Lucy Letby Case #9

[Windowtothewall]

The way I've read it is that the defence are claiming the long line may have caused an air embolism, which is a rare complication and would look the same as an intentional administration. So in the defences argument it doesn't matter that the long line is common and they've never seen it, as its a very rare complication.

In that case, the defence will have to prove the rare complication also caused the blotchiness. And this rare complication happened in all the 4-5 cases the experts said air was deliberately administered, in a span of a few months. Even though this complication is so rare that none of the 3 very experienced experts, nor the very experienced nurse practitioner or attending doctor have ever seen.

If they can prove that, then their theory may be believable.

 

[candyland_]

The amount and timing of her Facebook searches is verging on stalking behaviour to me.

 

[jackolantern]

Whether she's guilty or not, there's no hiding other people's slip ups and the defence will keep highlighting them. Whatever the verdict, even if she's guilty there are a lot more people who should face consequences for what has happened to these families!

Absolutely and maybe she's innocent after all but I can't get on board with these conspiracy theory, coverup angles. They are just too farfetched IMO. I find it weird people can be more inclined to believe a whole mass of people are evil (framing someone for murder), than just one woman is.

 

[Windowtothewall]

Felt really sad for the parents having to hear this. To think it could have been preventable is the worst feeling I imagine. His testimony does feel truthful though because he's opened up the hospital (and himself) for negligence charges now from the parents.

But to me that does indicate there were suspicions about LL from others. For even her close friend, mentor, and uni buddy to think this was an 'oh no not again' moment feels like a lot of people thought these were unusual cases. And makes me question why LL herself didn't agree or comment on it in any of her messages or interviews.

The defence lawyer asks Nurse A to validate that LL was dedicated to her job and highly professional - which she did. She spent all her time at work, we know this. So why didn't she ever raise the alarm or make medical notes mentioning it or ask for bags/tests to be run or texted people discussing how odd it was. Especially since she was the only one present at all of them so had a good idea how much the collapses were increasing. To me, someone dedicated to their job will be concerned about a lot of collapses and try to get to the bottom of it, be meticulous in her work and focused on fixing problems - because what else was she doing? She texted about being bored so clearly had the time. It just doesn't fit the profile of a workaholic, dedicated, highly qualified professional to be so meh about something everyone else was concerned about.

Of course it doesn't mean she's guilty, but i find it odd the defence are focused on this because her behaviour does not come across professional or dedicated at all so far.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

Oh gosh this shift leader is utterly heartbroken.

https://www.archive.is/oldest/https...nurses-care-unusual-line-gas-court-hears.html

Oh my , just shows how stunned everyone was by this death, the inability to resuscitate especially.

If indeed Letby is a serial killer its not just the parents and babies we need to have sympathy for but her poor colleague's for what she put them through.

 

[calmyourritas]

“I just thought no, not again” is incredibly sad

 

[jackolantern]

If they are called as witnesses which they could be then surely the police can access what they need? I think it could be an interesting look.

You can't just delve into every witnesses personal affairs though. They are there to witness what she potentially did, not vice versa. They could look into texts between Lucy and the witnesses, but not just the witnesses other private matters, otherwise where would it end? Then you could argue they could search their homes and computers too. If you were called as a witness would you be happy for the police to start checking out your search history willy nilly?

 

[Windowtothewall]

So does it just fall on which experts you think are right if they don’t agree?

Yep, which is why these medical trials are so complex and difficult. It's hard enough when you're getting medical treatment to decide which doctor's opinion is correct, so I feel for the jury having to decide on a murder conviction.

 

[Tofino]

I do wonder (and purely speculation) whether the fact they were so small made them almost like dolls to her - not living, breathing people. It sounds horrible to say but there's this nurse, who all these years later is visibly distraught over the memories. And there's LL who was messaging friends at the time that she was finding it boring doing the babies' feeds.

Have people heard of cute aggression? I thought this article was interesting - about how cute things can make us get aggressive sometimes. I wonder if hers just spun out of control.

When Too Cute Is Too Much, The Brain Can Get Aggressive

Adorable babies and cute puppies can make us happy. But researchers say their cuteness can be so overwhelming that it unleashes some ugly thoughts.

www.npr.org

I Asked a Neuroscientist Why I Want to Crush Every Cute Animal I See

Have you ever said, "Oh my God that puppy is so adorable I could just KILL it?" That's called "cute aggression," and it's a well-documented psychological phenomenon.

www.vice.com

i had not heard of cute aggression but it fully explains why I say to my son ‘you’re so cute I could eat you’.

 

[crumpets2]

I agree it’s absolutely shocking that she was allowed to work days, I’ve expressed this before in other threads so I’m definitely not excusing their methods. But imagine being that first person to pick up on concerns and say them out loud, like perhaps there was a few of them thinking it but no one would of wanted to say anything because I’m sure, not one of them would of wanted to believe their colleague, employee, friend or whatever could be capable of doing something like this. Again, I’m not saying this is okay either because ultimately if they did believe babies were in harm then they should of spoke up as soon as. It must of been incredibly difficult for them to prove and by this point they might of only had the fact that she was present at this point, so perhaps day shifts just meant more eyes on her? Also, people don’t want to be wrong either.

 

[Tofino]

Agree with all that. The defence and prosecution can also sit on reports that don’t work in their favour. So they instruct their expert witness and if it doesn’t come back in their favour they don’t use it. So this is where the volume of experts used can be interesting. I don’t think there will be many cases where someone defending NG will not have their own expert to say something different. It can’t make cases impossible to convict because the expert can’t say with 100% certainty- there’s not a great deal of evidence that would pass that test! Especially if reasonable doubt also is creating scenarios from outside the perimeter of the case and evidence. Nobody would get a conviction unless they videoed themselves committing the crime and sent it to police ha. X

Admittedly I’ve not followed a huge amount of trials but of those I have I don’t think I’ve ever seen a medical expert commit to anything with 100% certainty. They used words like ‘highly unlikely’.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

This is what I've been saying!!!! Don't get me wrong she's done things I wouldn't be happy with as a parent such as the searching on FB. But the double standards when it comes to alot of things. Lucy does such and such ' KILLER, GET THE PITCHFORKS!!! Someone else does the same thing ' well at the time it's understandable they didn't note down never seen before medical incidents with tiny babies '. The same people who let someone they allegedly suspected was in some way responsible for ending the lives of BABIES carry on roaming the wards are the same people we are meant to trust now? It's far fetched to think those same people would throw someone under the bus?

I thought we’d agreed to stop all this catty sarcastic stuff and keep an open mind.

 

[Windowtothewall]

'so rare that no one has ever seen it before'

This is complicated stuff, because unusual doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Medical research is always ongoing.

We are a very small country in a huge world. These are symptoms that are classed as unusual by a finite number of medical experts.

It may have happened before but the scope needs to widened.

Of course everything else looks as dodgy as hell, but when we are dealing with 'unusual symptoms' and 'hindsight' then the evidence becomes a 'grey area'.

In addition, even if this is the result of an unnatural death, then they need solid proof that LL was the one who caused that. Doing some dodgy Facebook searches and writing a note is not solid enough.

So by all means, the jury may find her guilty, but it doesn't mean her defence will stop trying and if they find anything, then her case will be up for appeal.

And with it being a high profile case, I think her defence will want to fight that.

But so far the defence hasn't provided any alternative theories that have been verified by experts.

All we have are 3 medical experts who have given their opinion that they believe this was deliberate/administered. If the defence thinks there's another possibility, it's on them to find an expert who will testify to it. So far we haven't see that, and they haven't done a good job of dismantling the prosecution's witnesses/experts either. When they produce their own experts and evidence, it will be a better comparison. But atm I would trust these medical experts, because the defence hasn't given me anything more credible. GOSH is a world leader in children's healthcare so someone from there is pretty credible to me.

As an aside, this may be a small island, but doctors and researchers collaborate world wide to share case studies and findings..... I would think someone who works at GOSH is a world leader in his field of study. "He is widely recognized as one of the world’s leading clinical researchers in children’s imaging"

 

[sassmaster3000]

My attempt at 'profiling' LL puts her at an over achiever, probably slightly anxious person who hyper focuses on situations. From what I understand also far, very close to her family although she's an only child. Single, and works extensive hours through dedication to her work.

Amateur psychology mind.

Well you’ve just described me to a T, and I’ve never killed anyone
That’s what I don’t like about profiling - you can make pretty much any profile fit the narrative that you want.

Has anyone seen the supervet on channel 4?
There’s two ways of describing him
1) a super dedicated vet who values his career more than having a family, lives in his practice so that he is available for 24/7 on calls, and cares for nothing aside from his patients
2) a complete loner who has no life outside of work, to the extent that he’s moved into the place.

I’m sure the supervet is lovely! But just an example of how you can spin the profile to whatever fits your narrative.

Also not disagreeing with you @avabella! I’m sorry to have seen you piled on so much on these threads. Just wanted to reply because I identified so much with your profiling

 

[mRsKbRoOkS]

I'm going to be honest. I've jumped from camp not guilty to camp unsure but errring on the not guilty side. But I just had a thought. I know people say initially coroners wasn't looking for signs of foul play but surely it would show up regardless? Like for example me strangling my fella and then setting fire to the house to cover it up? A PM would still show he'd been strangled?

*For clarification I'm not planning to strangle my partner*

Since I’ve heard they were originally investigating 17 deaths between that year I am swaying to NG. My reasoning’s are because, while I didn’t think the evidence we heard so far was compelling and if it was babies A and B alone I’d say NG, I just couldn’t get over the amount coincidences while in Letbys care. I agree a lot is circumstantial, however, enough circumstantial evidence can point to guilty. The prosecution stated it was a process of elimination, and Letby was the “constant malevolent presence”! However, now I hear that actually there were 17 deaths. I assuming the 9 not included (one was dropped) is because, 1) some weren’t all that suspicious- I think 2 have been eliminated on such grounds, but 2), the other 7 didn’t fit into the process of elimination as letby just wasn’t there and somewhat throws that theory out the window!! This entire case is a minefield! I’m so confused what to think anymore.

 

[MmmB777]

Another thing that struck me is suggesting it was caused by the cpr…. Well why did the baby need cpr? If reason the baby crashes is air embolism which I think there’s no evidence to suggest it was anything else. It can’t be then the cpr is the cause of the air later found.

 

[wildgreen]

Yes I also believed it was more the colouring/pattern than mottling itself.

Just a thought, do we know for sure it was her colleagues who made the website?

Nothing is every really gone from the internet.

If this is the site, then it almost certainly appears it was not a colleague that set it up. It doesn't even appear to be someone who knows her. It's just information from the press at the time.

It almost sounds like an American set it up by the language - attorney, attending physician, patsy, criticized instead of criticised. I could be wrong though.

Lucy Letby Is Innocent

She is accused of murdering eight babies and attempting to murder ten more. Is she a scapegoat for hospital mismanagement?

web.archive.org

 

[EllsBellsWells]

Because people haven’t agreed with your post (the fb one) you are saying they should just scroll past if they don’t want to read it. Makes it sound like you only want people to comment if they agree with you. It’s not an argument to say you disagree with someone’s take on something. Every thread has been back and forth with different opinions and takes on things. On the whole it’s not been arguing.

I think it’s fine to disagree with someone (and some really interesting discussions come from that, as long as people are respectful) but probably not fine to tell someone to not post something just because they personally think that it’s not true and/or relevant. I’m not wanting to speak for people but I think this is where this disagreement has come from.

edited to add that I’ve just cross posted with the above!

 

[Tofino]

So we now have the doctor and the nurse (who was shift leader, does that make her senior?) saying about the skin discolouration. That makes the absence of his notes on it less of an issue.

I’m really on the fence about the presence of other people in the room. It’s hard to believe someone could be so bold but at the same time, if someone is in the mindset of wanting to harm babies then who knows what they are capable of and how much of a risk they are prepared to take. We know at the point he started to collapse she was on her own at the incubator because the handover nurse was at the computer.

I’m presuming it’s possible she had her back to people or they had their backs to her, or engrossed in other things. I’m surprised none of that has been questioned (or covered in reporting) although I appreciate it would be hard to remember. I have no idea how noticeable it would be to administer the air even if people were nearby, if that’s what she did at that point of time.

 

[noharmdone]

Do have any information on how Lucy is behaving in court? Be interesting to hear how she is reacting to various allegations and such like...

I'm not following the live links 100% so sorry if I've missed something

I read 'emotionless' earlier on but as a PP mentioned, she would be damned if she did or damned if she didn't. Plus she's had 6 years of this, you probably would have no tears left