Lucy Letby Case #7

[wildgreen]

This video is quite eerie to watch - the doctor discusses how too much air in the bowel will effectively suffocate the neonate. This show was on TV just days before Child A died and now we know she was watching it as she was texting a colleague about watching it. I know she would have known the risks anyway, but it's just... another strange thing.

BBC Two - An Hour To Save Your Life, Series 2, Surviving Birth, Neonatal surgery

Laura gives birth to a baby girl who has been diagnosed with CDH during the pregnancy.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Lucyxxxx]

I think it’s offensive that people keep referring to miscarriage or baby loss as a trigger to her starting to kill babies.

I’ve had miscarriages and I know people that have lost babies and they do not go on to become murderers.

It is highly likely that if guilty, she is a psychopath and acted in cold blood and there was no trigger.

I think people should be able to speculate openly without fear their speculation "may offend". Try not to take anything personally.

 

[avabella]

People on this thread are working harder than her lawyers to make her seem innocent

Can this argument not be brought up again? I'm getting really tired of being shut down or deemed a 'conspiracy theorist' just because I question things, try to figure out all the options and clear things up/process things before I settle on what my thoughts on the subject are. I cannot see how that's a bad quality and really don't want the thread to become full of sarcastic barbs. There's a TRIAL for a reason.

 

[TheWitchIsBack]

I know on previous threads a few people have said that motive isn’t really relevant on this but I do think it would add a whole load of context to why the CPS have decided to proceed with prosecuting her. I also think that they will introduce this and it will explain the digging up of the garden etc.

Equally there’s also a few people asking why did she wait X years to begin killing as it’s a stumbling block for them mentally between guilty/not guilty - it’s worth noting that the police have extended their investigation and it’s not due to finish for a few years so the first deaths to be prosecuted could very much be the tip of the iceberg.

I appreciate all sides of the argument at this stage and am reading each post and considering each point however I am very much in the mindset of guilty just now.

I don’t believe this many coincidences could occur together - the statistic probability of this has to be absolutely tiny, far tinier than the probability that she’s a wrongun.

I also think there’s credence to the fact that the death and collapse rates shifted when she changed shift, that staff were concerned about her enough to check on her and her behaviour around certain babies is questionable (being stood in the doorway saying their colour is off etc) - then upon full investigation by the police, so something her colleagues would have absolutely no knowledge of, she’s found to have searched for the exact families of the babies she’s being investigated for killing on significant dates such as anniversaries and Christmas, has pictures of two of the children, plus the note in her house saying “I killed them on purpose” - potentially more evidence from her home as well as the prosecution have stated there were multiple items of interest found.

Scapegoating, I’ve said a few times, makes absolutely no sense to me. There is no benefit whatsoever to the trust of having a member of their staff charged with murder. The financial and repetitional liability of this is astronomical in comparison to what it would have been had they just took the findings of an independent review and got on with fixing them.

There’s coincidence and then there’s the universe conspiring against you - I don’t buy it. I am however reading absolutely everything you guys are posting and willing to be proved wrong.

 

[Tofino]

Regarding Facebook this is what we know so far:

Child A died 8.58pm on 8th June

June 9th 9.58am - 13hrs after the baby died Lucy looks up mum on Facebook.

Please can somebody give me a reasonable explanation for why she would do this? Baby B was still in hospital. Mum was either still in hospital or visiting baby from 9am every day. Why would she need to check up on them on Facebook? What was she looking for?

also these dates:
June 10th
June 25th
Sept 2nd

Yet in police interview she says she has no memory of doing so. I mean, REALLY??

In a November 2020 police interview, police put to her that Letby had tracked the family of Child A on Facebook. She said she had no memory of doing so but accepted it if there was evidence on her computer doing so.

You’ve looked them up four times after the baby died, including 3 months later so you still remembered the name, you were telling colleagues you were affected by the death so much you wanted to actively avoid the parents, but you have no memory of ever looking them up? Not even an ‘oh yes I do remember now, it was because xxx’

It’s just not in the slightest bit credible. It makes me so suspicious of her.

 

[Windowtothewall]

This is the most damning thing for me.

Letby says: "Don't mind being in [nursery room] 1 but don't want to have [Child B]."

The colleague offers to look after Child B, with Letby also present in the room. Letby agrees and says: "I think it'd be good for you."

She added, in another message: "...I can't look after [Child B] because I just don't know how to feel seeing parents..

YET she did baby B's blood gases and feed as soon as she started her shift! And took his handover note home despite not being the designated nurse. And his designated nurse being in the room with her.

WHY?

 

[riddleme89]

those poor parents
grief can make you do things like the dad collapsed to the floor . I know how that feels
I was at work one day when this pain crippled me I didn’t have long left at work before maternity leave and was on light duties due to the busy ward and 12 hour shifts . My manager rushed me to the maternity ward .they put the dopler on and she couldn’t find the heartbeat I was hysterical almost like this can’t be real I’ve got the pram clothes the cots up and the rooms all decorated ready . She sent me for a scan to confirm . I sat in the room surrounded by expecting mother’s they was talking but it was silent to me . I was taken in the room the lady was talking to me but again the room fell silent . I looked at the screen was no heartbeat . I was convinced it was wrong I fell to the ground screaming hysterically. My husband said he will never forget that scream even now years down the line . I didn’t want to believe it in a manic state I made my husband take me to another hospital. Sadly it was real and it was happening . I knew then I was not taking a baby home . My eldest was not going to have a baby brother . It’s such a horrible pain to loose a baby .

my Heart hurts for those poor parents I don’t know how they attend the trial day in day out I can only think that they want answers

 

[veevee04]

The majority of people I know have their settings set up private anyway so they’d only get a profile photo. I think it’s just human nature for some people to be a bit nosey or ‘socially curious’ I wouldn’t be that freaked out about someone looking me up in social media but if I found out her car tracking was showing her going past my house or workplace every day then I may find that a bit too far

I hope my gynecologist looks me up he was a hottie , hi babe . Don't even need to make proper introductions as he's already seen my fanny.

 

[Stiltoncheese]

I remember yrs ago a neighbour made a malicious report to social services about me. The SW who came out was 21. Found her on twitter bitching about 'difficult clients' aka me. The cheek.

I'm an adults social worker and as controversial as it is, my personal feeling is that there should be a minimum age limit for the profession to allow people to develop better life skills personally. Coming straight out of uni at 21 and having to deal with people going through the worst or darkest period of their life is hard enough, but it can be a huge barrier if the worker is young and can come across as patronising. Having more mature workers brings some good experience and perhaps a bit more common sense instead of just relying on the theory learnt at uni. Theory has its place obviously, but things in practice are always different (something I'm sure health professionals will attest to as well)

 

[Tofino]

I do find this really suspicious. It looks like deflection to me.


On June 30, following the deaths of Child A, C and D, and the non-fatal collapse of Child B, Letby's colleague messaged her there was something 'odd' about that night.

Letby replies: 'What do you mean? Odd that we lost three and in different cicrumstances?'

Letby's colleague responds: "I don't know, were they that different?"

The colleague added: "Ignore me, I'm speculating."

 

[Walnutss]

People on this thread are working harder than her lawyers to make her seem innocent

 

[wildgreen]

"It's the last time I do you a favour changing shifts! Haha"

Hours after Child A died.

But apparently very traumatised.

Just very weird.

 

[LilyRose1234]

Hi all, I’ve been lurking for a long time but haven’t plucked up the courage to get involved, but thought it might be helpful to understand the case from a criminal justice perspective…

In an investigation like this, the police will make contact with the CPS early doors to look at the investigation, reasonable lines of enquiry etc - this includes looking into the accused but also considering avenues that point away from them (so they can’t just hone in on one person and ignore anything else). Once they think they have everything they will submit their evidence to the CPS for a charging decision. The CPS can then decide to either charge, no further action, or send it back asking for further evidence, or other things to be done. The charging decision cannot be made until the majority of the evidence has been provided and disclosure requirements met and this can take some time. The CPS will then decide whether there is at least a 51% chance that a jury will find the accused guilty and that a prosecution will be in the public interest. So the test for the CPS is a guilty verdict on the balance of probabilities (more than 51%) but once the case reaches court the jury must find the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt on each charge.

A fundamental principal of our legal system is innocent until proven guilty, and in this case this means the prosecution needs to show a) that each baby was murdered/attempted to murder AND b) that the person who committed the murder/attempt was the defendant. They cannot prove this until the evidence has been tested in court. IMO it’s far too early for the prosecution to have met this hurdle for each individual baby, given we haven’t really heard a lot of evidence yet. The opening statement is simply the prosecution summary of the evidence they will rely on, and is not the same as the evidence being tested. With the best will in the world, if they could prove their case to the requisite standard after opening statements, we wouldn’t need a 6 month trial.

I’m trying not to rely on my gut feeling because I’ve been wrong before, but it’s really interesting reading all the different perspectives and my heart hurts for the families of these poor babies, regardless of the outcome.

Sorry this ended up being really long, feel free to ignore if it isn’t helpful!!

 

[riddleme89]

I’m not saying there’s an issue with it. Just that she’s in work texting or going straight home and texting about work and searching parents. It’s a bit obsessive.

I don’t give a shit what anybody says on here .. I used to finish my 13 hour shift go home have a bath and speak to my family and friends I didn’t need to constantly be texting work colleagues and searching patient’s familys up on social media . I would never dream to take a picture of a sympathy card . I know others have said they have done a little search of families at work but Lucy was literaly stalking the families. After each victim died she was looking the family up and not just once but multiple times . The strange thing is on one occasion she searched a childs mum up and went on to search for the previous three babies that died in her care . To many things are not normal with her behaviour . I think she is guilty and I hope they have better evidence coming Soon .

 

[Wackie Jeaver]

I'm really uncomfortable with all these professionals who are happy to admit they look up patients/their families on social media. I know you shouldnt share anything you dont want the world to know blah blah, but the thought that someone who's just seen someone in a very intimate situation then pops off to FB to check them out is very tacky. IMO

 

[Moronic]

I think it’s offensive that people keep referring to miscarriage or baby loss as a trigger to her starting to kill babies.

I’ve had miscarriages and I know people that have lost babies and they do not go on to become murderers.

It is highly likely that if guilty, she is a psychopath and acted in cold blood and there was no trigger.

 

[raspberryjuice]

Not being arsey honestly but just to ask. Why is the alleged guilt admission in the note so hard to ignore but not the protests of innocence?

For me, if I was accused of a crime I hadn’t committed I might write “I’m innocent” on a piece of paper but I’d never write something like “I did this. I killed them on purpose”. However, if I was accused of a crime and I was guilty I would be much more likely to try and claim I was innocent to avoid punishment.
I can’t think of a single scenario where somebody who was accused of the murder of babies would ever write “I killed them on purpose” if they were innocent.

 

[starshine89]

I’ve been following these threads and the trial as a paediatric nurse I think I can’t bear the thought that a fellow nurse similar age etc to me could do this so I am swaying towards innocent for that reason for now..

reasons being -

In my opinion Facebook stalking although unprofessional I think a lot of other healthcare professionals have done it myself included. Especially cases that hit harder (deaths or long term patients etc - wanting to know how families are getting on)

Handover sheets being taken home accidentally happens when you’re leaving work in a rush stuff shoved in your tunic pocket

being involved in other patients cares for me happens ALL the time. I work on a short staffed unit and I take charge of it. I am regularly giving medication for other nurses patients if they can’t give intravenous medication yet for example (agency nurses or not qualified enough yet), designated to put all the tpns up as no one else qualified enough to do it. Covering breaks/helping out when people are busy etc

I think all those above have reasonable explanations

what I can’t get my head around is the AMOUNT of deteriorating or sick patients. I’ve been qualified 10 years and only ever been involved in 3 real resuscitation scenarios (paediatrics not neonates) so it blows my mind one nurse could be involved in so many in just one year and this is where my doubts strike.

Other questions I have are the insulin/tpn incident, it would be incredibly poor practice to change the tpn bag and not all the lines attached to it so if there was no involvement from LL with the second bag I struggle to see how it could be linked to her

Secondly I actually did a study day today on paediatric life support. They made a point of when you manually ‘bag’ a neonate (as in manually breath for them) you have to make sure you don’t squeeze the bag too hard as it could put excess pressure into them and splint the diaphragm. Which automatically made me think of this case. Did they bag a neonate in a resus situation with poor technique and cause the air in stomach lungs etc??

Very torn by all of this, flip flopping between innocent and guilty xxx

 

[jackolantern]

I think it’s offensive that people keep referring to miscarriage or baby loss as a trigger to her starting to kill babies.

I’ve had miscarriages and I know people that have lost babies and they do not go on to become murderers.

It is highly likely that if guilty, she is a psychopath and acted in cold blood and there was no trigger.

Things like that do trigger though. Obviously noone is saying everyone who has had a miscarriage becomes a baby murderer

 

[Tofino]

I don't think the note proves either guilt or innocence. It's not helpful either way and I'm not really sure of the relevance of it being brought up by the prosecution in the first place. It can be read so many different ways and people write all sorts of things that aren't true. I feel like it's just something pretty irrelevant that the media jumped on in my opinion. Make good headline I suppose
I have a break down of what's actually written on the note below:
View attachment 1659143

You think a note found by police during a house search that includes ‘I killed them on purpose’ by someone on trial for killing babies is irrelevant and shouldn’t have been brought up by the prosecution? Really?