Lucy Letby Case #6

[avabella]

How does it get to the point of having so many collapses and deaths without ONE other nurse saying something?

I think the defence added in her texts with colleagues today to show that there was no abnormal behaviour from her but she clearly spent a good amount of time texting people from work so surely it would have been mentioned in future texts about the multiple occurrences. The spoke of work in todays texts.

Added to that messaging a doctor on Facebook messenger? I can’t see that being normal practice either.

 

[crumpets2]

I know exactly what you mean that one completely confused me. They do sound like professional questions but was she seeking advice cause she knew she was about to be caught out

Possibly . Union, therapist or something hmm.

 

[Milktray]

Just wondering, if defence don’t agree with what a parent says they witnessed (for example woman who walked in on baby bleeding) would they then have to take the stand ?

Ooh good question. I think the events for the baby who was found bleeding will be disputed...

 

[Tofino]

We are hearing the evidence for child a and b today. I’ll see how it’s reported but do you think I should replace the child sections in the wiki with the actual evidence (and remove the opening statement which is more of a summary)? Or keep both? Conscious how big the wiki is already with just the reporting from the opening statement!!

 

[candyland_]

All a bit confusing isn’t it perhaps she was doing some over time . Why was she there during that day and then the night shift as the above poster suggests from the opening prosecution statement? Is there another nurse called Lucy ? Why not clarify that. I’m so confused at this point!

Yes. I am confused at the timings of that too. I think it must be another Lucy because she didn’t start shift until the 7:30 handover and then baby collapsed at about 8:20.

 

[stardust1]

Has anybody comfirmed if Jammy on Facebook is actually her real friend? He interacts on that group regularly and would he not be wanting to give a character reference or something if they were as close as he says

 

[Former_Antelopee]

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.

I assume she questioned if it was the fluids as the rash appeared 5 minutes(?) after the bag was changed. Maybe she said they should be checked but then later thought she was wrong and it couldn’t have been?

 

[Emmelina Ball]

I can understand this tbf and also wonder whether someone who looks so 'normal' could really be this evil. The only reason I can see the possibility is because I went to uni with someone who committed murder. And she was also young, pretty, very very career minded, had a husband, loving family - just a regular girl. Quite nice too as we'd hung out sometimes. When I saw it in the papers I was shocked - but they'd found the body so there was no denying it. I assumed there'd be a reason but there wasn't. And at her sentencing, her lack of remorse was noted by the judge. Since then I've realised you really can't tell what goes on behind closed door and who people are. Of course, LL could be innocent anyway!



I didn’t make my point well. The report was damning for negligence. And as serious as it was, it’s not in any way comparable to a police investigation. Only one of those investigations leads to criminal charges and potential prison. The trust published the report, the recommendations were being implemented.

By brush under the carpet I meant, they could have brushed criminal activity under the carpet and avoided a police investigation. They could have wrapped it into the RSPCH review as mismanagement and show they had taken it on board. Transferred LL out under the guise of poor performance or offer her an opportunity in the tier 3 hospital and be done with it.

Why would they add a police investigation to the mix and risk potential criminal charges that could have hit any of the staff and management and also opened up even more findings of negligence. You can’t control what a police investigation will dig up or how long it will go.

Even if LL is found not guilty the hospital can still be taken to court for negligence. They’ve opened themselves up to even more scrutiny. So initiating a police investigation served no advantage to anyone other than if they genuinely believed LL was a threat.

They had no choice but to involve police they needed to find out the cause of the deaths. Of course it’s not comparable to a police investigation - nor should it or is it intended to be. They are two completely separate bodies designed to do different things. It’s out of the remit of the RCPCH to investigate criminal activity - if they suspect any it would be passed to police who are there to investigate criminals.

 

[avabella]

Why would I ignore you, I simply asked you to elaborate on the same theory you keep presenting.

Ok let's leave it at that, your persistent comments to me are really unnecessary now.

 

[Milktray]

@Milktray if you click the little tag thing at the top, and tag lucy letby case it will join it up to the older thread.

So I've clicked this, and it's saying I can't tag?

 

[MrsDimSum]

Yes. I am confused at the timings of that too.

It’s very confusing. They say the night shift came on, family and parents left for rest. Shortly after nightshirt came on baby B took unwell. But Grandma says she was woken with the news?

 

[Emmelina Ball]

No not you but pretty obvious your comment was aimed at me. It was not petty bitching I asked how she was at that conclusion as I think it is pretty important to listen to others reasoning but all I get back is about how I have a personal issue after telling me I jumped to guilty

Ey?!?! My comment was not aimed at you. My comment was about the thread

I agree. There’s not many places you can talk freely and open about it as it’s such a sensitive topic too, I quite like reading all the opinions on it - even ones opposite to mine, it’s good to be open minded about it and see things from other points of view.

 

[TwooTwooTwitTwitTwoo]

Interesting point you make about wether the nurses who were around feel any guilt. I wonder if any still work on that ward. I guess a lot of it is actually hindsight which would be quite hard to live with even more so if she is found guilty. I’d also imagine I would feel quite worried about dragging my self into all this mess.

In regards to the to psych reports they must have deemed her ok or else it would be diminished responsibility and she wouldn’t be able to stand in court? The pros said there was more things to come in regards to what was in her house so maybe that will explain a motive? All we know so far is they seemed to make her out to be a busy body and not doing what she was asked, facebook stalker, strange rambling notes, pictures in camera roll that could be questionable. Those isolated alone doesn’t make anyone a murderer but I think over time it will all link together to form a bigger picture. If there was a reasonable explanation would prosecution risk people questioning the authenticity of their evidence? Too much of a coincidence for me to look at it innocently.

With the psych evaluation, I meant more in terms of if they will reveal anything about her state of mind or conditions she may have suffered/be suffering from. As you say, she's clearly been assessed as fit to stand trial and has pleaded innocent rather than diminished responsibility. I'm actually wondering if her defence will be that she was overworked due to staffing levels, unwell with anxiety etc and therefore made mistakes, hence the deaths not being 'her fault'. I'm not sure how the insulin related deaths will fit into this though.

Eta: Having seen your above post...that's a good point, she could just say it was nothing to do with her and suggest someone else did it.

 

[CrazyGiraffeLady]

I’m sure katie hayes WIKI is absolutely massive but not sure how

It is huge x

 

[noisyrice]

I’m still on the fence, but think she will somehow be found innocent.
Many potential coincidents on a ward where for a layperson, it would be expected for some patients to die regardless of a murderer on the scene.

Was the grievance with the NHS raised by her or raised against her? If the former, surely she would have felt like there was a target on her back - hence the paranoid note?

 

[Emmelina Ball]

I’ve been reading the RCPCH report when they reviewed the neonatal unit and loads of really concerning things in it.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

One question I have is that I understand bags were changed but what about the tubes that go to the baby. At what point do the bags connect to the babies feed/cannula tubes?

I'm not sure if you can 'taint' a tube with insulin and if you’ve injected it into the babies feed/cannula tube you’ve made a hole that would be evidenced BUT if the bag was injected with insulin and you change the bag would the tube still cause contamination problems?

hope that makes sense

I’ve not much knowledge about all this and am just trying to make sense of it myself. An expert did suggest that the line could be tainted.
I think the lines etc have sort of bung side attachment things where drugs etc can be injected, so you don’t actually have to keep piercing the babies, so no actual hole would have to be made.
I think the insulin evidence will be crucial as that’s something that couldn’t have been done accidentally as no other baby on the ward was prescribed insulin at that time.

 

[Lexi]

this is the bit from the reporting but I’m a bit unclear about where the second bag came from.

i *think* this is saying that TPN bag 1 was taken off temporarily at 11am

but the next TPN bag wasn’t delivered until 4pm.

So between 11am-4pm it could only be TPN bag 1 or a stock bag. But Lucy wasn’t on shift at this point. If it was the stock bag then that could easily have been contaminated anyway as it was stored in the fridge with the insulin.

View attachment 1653617

This sounds confusing but my interpretation is (and I could be totally wrong):

*When they inserted the longline they took bloods and because they couldn’t stabilise baby’s glucose levels they requested a new TPN bag to be made up (hence why it took till 16:00hrs to get there)

*If they had put the new TPN bag up at 16:00 and rechecked bloods after an hour and baby’s glucose was still deranged they would have to stop the TpN and give IV fluids with added Dextrose. Glucose then stabilised.

*Was whatever was in the first bag still in baby’s bloodstream causing it to interact with the second TPN bag, hence baby’s sugars not stabilising. When the IV fluids with added dextrose was given baby’s glucose stabilised.

I’ve confused myself by what I’ve just wrote!

 

[nichew]

@LaBlonde @abelleza I saw these ones on Facebook and I just think what the hell? interesting fact about there being laws, I think I once read that they also aren’t allowed to draw them whilst in court only allowed to take notes and draw later

Top one looks like the hills have eyes

 

[MmmB777]

I think the problem is, people discussing theories about what happened or certain pieces of evidence is often being misinterpreted by others as them actually concretely believing in that particular theory, which is usually not even the case.

If that’s the case than I hope those people posing theories and questions are just looking for responses based on what’s been said so far which is all I see happening?x