Lucy Letby Case #7

[Tofino]

Well at the very least I don't think they should have opened with it. I think if anything it has cast a shadow on her guilt for a lot of people. I think the prosecution made a mistake making it such a big deal. But again this is just my opinion!!

But they are the prosecution, they believe she killed those babies. They believe she wrote ‘I killed them on purpose…’ because it’s true and because you wouldn’t write it if you were innocent. Opening and closing are a bit theatrical, so he did deliver it with a BAM! at the end but if they have casted a shadow on her guilt then they’ve actually done their job.
They showed the post it note on screen to the jury, it was only the public that saw it later.

The defence need to do their job and cast reasonable doubt on it. But if they go down the ‘she was in anguish’ route like they said, that’s just not reasonable to me. Not along with all the other evidence too.

 

[riddleme89]

She messages numerous work colleagues after the deaths . Understandable that she might be upset if she didn’t kill the child but it comes across to me that letby loves the attention.
Maybe a motive if she is found guilty on why she did it .

 

[Former_Antelopee]

Sorry if that has already been discussed but was wondering about the garden being dug up… if someone is suspected of multiple murders is this just a standard thing that would be done just to make sure there aren’t other bodies under there or not even bodies but any other evidence??
Or is it unusual that they would dig up a garden?
Also I read on another forum that she apparently bought the house in March 2016 and sold it in 2019 and someone was saying it was strange how she would’ve moved but still had old paperwork, but I suppose not necessarily.
Did she live there alone do we know?
Did she move back to her parents in Hereford whilst released on bail?

I wouldn’t find it weird having old paperwork. I had a lot of random paperwork that I didn’t need in a draw since I couldn’t be bothered to go through it and threw it all in there

 

[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."

 

[Instafamousssss]

There is obviously a reason why the prosecution have used the note so early on. possibly because this is one of the weaker bits of evidence they have and they have other pretty hard damming evidence to use which will follow. I guess time will tell. There is always a reason though. These people are very clever and know what they are doing.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

But they are the prosecution, they believe she killed those babies. They believe she wrote ‘I killed them on purpose…’ because it’s true and because you wouldn’t write it if you were innocent. Opening and closing are a bit theatrical, so he did deliver it with a BAM! at the end but if they have casted a shadow on her guilt then they’ve actually done their job.
They showed the post it note on screen to the jury, it was only the public that saw it later.

The defence need to do their job and cast reasonable doubt on it. But if they go down the ‘she was in anguish’ route like they said, that’s just not reasonable to me. Not along with all the other evidence too.

The full quote is "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them" though and to me that gives a totally different meaning to it. It's easy to forget about the latter half of the sentence.
I still think she's guilty, the numbers are simply against her for it to be any other way but, to me anyway, the note presents a picture of someone who killed them by incompetence.
I believe she murdered them deliberately but I can see how the defence can use this note in their favour and for that reason I think the defence have made a mistake by making it such a big "gotcha" moment in their case so far. Hopefully there is just mountains of other less murky, open to interpretation evidence to come!!

 

[Aberscot]

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 collague added: "Ignore me, I'm speculating.

The above texts between Lucy and a colleague , so collegue is already thinking something odd is going on. How on earth did it get to Baby P before something was done, regardless of whether Lucy is guilty of doing anything or not.
Facebook searches , again I think we need more info like who else was she searching…
and she didnt want to look at Baby A parents , that could be taken either way , she was too ashamed/guilty or else just she was so upset after death of baby

 

[TheWitchIsBack]

But I think people who are perfectly sane write crazy tit all the time. For example, I write poetry, I write about death A LOT. I am perfectly sane and am not a danger to myself or others but if I was ever in the unfortunate position of being accused of such I'm sure my writing would come back to bite me.
I'm not sure if I'm making my point clearly enough but I'm just trying to say people can write mad tit and it not be true. I also think she is perfectly sane and was never in any real distress other than being worried she was finally going to be caught!

I agree to an extent - but presumably you’re not writing about death in the context of someone being in your company, dying and then you writing that you’re at fault for their death?

Yes people can write mad tit but would you write mad tit specifically implicating yourself in deaths you’re under suspicion of being part of? Just seems a bit bizarre… it comes across as she’s either guilty or has lost the plot entirely and has no concept of the seriousness of the allegations against her.

That being said I think the note out of everything is the bit of evidence being focussed on the most when it should be all the clinical evidence which in my view is far more important.

The whole thing is a head duck.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

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."

Ooh now that's suspicious!!

 

[tinkertailorsoldierspy]

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."

That stood out for me too. Pointing that out so specifically.

 

[riddleme89]

Strange a work friend text saying something was odd that night

not often a nurse would say that .

 

[Stiltoncheese]

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."

See, I would find it more odd that you would lose 3 babies in a short time frame all under similar circumstances. They are all in NICU for a variety of reasons so 3 collapses leading to death for the same reason would cause more concern than 3 unrelated reasons surely?

 

[TheWitchIsBack]

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."

The wording of that is so unnatural isn’t it. You’d reply along the lines of “what a horrible night, to lose one is horrific but to lose three is unthinkable”… saying they’ve been lost under different circumstances almost makes it look like she’s been trying to cover her tracks by using different methods.

It’s hard for me to read without any sort of bias as I think she’s guilty - interested to see what those in the innocent/unsure camp think of this?

 

[Weeder]

This is what they need to prove for me. For example when they did the post-mortem on Baby A they didn’t know what the cause of death was, but there was no suggestion of any foul play. They didn’t mention an air embolism; or even that the cause of death could be due to negligence, it was just unexplained. But now they’re looking for it they decide it was because of an air embolism. Lots of deaths could be caused by many factors - it doesn’t mean it’s true. From what we’ve heard so far, there is no physical evidence that LL or anyone else caused the death in that instance.

This is where I am with it too. I tried to raise it yesterday, but was told to look at the wiki, but it still makes no sense to me that they came to that conclusion post post-mortem.

 

[Daisydunn15]

See, I would find it more odd that you would lose 3 babies in a short time frame all under similar circumstances. They are all in NICU for a variety of reasons so 3 collapses leading to death for the same reason would cause more concern than 3 unrelated reasons surely?

I agree, which makes it look worse on her for pointing out the different circumstances. It's not language most people would use surely.

This is where I am with it too. I tried to raise it yesterday, but was told to look at the wiki, but it still makes no sense to me that they came to that conclusion post post-mortem.

And if the response is 'but they would never have imagined it was intentional' then surely the same bias applied later, that revisiting during a murder investigation can make them more focused on finding fault.

 

[raspberryjuice]

Letby: "It was awful...he died very suddenly and unexpectedly just after handover. Not sure why. It's gone to the coroner."

The colleague: "Oh god, he was doing really well when I left."

So the nurse who was caring for him just before LL took over thought he was doing really well. An hour later he’s dead.

 

[Former_Antelopee]

The wording of that is so unnatural isn’t it. You’d reply along the lines of “what a horrible night, to lose one is horrific but to lose three is unthinkable”… saying they’ve been lost under different circumstances almost makes it look like she’s been trying to cover her tracks by using different methods.

It’s hard for me to read without any sort of bias as I think she’s guilty - interested to see what those in the innocent/unsure camp think of this?

I don’t know I could see it as her reflecting on the night? Saying there were 3 different ways they died, starting a conversation questioning it with her colleague as she said it was odd and why she thought that

 

[Emmelina Ball]

If you did kill them would you say “I think we all need answers” about their death?! Would that make logical sense if she murdered that baby?

 

[mRsKbRoOkS]

Haven’t caught up on the thread yet and just catching up on the transcripts on my lunch break! But to me this is all so f*cking suss today! Particularly this part

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 collague added: "Ignore me, I'm speculating."

And

Letby later messaged another colleague, who had been off work after looking after Child A, to say: "Hi [nurse] - you may have heard by now but wanted to let you know that we lost little [Child A] on Monday. Knew you looked after him."

The colleague responded: "I didn't know actually, thanks for letting me know. That's terrible!"

Letby: "It was awful...he died very suddenly and unexpectedly just after handover. Not sure why. It's gone to the coroner."

The colleague: "Oh god, he was doing really well when I left."

Not to mention the Facebook searches

I’ll elaborate later but the messages stink to me
Of her trying to cover her arse say the right things and get an idea of what her team are thinking about her and the deaths. Like she is worrying!

 

[riddleme89]

The wording of that is so unnatural isn’t it. You’d reply along the lines of “what a horrible night, to lose one is horrific but to lose three is unthinkable”… saying they’ve been lost under different circumstances almost makes it look like she’s been trying to cover her tracks by using different methods.

It’s hard for me to read without any sort of bias as I think she’s guilty - interested to see what those in the innocent/unsure camp think of this?

I agree . the reply is dodgy almost like she says that because it doesn’t look as suspicious.