think(?) if there is any cctv.
---

Thanks xx

Have you read the Wiki? There's loads of stuff in there.

No, there was no CCTV. Solid evidence hard to come by in murder cases unless as someone else commented she was caught red handed. She almost was. Twice.

Honestly read the Wiki, it's super useful.

 

[MmmB777]

Yeah I understand , im not saying she’s innocent but I feel like there’s just not enough solid evidence that’s all. To me, it’s like there’s only evidence on paper work, which as everyone knows can be altered , that’s why I asked in my previous question on the last thread I think(?) if there is any cctv.
---

Thanks xx

Have you followed closely? Who do you think has altered ‘paperwork’ and what would their motivation be? How about the radiographs and pathologist’s evidence? There was lots of air in the babies that’s otherwise unexplained, that’s combined with the witness accounts and the clinical observations.

 

[Ihateeveryone2020]

Have you read the Wiki? There's loads of stuff in there.

No, there was no CCTV. Solid evidence hard to come by in murder cases unless as someone else commented she was caught red handed. She almost was. Twice.

Honestly read the Wiki, it's super useful.

Will get on the wiki, thanks x