Lucy Letby Case #72

[MmmB777]

This is why all the talk of her being so normal is irritating because it is ultimately driving this ability to still talk total and utter rit about her.
Look at the notes she made and kept and tell me she’s normal. No she was still going about her day to day life and socialising and off on holiday with her folks when she was writing them so it was nothing to do with stress. She is a ducked up weirdo.
She held down friendships with other gawky, socially awkward people. Plenty of people recognised her weirdness and inappropriate behaviour. Of which there are countless examples.
She kept HUNDREDS of patient records at her house for ducks sake, she moved them with her several times. Bev kept this sort of thing too, she had pillowcases and pages out the record book and all sorts. Letby had also collated the babies from this case PRIOR to any investigation. She knew what linked them!! She knew what they all had in common.
Serial killers don’t walk around axe wielding with great big signs round their necks saying “HEY I DON’T HAVE NORMAL ADULT SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE BECAUSE I’M WIRED WRONG AND I GET MY KICKS FROM SHOVING TUBES INTO BABIES THROATS, HITTING THEM, POISONING THEM, WATCHING THEM SUFFOCATE. NICE TO MEET YOU”
That’s why serial killers are able to continue what they do. They’re devious. Nondescript. Quiet. But their arrogance and obsession eventually gets the better of them.

She was weird. She could give the illusion of quiet and sweet. She could do this in the way Shipman could give the illusion of hard working and professional. She was a monster. The same as him. Same as Bev who was popular and who’s family maintains her innocence. Same as Charles Cullen who had friends, who was around so much death and near death but continued for years because he was quiet, worked nights and could give the illusion of normal. She’s not different. There’s not some major inconsistency with who she was as a person and her crimes. She’s a bog standard female healthcare serial killer. And there’s not stuff being tacked on there will be hundreds and hundreds more incidents of her depravity. Mark my words.

 

[Wellthisisinteresting]

This is why all the talk of her being so normal is irritating because it is ultimately driving this ability to still talk total and utter rit about her.
Look at the notes she made and kept and tell me she’s normal. No she was still going about her day to day life and socialising and off on holiday with her folks when she was writing them so it was nothing to do with stress. She is a ducked up weirdo.
She held down friendships with other gawky, socially awkward people. Plenty of people recognised her weirdness and inappropriate behaviour. Of which there are countless examples.
She kept HUNDREDS of patient records at her house for ducks sake. Bev kept this sort of thing too, she had pillowcases and pages out the record book and all sorts. She had also collated the babies from this case PRIOR to any investigation. She knew what linked them!! She knew what they all had in common.
Serial killers don’t walk around axe wielding with great big signs round their necks saying “HEY I DON’T HAVE NORMAL ADULT SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE BECAUSE I’M WIRED WRONG AND I GET MY KICKS FROM SHOVING TUBES INTO BABIES THROATS, HITTING THEM, POISONING THEM, WATCHING THEM SUFFOCATE. NICE TO MEET YOU”
That’s why serial killers are able to continue what they do. They’re devious. Nondescript. Quiet. But they’re arrogance and obsession eventually gets the better of them.

She was weird. She could give the illusion of quiet and sweet. She could do this in the way Shipman could give the illusion of hard working and professional. She was a monster. The same as him. Same as Bev who was popular and who’s family maintains her innocence. Same as Charles Cullen who had friends, who was around so much death and near death but continued for years because he was quiet, worked nights and could give the illusion of normal. She’s not different. There’s not some major inconsistency with who she was as a person and her crimes. She’s a bog standard female healthcare serial killer. And there’s not stuff being tacked on there will be hundreds and hundreds more incidents of her depravity. Mark my words.

I love you mmmmbop! 🩷

 

[CabalofBolorneaise]

I feel like having some doubts over some charges is hardly being “LL is innocent because she’s so normal!!”

If you disagree that’s fine but leaving laughing emojis on posts and lumping everyone in as stupid because they don’t agree with you on 100% of a topic (especially when it seems neither do all the experts) is just pathetic tbh.

 

[MmmB777]

I feel like having some doubts over some charges is hardly being “LL is innocent because she’s so normal!!”

If you disagree that’s fine but leaving laughing emojis on posts and lumping everyone in as stupid because they don’t agree with you on 100% of a topic (especially when it seems neither do all the experts) is just pathetic tbh.

Baby H
Baby H was born in good condition but began grunting not long after birth, rushed to the unit where a life saving procedure was performed because she had a pneumothorax. Is this the kind of “collapse when Letby can’t be blamed” that BM wants to convince you is significant? A collapsed lung after birth that the doctors resolved? A clear medical explanation that responded to treatment. Very, very different! To expect there to not have been those, in a hospital is utterly insane.

Dr Ravi and the doctors saved Baby H’s life with that procedure, it’s not an uncommon problem for prem babies but if it had been left she’d have been extremely poorly.
Unhappy after the initial drain was inserted that the problem was persisting too much, they decide to insert a second drain, because they could see the air was accumulating lower down than the first drain’s position.

Ben Myers was maybe successful in muddying the water here by going on and on about that drain being “in the wrong place”. The first drain is in the optimal position as per the text books. The second drain is placed because the one in the optimal position wasn’t solving enough of the issue.
Why would he put the second drain in the same bloody place as the first one that they’ve assessed isn’t being as effective as they need it to be. BM is clever if he’s managed to make anyone scratch their heads over that but it’s actually embarrassing imo.

Mr Myers: 'For an experienced doctor, it's in the wrong place, isn't it?'
Dr Jayaram: 'No, it's in the pleural cavity. You're concentrating on process rather than outcome. This drain needed to go in, and it actually made more sense to put it in lower down rather than in the same place'


Again, BM went on about the type used, there wasn’t the optimal one available. The suggestion being that it would have been more optimal for Dr Ravi to do what? Let the baby deteriorate with this serious issue and wait? Just imagine what BM would have said if he’d done that eh! “You could have inserted the one available!” Is what he would have said. He is clutching at the tiny scraps he has.
The fact is, Dr Ravi was right. Funny that eh seeing as he is the one with decades of medical experience and with the actual patient in front of him!
The extensive pneumothorax continued to resolve as proved by the X-ray taken 10 hours later.
Despite those facts, on the stand BM goes on and on and on at Dr Ravi, about the drain being in the “wrong place”. Despite the baby clinically recovering and proof on a radiograph that the treatment was effective.

Mr Myers persisted, putting it to the paediatrician: 'You put it in the wrong part of the chest, didn't you?'
Dr Jayaram replied: 'I would disagree entirely. I was putting it in a place that was needed. In terms of clinical medicine, yes, there are recommendations, but pragmatically you have to deal with the situation in front of you'.
It did not surprise him that there was some movement as the lung re-expanded, but he rejected the suggestion that it had been 'somehow flapping up and down'.
Mr Myers: 'This was sub-optimal performance by you?'
The paediatrician rejected the allegation, saying: 'In your questioning of me you very much focus on process. The process is to achieve an outcome. It was about doing the right thing to get that drain in.
'We succeeded, and actually made H more stable'.

It’s pretty appalling treatment of Dr Ravi imo but hey. That’s the way it works. BM has to do this. He has to confuse you. Because what he wants you to believe is that this successful treatment led to….
Baby H having a bleeping 22 minute cardiac arrest out of absolutely nowhere TWO DAYS LATER. Two days of clinical improvement to near death and then back to recovered until the next time letby is there. Found by baby H’s cot by Dr Neame despite not being the des.nurse. No clinical reason for the cardiac arrests. Happened just after parents left (as it does for 8 of the babies, 5 of those being deaths). Baby recovers rapidly. From 22 minutes with no heartbeat. With no cause.
The very next night, when parents are exhausted and finally try to go and get some sleep, it’s not long before they are back and another life threatening 6 minutes with NO viable heartbeat for baby H. With no explanation yet again.
She’s transferred and discharged soon after with not a single long term pervasive problem from nearly dying twice in quick succession. This doesn’t happen medically.

This is all before you take into account the fact that Letby has changed the time of this event on the records. She has said that the baby had a serious desaturation to 52% but the dad would have actually been there. Did the dad forget not witnessing his own baby go from stable to a serious desaturation, would he have left for a kip if that had just happened? Wouldn’t that stick with you? Especially if later your baby came close to dying?
Who has something to gain by changing that record?

Why does she go back and change a record for another baby to say she was with them at the time of baby H’s cardiac arrest? What could she gain by doing that. Why are there two errors coincidently like this for baby H’s collapses?
She records herself as being with a different baby at the time of the cardiac arrest but that’s not true:

Mr Johnson asks about Letby's error, as mentioned in her evidence, about the timing of the blood transfusion being completed. Letby said on May 15 the '0200 blood transfusion completed' should be 3am.
Letby says she has "miswritten" it from looking at the charts.
A blood infusion therapy chart is shown, in Letby's writing, which has in the time ended column what appears to be '0205' corrected to '0305'.
NJ: "The same mistake in two different places?"
Letby says she "couldn't say with clarity" adjusting the time after she had written her nursing notes.
NJ: "What happened after 0305?"
LL: "I don't recall."
NJ: "Really?...[Child H] had a cardiac arrest."
Letby is asked "how on earth" she made the 0205 error.
LL: "Because we're human people, we make mistakes."
Letby says the error is "mine" on the nursing notes, but the timings were otherwise accurate.
Letby says she cannot remember Child H's father being present.
The father recalled "mottling running out of her skin towards her fingers".
Letby says she agrees there was mottling on Child H's skin, but not that it was moving.

It’s another time she’s complaining about not having anything interesting to do, she’s scrolling Facebook and liking things. Then she says she’s been helping with baby H “but at least I have none of the responsibility”. Interesting. She makes no record of any of this help. It’s after this the baby has desats and blood that letby doesn’t record properly. And it’s after this that Alison Ventress finds the drains are almost out.
Baby H is another baby with bleeding. She removes a tube she shouldn’t have done when ALONE with baby H.
It’s all there with this one! Absolutely all there. There is no way that the procedure undertaken two days before and had been proven to be helping resolve baby H’s issues, that BM has tried to convince the jury was ‘wrong’, caused these events. Baby H was baptised for crying out loud, she almost died and then recovered and yet again Letby is there when she didn’t need to be.

 

[slingo16]

jsjdj

https://www.archive.is/oldest/https...4/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question

So there was no forensic evidence linking her, nobody saw her do anything even though it's a busy hospital and plenty of those who know her best her colleagues who worked with her for years have stood by her.

“No FoREnSiC EvIdENcE” hahaha what do you even mean?

 

[MmmB777]

jsjdj

“No FoREnSiC EvIdENcE” hahaha what do you even mean?

They mean that great big blocks of air to a baby’s spine and in the greater vessels and big air bubbles right at the long line entry and multiple witness statements of symptoms of air embolism and medically unexplained deaths and cardiac arrests, right after des nurses or parents left the room every single time, often with letby found cotside or raising the alarm, just after Letby had a course on how air embolism could kill… isn’t evidence.

 

[SarahG300]

I love you mmmmbop! 🩷

Was saying exactly the same whilst reading!

 

[slingo16]

They mean that great big blocks of air to a baby’s spine and in the greater vessels and big air bubbles right at the long line entry and multiple witness statements of symptoms of air embolism and medically unexplained deaths and cardiac arrests, right after des nurses or parents left the room every single time, often with letby found cotside or raising the alarm, just after Letby had a course on how air embolism could kill… isn’t evidence.

Sooo you’re saying it might be a sewage issue??

 

[MmmB777]

Sooo you’re saying it might be a sewage issue??

Correct. This is much more feasible because Letby has a friend called Janet and didn’t let anyone watch her injure babies. Hope that helps xoxo

 

[Lincoln34]

Baby H
Baby H was born in good condition but began grunting not long after birth, rushed to the unit where a life saving procedure was performed because she had a pneumothorax. Is this the kind of “collapse when Letby can’t be blamed” that BM wants to convince you is significant? A collapsed lung after birth that the doctors resolved? A clear medical explanation that responded to treatment. Very, very different! To expect there to not have been those, in a hospital is utterly insane.

Dr Ravi and the doctors saved Baby H’s life with that procedure, it’s not an uncommon problem for prem babies but if it had been left she’d have been extremely poorly.
Unhappy after the initial drain was inserted that the problem was persisting too much, they decide to insert a second drain, because they could see the air was accumulating lower down than the first drain’s position.

Ben Myers was maybe successful in muddying the water here by going on and on about that drain being “in the wrong place”. The first drain is in the optimal position as per the text books. The second drain is placed because the one in the optimal position wasn’t solving enough of the issue.
Why would he put the second drain in the same bloody place as the first one that they’ve assessed isn’t being as effective as they need it to be. BM is clever if he’s managed to make anyone scratch their heads over that but it’s actually embarrassing imo.

Mr Myers: 'For an experienced doctor, it's in the wrong place, isn't it?'
Dr Jayaram: 'No, it's in the pleural cavity. You're concentrating on process rather than outcome. This drain needed to go in, and it actually made more sense to put it in lower down rather than in the same place'


Again, BM went on about the type used, there wasn’t the optimal one available. The suggestion being that it would have been more optimal for Dr Ravi to do what? Let the baby deteriorate with this serious issue and wait? Just imagine what BM would have said if he’d done that eh! “You could have inserted the one available!” Is what he would have said. He is clutching at the tiny scraps he has.
The fact is, Dr Ravi was right. Funny that eh seeing as he is the one with decades of medical experience and with the actual patient in front of him!
The extensive pneumothorax continued to resolve as proved by the X-ray taken 10 hours later.
Despite those facts, on the stand BM goes on and on and on at Dr Ravi, about the drain being in the “wrong place”. Despite the baby clinically recovering and proof on a radiograph that the treatment was effective.

Mr Myers persisted, putting it to the paediatrician: 'You put it in the wrong part of the chest, didn't you?'
Dr Jayaram replied: 'I would disagree entirely. I was putting it in a place that was needed. In terms of clinical medicine, yes, there are recommendations, but pragmatically you have to deal with the situation in front of you'.
It did not surprise him that there was some movement as the lung re-expanded, but he rejected the suggestion that it had been 'somehow flapping up and down'.
Mr Myers: 'This was sub-optimal performance by you?'
The paediatrician rejected the allegation, saying: 'In your questioning of me you very much focus on process. The process is to achieve an outcome. It was about doing the right thing to get that drain in.
'We succeeded, and actually made H more stable'.

It’s pretty appalling treatment of Dr Ravi imo but hey. That’s the way it works. BM has to do this. He has to confuse you. Because what he wants you to believe is that this successful treatment led to….
Baby H having a bleeping 22 minute cardiac arrest out of absolutely nowhere TWO DAYS LATER. Two days of clinical improvement to near death and then back to recovered until the next time letby is there. Found by baby H’s cot by Dr Neame despite not being the des.nurse. No clinical reason for the cardiac arrests. Happened just after parents left (as it does for 8 of the babies, 5 of those being deaths). Baby recovers rapidly. From 22 minutes with no heartbeat. With no cause.
The very next night, when parents are exhausted and finally try to go and get some sleep, it’s not long before they are back and another life threatening 6 minutes with NO viable heartbeat for baby H. With no explanation yet again.
She’s transferred and discharged soon after with not a single long term pervasive problem from nearly dying twice in quick succession. This doesn’t happen medically.

This is all before you take into account the fact that Letby has changed the time of this event on the records. She has said that the baby had a serious desaturation to 52% but the dad would have actually been there. Did the dad forget not witnessing his own baby go from stable to a serious desaturation, would he have left for a kip if that had just happened? Wouldn’t that stick with you? Especially if later your baby came close to dying?
Who has something to gain by changing that record?

Why does she go back and change a record for another baby to say she was with them at the time of baby H’s cardiac arrest? What could she gain by doing that. Why are there two errors coincidently like this for baby H’s collapses?
She records herself as being with a different baby at the time of the cardiac arrest but that’s not true:

Mr Johnson asks about Letby's error, as mentioned in her evidence, about the timing of the blood transfusion being completed. Letby said on May 15 the '0200 blood transfusion completed' should be 3am.
Letby says she has "miswritten" it from looking at the charts.
A blood infusion therapy chart is shown, in Letby's writing, which has in the time ended column what appears to be '0205' corrected to '0305'.
NJ: "The same mistake in two different places?"
Letby says she "couldn't say with clarity" adjusting the time after she had written her nursing notes.
NJ: "What happened after 0305?"
LL: "I don't recall."
NJ: "Really?...[Child H] had a cardiac arrest."
Letby is asked "how on earth" she made the 0205 error.
LL: "Because we're human people, we make mistakes."
Letby says the error is "mine" on the nursing notes, but the timings were otherwise accurate.
Letby says she cannot remember Child H's father being present.
The father recalled "mottling running out of her skin towards her fingers".
Letby says she agrees there was mottling on Child H's skin, but not that it was moving.

It’s another time she’s complaining about not having anything interesting to do, she’s scrolling Facebook and liking things. Then she says she’s been helping with baby H “but at least I have none of the responsibility”. Interesting. She makes no record of any of this help. It’s after this the baby has desats and blood that letby doesn’t record properly. And it’s after this that Alison Ventress finds the drains are almost out.
Baby H is another baby with bleeding. She removes a tube she shouldn’t have done when ALONE with baby H.
It’s all there with this one! Absolutely all there. There is no way that the procedure undertaken two days before and had been proven to be helping resolve baby H’s issues, that BM has tried to convince the jury was ‘wrong’, caused these events. Baby H was baptised for crying out loud, she almost died and then recovered and yet again Letby is there when she didn’t need to be.

Excellent post IMO. All I can add is that I needed to take my 6 week old son to the Countess for a blood sample. This was 17.5 years ago.

3 nurses tried to get a sample. My son was screaming and screaming and writhing. I felt helpless watching my baby in pain and distress.

Then 20 mins into the saga Dr. Ravi arrived and, in seconds, smoothly took the blood sample. It was a master class.

 

[MmmB777]

Excellent post IMO. All I can add is that I needed to take my 6 week old son to the Countess for a blood sample. This was 17.5 years ago.

3 nurses tried to get a sample. My son was screaming and screaming and writhing. I felt helpless watching my baby in pain and distress.

Then 20 mins into the saga Dr. Ravi arrived and, in seconds, smoothly took the blood sample. It was a master class.

Love this Yep it’s truly a little sickening to see his actions which saved baby H’s life more than once used as an explanation for two extremely sudden near death situations for baby H that have no medical explanation whatsoever. Where obvious signs of air embolism were present. Where parents had just left. Remember Letby actually disputes baby H’s father’s account of his tiny baby’s near death experience even though she can’t recall anything that might incriminate her. It’s all completely obvious it was her in this case.

Nobody is saying CoCH’s every move was perfection but the idea that delays, less than ideal positioning (I think Dr. J’s explanation makes complete sense), less than perfect record keeping, less than perfect hand washing, less than perfect staffing could cause cardiac arrests and deaths so routinely (and on one person’s shift ) is a nonsense. There would be these kind of deaths in level 2 units up and down the country but prem babies actually do extremely well these days. It’s completely obvious what was happening on that unit. I think it far more likely that they will be unable to bring many more obvious cases where her evil has caused serious harm than that they shoved in a few to the first trial for the sake of it.

 

[AllSeeingEye123]

jsjdj

“No FoREnSiC EvIdENcE” hahaha what do you even mean?

You not read the article before commenting? You didn't have to read for very long because just above the first photo of her right at the start it says....

" There was no forensic evidence to prove her guilt "

 

[MmmB777]

You not read the article before commenting? You didn't have to read for very long because just above the first photo of her right at the start it says....

" There was no forensic evidence to prove her guilt "

Two juries thought otherwise babes. She’s guilty as duck. Shame on you xx

 

[slingo16]

You not read the article before commenting? You didn't have to read for very long because just above the first photo of her right at the start it says....

" There was no forensic evidence to prove her guilt "

Hahaha, I’ve read it, I just don’t think you or the author of the article know the legal definition of the term “forensic evidence”.

ETA - #NoCatSanctuaryInSpain

 

[Danica Catrick]

I know this isn’t a popular opinion here but I’ve thought all along that while she’s guilty of some of the deaths, some seem to have been “tacked on” purely because she was there when it seems more likely it was the negligence at CoC that caused those. I still think this and the guardian article with the disagreement of some experts reinforces my opinion.

Not full blown conspiracy she was framed, but thinking about it in terms of - she was going to get a whole life sentence so it makes no practical difference to her and if they link the death to her than regardless of result, it takes the heat off CoC a bit as the public will largely believe she did it whether convicted or not.

Honestly, I'm not sure I'm bothered even if this is the case. There are bound to be deaths and injuries she's responsible for which never get to court, so it's swings and roundabouts... (I'm not usually this blasé about justice!)

I agree there was definitely poor care and negligence at CoC, but I'm inclined to believe this made it easier for LL to operate for as long as she did rather than being a direct cause. The hospital definitely have a lot of questions to answer.

 

[CabalofBolorneaise]

Two juries thought otherwise babes. She’s guilty as duck. Shame on you xx

And the jury found her not guilty of the first count for baby H and were undecided on the second. So I’m not sure why you can’t accept people have a difference of opinion on that? If they’re right about her guilt, they’re likely also right on the not guilty.

I’m also not sure where you got that I was dissing the doctor personally either, doctors make mistakes especially in a climate as chaotic and badly managed as that unit was and even the prosecution acknowledged the care for Baby H was sub-optimal so you’re actually arguing further than they were.

 

[MmmB777]

And the jury found her not guilty of the first count for baby H and were undecided on the second. So I’m not sure why you can’t accept people have a difference of opinion on that? If they’re right about her guilt, they’re likely also right on the not guilty.

I’m also not sure where you got that I was dissing the doctor personally either, doctors make mistakes especially in a climate as chaotic and badly managed as that unit was and even the prosecution acknowledged the care was sub-optimal.

Yes it makes total sense for them to say NG and then undecided on the later attempts just like it made total sense to think she killed one triplet and not the other.. I accept that the jury think there wasn’t enough and that you don’t either, I just think it’s ridiculous. It’s clear that Ben’s relentless barrage against Dr J worked.
Why do you get the impression I don’t accept people have different opinions? I accept it I just find it astonishing. Not the same.
That is a post I wrote over a year ago and no reflection of what I think your thoughts on Dr J are but you’ve said you think that was a case of sub optimal care that was tagged on to the other charges and now you seem quite upset to be challenged on it. Why don’t we leave it there?

 

[CabalofBolorneaise]

Yes it makes total sense for them to say NG and then undecided on the later attempts just like it made total sense to think she killed one triplet and not the other.. I accept that the jury think there wasn’t enough and that you don’t either, I just think it’s ridiculous. It’s clear that Ben’s relentless barrage against Dr J worked.
Why do you get the impression I don’t accept people have different opinions? I accept it I just find it astonishing. Not the same.
That is a post I wrote over a year ago and no reflection of what I think your thoughts on Dr J are but you’ve said you think that was a case of sub optimal care that was tagged on to the other charges and now you seem quite upset to be challenged on it. Why don’t we leave it there?

You’re super sarcastic and mocking in response every time someone has a different opinion, like in the post I quoted there and here. Doesn’t seem very accepting to me tbh.

 

[jackolantern]

We've said it a million times, but if the babies had been murdered by an weird bleep or a bloke in tbh any capacity (not saying I agree we should for a second, but I do believe it to be generally what happens) she'd have few to no supporters other than the bleeping insane fans serial killers always get. I do not understand why people still cannot get it through their minds that it doesn't make an ounce of difference what she looks like and infact, some of the most dangerous killers use the fact they look 'normal' or 'attractive' or simply blend in, to their best advantage.

 

[MmmB777]

You’re super sarcastic and mocking in response every time someone has a different opinion, like in the post I quoted there and here. Doesn’t seem very accepting to me tbh.

Maybe you should have put me on mute 18 months ago? I haven’t actually responded directly to your post at all so why bother getting your knickers in a twist? I don’t think you’d have liked what I really wanted to say which is that if you’re going to act like you have special superior unpopular opinions about some of the cases maybe you should get your facts straight before you say imo crass things like they tacked on baby H’s “death” when she didn’t die so clearly you maybe don’t know as much as you thought? Like all those police officers and the CPS worked tirelessly to build cases and just thought for no reason “let’s do the hospital a little favour and shove in some cases cos it “makes no difference” as you suggest. You can have your opinion as you have now repeatedly and I can say why I think it’s ridiculous. It’s not personal.