Lucy Letby Case #6

[Ahbebowgfa]

Yes, it sounds like babies were very poorly and there was lax procedures across the board. Low temp can cause mottling - so were babies deteriorating beforehand already?

My comprehension of the reporting is that LL didn’t do the temp at 8pm as part of the hourly observations, but that temp was not checked hourly throughout the day either.
Prem babies need as much rest as possible so I personally wouldn’t (and therefore don’t) do hourly temps on a stable baby. At 8pm the baby was stable so if the temp was done at 7pm then personally I wouldn’t check it and so I can only guess thats probably what LL decided as well (obviously unless shes guilty). We like to do “group cares” on stable premature babies so we do everything at once and the aim is then to leave them for up to 6hrs without any non-essential intervention if possible (nappy changes etc)

 

[friedeggontoast]

In both cases, they collapsed/died about 15-30 mins after she fed them or did blood gases.

This is just too coincidental for the deaths to be unrelated to LL

 

[stardust1]

How does one get a job as a court artist because some of the drawings look like they have it in for Lucy

 

[jackolantern]

Why shouldn’t people continuously suggesting scape goat be asked to explain why or how it makes sense? Lots of people are saying well it happens- yes but how did it happen here and why? And that’s what those suggesting the evidence is quite clearly not showing a cover up of any sort are continually met with. And if you say I think this means she’s guilty you’re met with - “god no point in a trial is there” . It works two ways. My post was ridiculous to point out the ridiculousness of this theory. It wasn’t a personal attack for people to get upset about.

It's such a harrowing topic I think a bit of comedy here and there is much appreciated!

 

[SwizzleMalarkey]

It’s very hard to stay objective when you hear the parents talking about their babies, isn’t it? I have no experience of NICU so I can only imagine it’s worse for people who remember their babies being in there, but just as a mother the statements are heartbreaking to read.

 

[jackolantern]

I think someone mentioned earlier, and I don’t if it’s fact or presumption, but someone suggested that initially it was thought she was maybe incompetent and making mistakes rather than murdering the babies. So, I think she was moved to days where there was more support and higher qualified staff to maybe teach her where she’s gone wrong.

But if that's the case, surely she'd have to be shadowed at every point throughout the day? Like even if it's just 'mistakes', those mistakes were killing babies, so how could you trust her around them alone? I haven't read anything that said she was permanently shadowed after the suspicions were raised unless I've just missed it?

 

[stardust1]

I think what’s opened my eyes the most is that babies dying isn’t as ‘common’ as I thought in the NICU/ SCBU- I honestly thought there’d be more deaths than what’s been mentioned. I’m obviously glad I was wrong to think it, I was clearly a bit naive to how much fight these little babies have in them

I spent 3 months in one, no babies died whilst I was there and I kept in touch with a lot of families and they all went home too. There was some very early babies born who went home on oxygen but they are still ok. I could not be more grateful for the care we received even more so now.

 

[I’mThankyou_]

@I’mThankyou_ really random but did your twins share an incubator or have their own? There was 2 sets of twins when I was there and they shared an incubator and used to cuddle each other (🥹) wondering if that was common practice and that she would have had easy access to both twins in one incubator in one go or do they get separated? I think they might have been a bit older and near ready for home when I saw them tho as I think they had just one of those warm cots with no lid over the top.

Yes they did

Spoiler: Premature birth

twin 2 was very poorly when she was born despite being born at 32 weeks she was in the condition of a baby who was born at 26-27weeks so she was vented for a time but was unstable, on night 3 they put her sister in the inc with her and it steadied her heart rate, but it was only for a few mins, then they needed to be on their own.
Once they graduated from incubators to hot cots they shared and they shared a bed up till they were 11 months old, theyve just turned 13 months in that time theyve only spent a week away from one another when twin 2 was poorly

Anyway I've gone of tangent, the girls always had the same nurse looking after them but for the first few days of life they both had different nurses as they were on opposite sides of the room.

 

[Dizzy]

Why you being sarcastic for though what's the need.

Eh? I’m answering your question. The reason people find it sinister is because she’s now on trial.

 

[tennis ball michael]

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?

I think I understand what you’re saying- that for each baby, you want to understand how, out of all the possibilities that could have lead to their death, did they decide on it being a deliberate act of harm?

Because in each instance, I doubt there is 100% conclusive proof it was deliberate harm or murder. And I bet that in each case individually, the (hospitally doctory) investigators first thinking would have been ‘ok, which, out of all the scenarios, is the one that best explains it?’ And that that might have been the most statistically common one, before anyone thought that was any harm being done. Which is what I imagine her defence will argue? That there is another, perfectly logical, perfectly plausible cause of death- even if it’s from the doctoring/nursing communities experiences (clinical experience would be a better term!!) or from world wide stats (babies often die of XYZ when ABC).

And even if you add in the fact that LL was the common denominator, the first port of call would be to hypothesise the most explainable reason. Which wouldn’t involve murder or deliberate harm.

But if you look at the cases through the lens of maybe there was foul play, you might start to take note of the other possibilities as to the reason for their deaths/crashes.

And if you are looking for harm done and you find an explanation for that that would be A reasonable explanation (reasonable as in ‘this is legitimately something that could have happened to explain that death/crash’) then despite the lesser statistical probability of it being the case- someone investigating it through that lens might say ‘hold up- THATS why this baby died/crashed.’

So I think I would like to know what the thing was that made the lens go from ‘she’s involved in all these incidents’ to ‘she’s the reason for all these incidents?’

I get that the fact there are explanations in all the cases put forward by the prosecution that there was foul play, and that that alone might be their biggest argument(she was there for all of them and in all of them A reason they died was foul play).

But the defence can say ‘oh, but these other reasons why they could have died are much more likely.’

So how are the prosecution going to prove it beyond reasonable doubt?

Nb. The insulin being no accident thing does somewhat throw a spanner in the works of my thinking- but the defence will argue why it can’t be 100% proved as definitively a deliberate act of harm by LL I guess.

She’s obviously got the means and opportunity, but what is the motive?

Also, I think I’ve confused myself.

 

[Windowtothewall]

What the poster means there seems to be a huge escalation. LL worked at COCH since she qualified in 2012 no incidents until she went on a mad killing spree in June 2015 until June 2016. There seems to be no issues about her conduct at uni or at work. What happened? She does not fit the profile of a serial killer there's no MO or pattern . Harold Shipman had been killing for years and years he killed older women with a massive overdose of morphine. I believe he wanted to get caught as he was caught when one of the wills were changed of his victims. He was a clever man with an established MO.

Reynhard Sinaga - UK's most prolific rapist didn't start his attacking spree till 2015 when he was 32 years old. He was studying in the UK at uni from 2007 and didn't start his attacks till 2015 - and then escalated immediately to 100s.

159 attacks in a 2 year span...

 

[Emmelina Ball]

But if that's the case, surely she'd have to be shadowed at every point throughout the day? Like even if it's just 'mistakes', those mistakes were killing babies, so how could you trust her around them alone? I haven't read anything that said she was permanently shadowed after the suspicions were raised unless I've just missed it?

Exactly. If it’s incompetency they have suspected, caring for the most vulnerable in society then they needed to do more than switch her shifts. Instead they switched her shift AND let her supervise a student nurse!?!? Makes no sense to me. If this is what we’ve found out before the trials even really started it’s devastating to think what may emerge over the next 6 months.

 

[friedeggontoast]

IMO I believe she is guilty and I also believe the hospital was incompetent. I think both are true and it just allowed Lucy Letby to continue her killings as there were so many failings within the hospital, she thought she’d get away with it under the guise of a sub par hospital.

 

[Tofino]

Guys I’ve filled the wiki page up already I’m getting an error message when I just tidied up some formatting. I’ve asked mods for help and we will probably need a second page (so I need to rethink how I organise it) but for now I can’t add anything more to it.

 

[LittleMy]

I think the difficulty at this point is lack of context. We've seen snippets of information, but not enough to get a clear picture. It's like putting a jigsaw together when half the pieces are missing. I'm interested to know whether the evidence that's still to come will clarify things or muddy the waters even more.

This is what I’m finding. There’s a lot that could be misconstrued from what we’ve seen so far, and while my gut feeling is that she’s guilty, there’s not much to go on yet that couldn’t be explained away by a good defence team. I’ll be interested to see what else they produce. I don’t doubt that the prosecution will have stacked their evidence up over the last two years.

 

[Windowtothewall]

Once professionals have an idea in their mind they will go to some ends to defend it. Everyone's saying it's too far fetched all these organisations would do such and such, but it's too not far fetched a nurse went on a serial killing spree in the space of roughly a year, on 24 separate occasions attacked babies via at least 4 different methods undetected? Just my late night thoughts on the matter.

I suppose there is the example of Beverley Ailitt. There is the example of Harold Shipman. All the mums who kill and abuse their babies.

There was also a case of a young woman (Sinead Connett) who was an HR professional at a big corporate, middle class, educated - she is in prison for killing her baby and burying him in her parent's backyard. Look at Wayne Couzens, a police officer for years with a beautiful family - one day just decided to kidnap, rape and kill a stranger. No prior murder charges for him.

It's far more likely that one person is a murderer than 100s of people across the country over a period of 6 years are all immoral and unethical, and would not expose a conspiracy.

 

[raspberryjuice]

I fully believe there are cover ups and scapegoating going on within the NHS. There will be in workplaces all over the country.

However, I do not believe for one minute the NHS would actively kill babies to cover up for what are relatively much more minor failings - still serious failings, but in comparison to murder of an innocent baby, minor - and then frame somebody for those murders.

 

[jackolantern]

The amount of people that would have to be involved to wrongly pinpoint this all on one person seems so farfetched to me. And I am usually the first to criticise the NHS, so no bias there.

 

[friedeggontoast]

Side note: The police wouldn’t have dug up her garden if they didn’t have very solid reason to suspect something more than a coincidence. I think there’s much more to come out especially with this advert for a new detective on the ongoing case.

 

[Lexi]

This is the statement I am referring to. The bag was hung when Lucy was not on shift and she has not come into contact with it? How could she have spiked it then?

Hi, I have been following this case with interest. I’ve never posted before but thought I would join in with the discussion.
Im a nurse and find this case absolutely shocking. My heart aches for all those parents who have suffered. My thoughts regarding if she is guilty or not keeps changing every day. Something just doesn’t add up. So may unanswered questions which hopefully we will get some answers in the coming months.

Regarding the IV bag- I think it was TPN that was put up. TPN comes from pharmacy and is placed in the fridge until it’s ready to use. It needs to be left out of the fridge for an hour before being administered. All nursing staff will have access to the fridge at anytime of the day.
New TPN bags are usually given at night and run for 24 hours.

Could she have took the bag out of the fridge before the end of the shift ready for the night staff to put up.
Also, a new giving set should be used with each new bag so contamination from the last bag wouldn’t be possible.