Lucy Letby Case

[Treesy19]

I’ll put it out there - I think this is going to be another Harold or Beverly. That’s my gut. A lot of evidence is coming otherwise I doubt the go ahead.

 

[Parsnipface]

When children are murdered, even toddlers, parents are left with fond memories and even though they've lost their precious children, they've something left. Photos, videos, teddy's they loved.
These parents have been left with nothing and I think that's why I find this case so emotive.

I think we all would feel the same here, that you see a tiny helpless baby and you'd give your soul to protect it, it's just human instinct. So to imagine this pretty blonde nurse with her seemingly ordinary life would seek a job where the goal is access to these tiny beings and would choose to harm them in anyway, it feels so fucked up its quite unbelievable.
But sadly, people may seek out a job to allow them access to the vulnerable, babies, elderly, disabled, just to abuse their power.

Are we swayed by LL because she looks angelic? She looks like a girl who'd help your granny with her shopping, is that giving us bias? Usually I don't fall for that but she just doesn't "look like she'd hurt a fly" and I'm not even sorry to say it, I can't shift that thought.

 

[Be More Pacific]

Does anyone else feel quite anxious about this? I feel a dickhead even saying this, but my stomach is in bits.

Honestly, please don't feel like a dick. I woke up early (because I had to bid on something on E-Bay that some madman had set to end at 8.41am ) but I feel a strange sense of foreboding this morning. Bit of a knot in my tummy.

I very much doubt we'll hear any evidence today - I think that will be towards the end of the week (if she doesn't plead guilty at the last minute which I have a nagging feeling she might do) - but this is what I've been waiting four years for. What evidence do they have against her, how strong is it and what was her motive? That's what fascinates me - not so much how people are killed but motives and relationships. It's why I do so much social media stalking because it's a goldmine for that kind of stuff.

Full disclosure (and I've talked about the on the Real Life Crime & Murder threads) - I'm from Chester, I was born at that hospital and my mum worked there for 35+ years in maternity care. She doesn't know LL - she never worked in NICU, and her role had changed by the time LL was working there, but she spent many, many years on those wards looking after mothers and babies. One of her close friends though did work with LL on occasion and was interviewed by the police around six times specifically about her. It's really strange because I've not barely talked with my mum at all about the case (and she's the one who got me fascinated with crime) but I did see her recently and she said her friend is very tight lipped over whether she is giving evidence or not. And that's genuinely the extent of my "inside knowledge".

I follow a lot of murder trials online through media reporting - pre Covid, it was probably around 250+ a year. The first trial I ever followed live reporting on was Rhys Jones back in 2008. And I've followed some other big ones since.

But this one feels different. Maybe it's because of the personal connection? Maybe it's because I know how massive nationally this is going to be? Maybe it's just the emotiveness of a nurse killing babies? I don't know. But it's a weird feeling right now for sure.

This one is saying the judge and Lucy are both appearing via video link. Is that strange at this stage or is it because it might only be jury selection type stuff?

That report is from an very old hearing with a different judge when the case was still being heard in Chester.

 

[Polythene Pam]

What would happen IF she is innocent & found innocent?
What would the police do? Could she work again?

No one is ever found innocent in a trial, only not guilty. I expect it would be up to the nursing regulator whether she could work again if she was found not guilty.
If she is innocent I doubt she'd want to go back into a line of work that caused her to go through all of this trauma. I know I wouldn't.

 

[SamPam]

"Police later questioned Letby about why she had tracked the families of her alleged victims on Facebook.
"Lucy Letby's interest in the families of the children who we say she attacked is another feature of the case which we will see as the evidence emerges," he says.
"We suggest it is an unusual interest and we will see that on occasions she searched in quick succession for several of the families of children's names who appear on this indictment."

That's pretty chilling.
https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-live-nurse-accused-of-killing-seven-babies-goes-on-trial-12716378?postid=4632349#liveblog-body

 

[Be More Pacific]

So, not just insulin used as her method of choice allegedly.

 

[Hope96]

I see Mail Online have a photograph of LL's parents arriving at court. Awful.

The Daily Mail is full of vile, shameless journalists so I expect nothing less from them unfortunately.

 

[Squittel]

That’s a good point. Insulin is to bring sugars down!
Are there any medical people on here who can say when you would use insulin for a baby?

This is a classic “not a doctor but” BUT I have a diabetic cat who I have to administer insulin to twice daily. He is similar in weight to that of a newborn baby and I have to check his blood levels VERY carefully before administering his dosages because being cat sized, an overdose of even quite a small level can be potentially lethal and if he’s having a good day, I have to either miss a dose or give him significantly less. (Cats can also randomly stop being diabetic because cats are arseholes, this means checking his blood sugar a lot because even the fraction I have to give him could cause death if he didn’t need it)

So what I’m saying is, administering insulin to a newborn even in small amounts could be absolutely lethal very quickly. I don’t know if many people who aren’t diabetic realise but those tiny bottles insulin comes in are only 2.5mls (there are some bigger ones) and 2.5mls can last for a good couple of weeks. The amounts a small human or animal needs is absolutely minuscule.

 

[WonderShade18]

I work in healthcare, and I can categorically say there's not one reason I could think of to look up the families of those in my care. My work is work, and once I leave the building it's out of my head. If there is evidence to suggest that she done that, then I am sorry, it's a weird thing to do.

 

[Sendparent]

Been following this thread since it was opened and its already approaching the end quickly, it might be worth having a wiki. Over on the nursemum thread we never did one and now it would take too long to go back and list all the important incidents, negligence and facts so it may be worth having a wiki on this thread from the start. If this is going to go on for 6 months, there is going to be a lot of fast moving threads and it will be difficult to keep up.

 

[CeeCeeBloom]

There was a case in Ireland (different jurisdiction and different set of circumstances but I think somehow relevant)

2 underage boys lured a young girl to a house and gave her the most horrific end. The boys were underage but her name was EVERYWHERE her photos were everywhere suggestions she was weird or other derogatory terms were splashed across the papers but the two boys weren't ever named. It should of been the other way. I can't believe people would go LOOKING at victims on social media.
People in Ireland were brought to court for trying to share the guilty parties on social media.
Today one of the boys dropped an appeal and the victims mam, who lost her husband this year, was dragged back to court for him to then drop it.
The victims of this crime go so far beyond the poor person who is no longer with us.
People also need to remember that.

 

[Be More Pacific]

I do disagree with her losing her freedom in the run up to trial - I imagine they’ve not had a choice but to do this incase she tried to harm herself and didn’t make it to trial but she’s still innocent until proven otherwise and shouldn’t have spent years of her life locked away for potentially crimes she didn’t commit.

Bail is very rarely given in murder cases in the UK, never mind for someone accused of multiple child murders/attempted murders. It used to be that you faced trial six months after charging in murder cases, unless it was something more complex like a mental health defence, but the custody time limits had to be extended due to the pandemic and now we have even further delays caused by the barristers strikes. Unfortunately, right now, everyone on remand is in the same boat as Lucy Letby. The worst delays are in London.

Yeah could be that - though didn’t she get arrested a couple of times then released on bail for the same crimes and just wasn’t allowed to have direct contact with patients whilst investigations were pending. Surely with the severity she shouldn’t have been allowed back to the hospital even on admin duties. Its the most bizzare case can’t wait to hear the evidence

She was arrested but not charged until almost two years later (from memory, she was rearrested during this time so they could put more charges to her) She was released under investigation but had to report to the police station periodically - I know because The Sun got a photo one time! I'm 100% certain she was not allowed back into the hospital after the first arrest.

Is the trial going to be reported live like many others?

Absolutely yes (unless the judge doesn't lift reporting restrictions) although I suspect that, after the opening statements, it will quickly become pretty boring to the vast majority of people.

It's difficult though, because she's never been innocent until proven guilty. She's been guilty from the moment this case was published.

How did her name and identity even get to be made public?

If she's guilty, then she's a disgrace but I really cannot help but think there's something amiss with all this.

Do the CPS need concrete and substantial evidence that she's done this? Or can it jusy be 'she was working at the time?'

100% agree on your first point.

The press named her from the first arrest - the police never did until she was charged (as it absolutely should be) They trawled her Facebook account, published photographs of her, her house, her address. If she is innocent, her life is over anyway. Seems they learnt nothing from Christopher Jefferies.

Murder convictions are obtained all the time on solely circumstantial cases - they can surprisingly be more compelling than cases with direct evidence. No doubt I'll be explaining the pencils theory at some point! But I do feel, and have said from the start, that there's unlikely to be a smoking gun and that this will boil down to shift patterns, who else was/wasn't there, ruling everyone else out. I would be flabbergasted if she's kept a diary detailing her child killing exploits for example.

Wonder why the passed away children aren't being named?

They were all named at the start, including the alleged attempted murder victims. But it was very clear from the last court hearing that severe reporting restrictions are now in place (quite rightly so in my opinion) and they now cannot be named for legal reasons. I would imagine that restriction will be lifted once the trial gets underway.

Does anyone know of any news sites who will be covering it live?

All of them I would imagine unless the judge doesn't allow it.

The last hearing was in Manchester so my guess for live coverage would be Manchester Evening News? Purely a guess from the location though.

The trial is being held in Manchester. It was moved away from Chester early on.

The BBC’s wording was that she allegedly attacked the infants.

Well, it is alleged because nothing has been proven yet.

I can only speak for myself but for those of us that regularly follow crime stories / trials - something about this one does not add up -and if something feels amiss, usually it means that something is. What is amiss - we may never find out, even with a trial. But the strange way the entire case has been handled and the treatment of LL has me leaning towards a potential cover up.

I have to say I don't really understand this comment or any of the comments saying how locked down/secretive this has all been.

Just to be clear - that's EXACTLY how it should be. Once someone is charged, all reporting should cease except for scheduled court hearings. We, the public, should know nothing about a murder case, except for the name and age of the victim, where it happened, and name, age and address of the accused, until the opening statement on the first day of trial. Doesn't stop some of us stalking on social media *ahem* but that's not being reported nationally. I suspected it but, as I said, it became very clear at the last hearing that the judge has put in some severe reporting restrictions probably due to the very over zealous (and that's being polite) initial reporting by the media. It is them who constantly muddy these waters. The judge has stamped his authority on this, quite rightly so.

We are NOT the USA where cases are dissected in intimate detail before trial - Lori and Chad Daybell being the new Chris Watts over there - and thank fucking Christ for that.

Everyone in this country is entitled to a fair trial. Everyone. No matter what they may or may not have done.

Are there other recent trials that have gone in for so long?

Can't think of any off the top of my head although I can say that trials involving gangs with multiple defendants can take months because each defendant has a defence barrister who can question each and every witness. I know of one in London recently that had to be split into two trials due to the number of defendants/Covid restrictions whereas they would usually be tried altogether. We like to round 'em all up at once rather than individual trials like the USA.

The Lucy Letby cases involves a huge number of victims and evidence will have to be heard in relation to each one.

I also assume that each family of one of the babies will have their own barrister cross examining LL so there will be 17 odd barristers on the prosecuting team plus the one from her own defence team. No wonder it will take months

I believe it's just one prosecutor (for the CPS) and one defence barrister (for LL) in a criminal proceeding (and also their junior staff)

 

[riddleme89]

Everybody has different opinions I think she is guilty however I will have an open mind and see how the trial goes . So far I’m sorry but it looks to me like they have got enough evidence . The fact she was on shift every single time and she was the ONLY a member of staff to be present all 24 occasions . No other staff member was present more than 7 occasions . Injecting air is Not a failing that happens . They said on some babies it took 3 attempts to kill . Everybody can believe what they like I was on the fence but I do feel she is guilty . Also the collapsing happened on her night shifts then she moved to days and the pattern shifted also extremely dodgy thing to happen especially when they said she was the only nurse present on all 24 occasions .

 

[MoveBtchGetOutTheWay]

Either way if LL is found guilty or not, the hospital should be held responsible as well in my opinion. I don't know much about NICU but I listened to a YouTube earlier and the hospital had failed to provide adequate staffing levels, correct amount of registrars on duty etc. If a crime was committed by one person, they shouldn't of even of had the opportunity to do it. Had there have been adequate staffing levels, senior consultants etc on duty then the outcome may well have been different, if LL is found guilty, there was an opportunity and she took it.

 

[churro]

I’m really feeling there is something amiss in this case and that this is a huge cover up. I sort of hope it is because the thought of a human being deliberately letting / causing babies to die is just unfathomable.

I do disagree with her losing her freedom in the run up to trial - I imagine they’ve not had a choice but to do this incase she tried to harm herself and didn’t make it to trial but she’s still innocent until proven otherwise and shouldn’t have spent years of her life locked away for potentially crimes she didn’t commit.

 

[e.l.lofthouse]

I'll never understand anyone wanting to know the names

 

[2ofeach]

These photos of her are quite disturbing. She is said to be so caring yet she is clearly mocking intellectual disability in at least two of them. It would stand out to me even if it was a random person‘s photos I had stumbled on and goes beyond normal goofing off imo.

How have you come to that conclusion?
Have you never pulled a daft goofy face for a photo....ever?
My family would going down for life based on your suspicions.....

 

[yellowboat]

If she’s guilty I can only think it’s for “fame”. Down in history. She’s known. Was she a nobody all her childhood. This has made her the centre of attention. Once it’s over- and assuming guilt here, I’d really like them to analyse her background if not done already.

I thought more ‘glory’ than fame. When you’ve had a bad shift or a tricky shift everyone really rally’s round you and there’s an outpouring of love. Maybe she became addicted to that feeling?

 

[dottynotty]

Not really she might feel her life is already over imagine being accused of killing babies when you haven't. Mud sticks these allegations might be fresh in our minds but she's had this investigation going on since 2017 she's been in prison for 2 years . She probably feels like it's never going to end. Even the most mentally robust person would struggle with that I would absolutely not be surprised if she was a suicide risk.



I think she's made attempts to self harm/end her life hence the delays.

As a nurse it’s your career and if you look at striking off hearings sometimes you think, wow that’s harsh and it makes you realise how vulnerable your career actually is. If I was in her position and actually innocent I’d be devastated and my faith in the system would be lost. Where I work we have had a higher death rate as patients have waited longer for surgery due to Covid and they are generally sicker. Could they pin deaths on me I don’t think so - but to make the narrative fit and reduce investigations into the trust….I’m not saying she is innocent but the whole thing doesn’t sit right.

 

[e.l.lofthouse]

Insulin is NOT an accident. At all. Fucking hell fire.