Lucy Letby Case #6

[stardust1]

I'm trying so hard not to be biased but I genuinely am really struggling to fathom how anyone can believe this is all just coincidence. I really think the fact LL alone is on trial shows there clearly wasn't 22 other instances of death/near death with babies and other nurses. I don't doubt the NHS was unbelievably negligent but the scapegoat thing is honestly mental to me.

we share the exact same opinion. So many scapegoat theorists on Facebook too and when you ask why they believe that you never get an answer. I think you would agree the NHS can be negligent as well as Lucy being a murderer but ultimately this is about what Lucy did or didn’t do not the NHS. I am more than happy to get on board the innocent train but I couldn’t board the train with the scape board theory. At the moment I haven’t had anything jump out that screams innocent.

I don’t think anyone (and I speak for myself here) is saying it’s a scapegoat situation - what I genuinely don’t understand is how the ‘attempted’ murders have come to that conclusion, and I’m sure there may be more medical evidence to come. I am struggling to understand how retrospectively it can be so certain that the collapses etc weren’t from a genuine medical symptom when it wasn’t deemed at the time?

so what about Lucy saying insulin poison isn’t an accident? So in that case it was someone.. in regards to the collapses what could the explanation be to it being a sudden increase and following where Lucy went?

 

[jackolantern]

I don’t think anyone (and I speak for myself here) is saying it’s a scapegoat situation - what I genuinely don’t understand is how the ‘attempted’ murders have come to that conclusion, and I’m sure there may be more medical evidence to come. I am struggling to understand how retrospectively it can be so certain that the collapses etc weren’t from a genuine medical symptom when it wasn’t deemed at the time?

Because there is clearly a collection of medical evidence to show what happened to the babies wasn't of natural causes after all? And also retrospectively it was inline with the same 'pattern' that occurred in the murders i.e. air embolism etc. Obviously I'm not the prosecution/doctors/police so I can't attest to their exact logic, but so far it seems pretty clear that's where they are heading. They don't just trial someone for this amount of attempted murders on a whim.

Some things only become apparent with hindsight once it's happened more times than could be considered a 'normal' statistic. Obviously there are more obvious ways to murder someone that cannot be anything but, but with stuff like this (except blatant stuff like the insulin) it's not as easy to point the finger so it's only when it happens again and again in quick succession, with the same person every single time (and also twins!) that you start going, you know what, this isn't chance.

 

[stardust1]

Because there is clearly a collection of medical evidence to show what happened to the babies wasn't of natural causes after all? And also retrospectively it was inline with the same 'pattern' that occurred in the murders i.e. air embolism etc. Obviously I'm not the prosecution/doctors/police so I can't attest to their exact logic, but so far it seems pretty clear that's where they are heading. They don't just trial someone for this amount of attempted murders on a whim.

Some things only become apparent with hindsight once it's happened more times than could be considered a 'normal' statistic. Obviously there are more obvious ways to murder someone that cannot be anything but, but with stuff like this (except obvious stuff like the insulin) it's not as easy to point the finger so it's only when it happens again and again in quick succession, with the same person every single time (and also twins!) that you start going, you know what, this isn't chance.

how many coincidences have to happen before it stops being a coincidence?

 

[avabella]

we share the exact same opinion. So many scapegoat theorists on Facebook too and when you ask why they believe that you never get an answer. I think you would agree the NHS can be negligent as well as Lucy being a murderer but ultimately this is about what Lucy did or didn’t do not the NHS. I am more than happy to get on board the innocent train but I couldn’t board the train with the scape board theory. At the moment I haven’t had anything jump out that screams innocent.



so what about Lucy saying insulin poison isn’t an accident? So in that case it was someone.. in regards to the collapses what could the explanation be to it being a sudden increase and following where Lucy went?

We haven’t heard the full evidence of how the insulin poisoning was supposedly done. Is there physical evidence of it being mixed with the other nutrients?

 

[Gump13]

Ohh thats interesting! Our Level 2 NICU in my trust doesn’t have these, the only babies that have a temperature probe are the ones being cooled. I can’t imagine that the nurses would choose not to write it down if it was there in black and white on the monitor though if they were doing hourly obs? But who knows what the culture was like there at the time really

I worked on level 2 and 3 units and toe and core monitoring probes which displayed constantly on the monitor was common place for prem or sick babies, especially brand new ones you’re trying to adjust the incubator temperature to suit plus a rising gap between the 2 temperatures can indicate deterioration or infection. Monitoring with a thermometer is also necessary every few hours.

 

[avabella]

Because there is clearly a collection of medical evidence to show what happened to the babies wasn't of natural causes after all? And also retrospectively it was inline with the same 'pattern' that occurred in the murders i.e. air embolism etc. Obviously I'm not the prosecution/doctors/police so I can't attest to their exact logic, but so far it seems pretty clear that's where they are heading. They don't just trial someone for this amount of attempted murders on a whim.

Some things only become apparent with hindsight once it's happened more times than could be considered a 'normal' statistic. Obviously there are more obvious ways to murder someone that cannot be anything but, but with stuff like this (except blatant stuff like the insulin) it's not as easy to point the finger so it's only when it happens again and again in quick succession, with the same person every single time (and also twins!) that you start going, you know what, this isn't chance.

I gather from your posts that you’re done and dusted with a guilty stance and that’s totally fine, but the fact is she’s on trial, it’s not set in stone - or there wouldn’t be any point of a trial?

 

[jackolantern]

how many coincidences have to happen before it stops being a coincidence?

It's like if someone steals your bike, you think, oh yeah tit happens. You buy a new one, it happens again. The same happens 20 times in a row and you think, duck, this isn't an anomaly is it? Someone's out to get me. Same, same.

I gather from your posts that you’re done and dusted with a guilty stance and that’s totally fine, but the fact is she’s on trial, it’s not set in stone - or there wouldn’t be any point of a trial?

It baffles me that it is ok for you to protest her innocence but when people do the opposite you get your nose pushed out of joint. I didn't even quote you, I simply said I find it astounding people can think this is scapegoating and pure chance and you replied to me saying you didn't think that. In which case - my stance shouldn't bother you should it? You asked me to explain and I did, then you get the hump.

She pled not guilty so it goes to trial. Doesn't mean she is, just means they have to prove either way.

 

[Deeznutslol]

It's like if someone steals your bike, you think, oh yeah tit happens. You buy a new one, it happens again. The same happens 20 times in a row and you think, duck, this isn't an anomaly is it? Someone's out to get me. Same, same.

Or… maybe you live in a dodgy area populated by a lot of bike stealing fuckers .

 

[crumpets2]

Sometimes I feel we want to believe she is a scapegoat (or wrongly accused) because we can’t accept someone could be so evil. I’m trying to stay open minded and there has been parts of this trial so far that sway me to guilty and not guilty. The only thing that makes me think she was potentially wrongly accused is the notes (names of colleagues, the questions etc) but that gets completely thrown off by the fact it then says she did this on purpose.

 

[stardust1]

We haven’t heard the full evidence of how the insulin poisoning was supposedly done. Is there physical evidence of it being mixed with the other nutrients?

I didn’t comment about the evidence I said Lucy stated it was not an accident so who else could it be? Obviously they have investigated it and will likely have good evidence to how they got to that conclusion. No one is going to trail for a murder of 7 babies for the fun of it. I am aware you think she is innocent although you will deny that and say I have an issue with you I don’t I am just trying to understand your logic.

 

[friedeggontoast]

It’s not one or the other. The hospital clearly was sub par, but IMO that just allowed LL to do what she did to those babies. She knew the evidence would be murky as she could blame it on the hospitals failings.

 

[raspberryjuice]

I gather from your posts that you’re done and dusted with a guilty stance and that’s totally fine, but the fact is she’s on trial, it’s not set in stone - or there wouldn’t be any point of a trial?

Not quite. Somebody could shoot somebody on cctv, be found at the scene with the gun still in their hand, dozens of witnesses but if they plead not guilty there is still going to be a trial to prove that guilt. It doesn’t mean she’s innocent, or that there isn’t a mountain of evidence proving her guilt just because it’s gone to trial. It just means she is saying she’s not guilty.

 

[jackolantern]

Or… maybe you live in a dodgy area populated by a lot of bike stealing fuckers .

I meant by the same person, quite clearly I needed to clarify that

 

[Deeznutslol]

It’s not one or the other. The hospital clearly was sub par, but IMO that just allowed LL to do what she did to those babies. She knew the evidence would be murky as she could blame it on the hospitals failings.

Tbf I could entertain the idea that LL is a killer and is responsible for some/most of the deaths, but is also being blamed for a few deaths by the hospital which occurred through negligence just so they can avoid taking the blame for it.

 

[StatusWoe]

View attachment 1657022This is a peculiar thing to say. She didn’t chase this up? Not even after Baby B also collapsed? It sounds like she was trying to blame the nurse who cared for the baby during the day so surely she would have went to senior staff regarding her concerns.

Her responses are really odd imo.
The comment about the bag of fluid being 'not what we thought it was' - why would she come to that conclusion? Why suspect the fluids of causing the rash rather than some other medical problem? A medical explanation would be more likely than a contaminated bag, surely?
She claims to have asked to check the bags, but there's no record of her making that request and none of the staff remember her asking questions about it. If she believed the bag's contents were making a baby seriously ill, this would be a matter of urgency, not something you'd forget about when your shift ends.

 

[Deeznutslol]

I meant by the same person, quite clearly I needed to clarify that

Dw twas only a joke lad

 

[iLoveNectarines]

I think what I'm struggling with to fully convince me of her being guilty is the level of failing that must have happened on that unit for her to get away with it.

A baby dies from insulin poisoning and its not investigated at the time? Ita not flagged up by a single senior doctor? It just makes me think somehow it can't of been insulin that caused that babies death as SURELY they wouldn't just let this slide when the postmortem first came back.

 

[Daisydunn15]

Tbf I could entertain the idea that LL is a killer and is responsible for some/most of the deaths, but is also being blamed for a few deaths by the hospital which occurred through negligence just so they can avoid taking the blame for it.

Yeah this is where I am. It seems too suspicious for her to be innocent but the hospital seemed tit and maybe it's easier to pin more on her.
Letting her work after this pattern was noticed is inexcusable too, people should lose their jobs at least for that.

 

[Windowtothewall]

I don’t think anyone (and I speak for myself here) is saying it’s a scapegoat situation - what I genuinely don’t understand is how the ‘attempted’ murders have come to that conclusion, and I’m sure there may be more medical evidence to come. I am struggling to understand how retrospectively it can be so certain that the collapses etc weren’t from a genuine medical symptom when it wasn’t deemed at the time?

It will be number of incidents and also the details of the actual medical findings. Mottling as an example, they've said it's unusual mottling because it disappeared quite quickly after resuscitation, the colouring of it and where it was on the body. So the devil is in all these tiny details. Really poisoning in a hospital environment must be the hardest thing to prove, so I am grateful we have a police and NHS that take these things seriously and have worked so long and hard on proving it.

In a domestic abuse case, you can get bruising from falling down stairs or being beaten up - medical professionals would know the difference based on where it is, the pattern, how quickly it vanishes etc. A whole host of tests us lay people can't see or understand because we aren't reviewing their detailed medical notes, or conducting a post mortem etc. A defence would of course argue it was because the victim was clumsy and had a history of falling, and get a medical expert to prove how bruising could be a clumsy person falling, blame the stair case manufacturer for badly built stairs, blame the builder for putting together the stairs. But then if you put it in context of messages sent and who else was in the house at the time of the 'fall' and notice every ex of the defendant has 'fallen' and had the same bruising - it changes the scenario.

I do think that for the hospital and police to be spending almost 10 years investigating (they started in 2015 and carrying on till 2025) it and millions of pounds shows that they genuinely do believe she's responsible based on the evidence they've seen, we aren't aware of yet. And it looks like there's a lot to go through.

 

[Emmelina Ball]

Sorry not understanding your point in relevance to my reply (not having a go just actually can’t correlate the response to my post) I understand your actual reply on its own because I absolutely believe they likely had poor care (pretty sure at least one was already admitted they didn’t get good care from the start) I meant if the hospital as a whole was not treating them properly then what would be a valid explanation to why it kept happening to Lucy?

Lucy is the only one on trial. We don’t know what happened to babies under other nurses care. We do know from the evidence provided so far that there are failings from other members of staff in that hospital - 1 mother not given antibiotics in labour for a known infection so from what I can tell it’s not just Lucys care it’s happening under. We also saw today that temperature wasn’t recorded by Lucy for 8pm and the nurse who was on before her didn’t record it on some occasions either.

It looks like it’s not only happening to Lucy.