UK - Healthcare worker arrested on suspicion of murder/attempted murder of a number of babies, 2018

[Whitehall 1212]

Like the firefighter who starts fires?

Gotta be either that, or a deep seated jealousy or misguided revenge. I'd be interested to know what, if anything, was going on in her personal life in 2015.

In terms of motive, if she is guilty, then her personal background should point the way, if it has been thoroughly investigated.

 

[MsBetsy]

In terms of motive, if she is guilty, then her personal background should point the way, if it has been thoroughly investigated.

I wonder if she's had any psychiatric evaluations. I can't help but think a person capable of harming innocent babies must have psychopathic tendencies.

It just doesn't make sense at this point because we really don't know what evidence there is against her.

 

[sleepyhead25]

This is such a bizarre case.

Part of me thinks, and hopes that she hasn’t done it and that she is becoming the scapegoat for the hospital trusts failings which they seem to admit themselves and that the increase in deaths is solely because of staffing issues etc. The fact there has been a number of big resignations since LL has been in the media focus shows that all was not well within the trust.

Really interesting to read about people’s thoughts around motivation if she is proved to be guilty. I hadn’t been able to think of any kind of motive until coming back onto websleuths but seeking attention from the sickest of babies / playing the hero /comforting parents and or/ being seeing to put them babies out of their misery if she personally felt they were going to have very little quality of life makes sense.

Wonder what triggered it if it did start suddenly - or if not - how she managed to keep a ‘lid’ on it before the killing spree of 2015/2016 - did she purposely not kill too many before this time not to arouse suspicion? Did she not have the opportunity? Or did something happen in her personal life that triggered ‘15/‘16 happening?

Guilty or not the hospital took way too long to pick this up imo. They should have noticed the increased neonatal deaths sooner and requested toxicology reports on some of the babies to have died later to give a slightly clearer picture. I mean three babies passing in the space of a days when that was sometimes all they had for a year. Toxicology reports could have ruled foul play out surely?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

This is such a bizarre case.

Part of me thinks, and hopes that she hasn’t done it and that she is becoming the scapegoat for the hospital trusts failings which they seem to admit themselves and that the increase in deaths is solely because of staffing issues etc. The fact there has been a number of big resignations since LL has been in the media focus shows that all was not well within the trust.

Really interesting to read about people’s thoughts around motivation if she is proved to be guilty. I hadn’t been able to think of any kind of motive until coming back onto websleuths but seeking attention from the sickest of babies / playing the hero /comforting parents and or/ being seeing to put them babies out of their misery if she personally felt they were going to have very little quality of life makes sense.

Wonder what triggered it if it did start suddenly - or if not - how she managed to keep a ‘lid’ on it before the killing spree of 2015/2016 - did she purposely not kill too many before this time not to arouse suspicion? Did she not have the opportunity? Or did something happen in her personal life that triggered ‘15/‘16 happening?

Guilty or not the hospital took way too long to pick this up imo. They should have noticed the increased neonatal deaths sooner and requested toxicology reports on some of the babies to have died later to give a slightly clearer picture. I mean three babies passing in the space of a days when that was sometimes all they had for a year. Toxicology reports could have ruled foul play out surely?

If LL is found guilty then I feel that she will be shown to have a cluster B personality disorder, with all the inherent traits, including manipulative behaviours, deceit, lacking genuine empathy, lacking feelings of guilt, sadistic behaviours etc

It may be that something occurred within her life that gave rise to feelings of extreme rejection or a loss of feeling in control. A quiet rage burned with a need for vengeance. Maybe she was passed over for promotion, disciplined, a relationship break-up or not being able to have children.

Whatever the outcome it would appear that the working practices at the hospital left a lot to be desired and may well have contributed to the environment in which deaths and injury could occur.

Senior NHS management have got away with criminal sanctions for appalling failures for far too long. It is a toxic organisation within the senior management structure.

MOO of course

 

[Angleterre]

The other possibility is that there isn't a smoking gun but it's got to a point where the case just isn't going to get any stronger so they've decided to go for it.

Doesn’t work like that- they have to have a realistic prospect of a conviction which the CPS put As over 90% for it to be put before the Crown Court for trial

 

[Angleterre]

One aspect of this case I cannot wrap my head around is the timing. She was working at the hospital between 2011 and 2018, but all of the murders/attempted murders occurred within a 12-month window. What was she doing the rest of the time?

Ok I will do my best to explain this as simply as I possibly can.
When you are the
SIO of an enquiry like this , it’s brought to your attention about some concerns regarding the initial deaths. So you take a look at it and you realise that it warrants further investigation than what originally intended. However, what you can’t do is go on what the DEFENCE call a ‘trawling expedition’ which is to go through her whole time of employment at this hospital and to try and fit anything that happened which had question marks around it , to the circumstances now surrounding the accused LETBY. So what you have to do is set out a terms of reference and a structured approach and choose a sample year that you will concentrate on ( usually the year where there has been most occurrences) and solely investigate that one years period . It can be extended buy you have to be careful to not, as I said before, go trawling for other incidents that fit what you currently are already aware of. It’s called unfair practices and personally, although I don’t agree, as the SIO, a time limited period to investigate is needed because as we have seen here , this investigation covers mainly a one year at a time period and it’s taken 3 years to gather sufficient evidence to put before a court but if you covered her whole employment period, if she is responsible for more, can you imagine how much more time the investigation would have taken and that in itself becomes a problem because as time goes on, witness memories fade etc But also wether we like it or not, it’s a cost factor and although this is the worst thing to ever happen in a lifetime to these babies families, it’s only one case for a Police force to investigate and they likely have many more and where does the funding come from? There isn’t an endless stream . Plus , once you reach a certain amount of provable charges against an alleged offender, it serves no further purpose (to the legal system and Police / Prosecution, albeit it does to the victims family if their child’s death or attempted , is not included in the list of charges brought against Letby ) in terms of the sentencing guidelines, as to what sentence she would get, there’s a cut off wether we are talking about 8 or 28 murders as you can only be sentenced to life in prison once .
Does that help ? That’s trying to explain it in very simple terms.

 

[Deleted member 238128]

What evidence do people think the police could have been looking for when they were checking drain pipes and digging in the garden during the house search?

I’m just catching up on the thread now...my first thoughts were did investigators pick up on fact that something was missing from the room/ ward that each incidence took place in - did each parent report that a piece of clothing or something belonging to them or their baby couldn’t be found?

 

[Sarahlou]

I’m just catching up on the thread now...my first thoughts were did investigators pick up on fact that something was missing from the room/ ward that each incidence took place in - did each parent report that a piece of clothing or something belonging to them or their baby couldn’t be found?

That would be pretty damn incriminating if they found 'souvenirs'

 

[Supernovae]

The Crown Prosecution Service will need to have authorised the charges after application of both the evidential test and public interest test.

The 'let's give it a go and see what happens' scenario is not an available option.

There must be a prima facie case based on the evidence that has been obtained.

Doesn’t work like that- they have to have a realistic prospect of a conviction which the CPS put As over 90% for it to be put before the Crown Court for trial

Obviously, at a basic level they have to believe that they've got enough evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. What I'm suggesting is that if they had a killer piece of evidence a year ago for a watertight case then they would have charged her sooner and if they didn't have that killer bit of evidence then, given the facts of this particular case, and barring a confession, it's unlikely to have suddenly materialised now. And crucially, it's unlikely to suddenly materialise at any point in the future. My suspicion is that the charging decision may have happened now, over two years since she was first arrested and 4- 5 years after the alleged offences, for precisely that reason. They've got no choice but to go with the case they've got, even if it's borderline and relatively circumstantial, or not charge her at all.

 

[Supernovae]

Ok I will do my best to explain this as simply as I possibly can.
However, what you can’t do is go on what the DEFENCE call a ‘trawling expedition’ which is to go through her whole time of employment at this hospital and to try and fit anything that happened which had question marks around it , to the circumstances now surrounding the accused LETBY. So what you have to do is set out a terms of reference and a structured approach and choose a sample year that you will concentrate on ( usually the year where there has been most occurrences) and solely investigate that one years period . It can be extended buy you have to be careful to not, as I said before, go trawling for other incidents that fit what you currently are already aware of. It’s called unfair practices and personally, although I don’t agree, as the SIO, a time limited period to investigate is needed because as we have seen here , this investigation covers mainly a one year at a time period and it’s taken 3 years to gather sufficient evidence to put before a court ...

Even with those limitations, it still seems like there's a risk of going back to the same well, and prosecutor's fallacy as outlined by Ben Goldacre, in the following article:

Losing the lottery – Bad Science

Here is an analogy. Imagine I am standing near a large wooden barn with an enormous machine gun. I place a blindfold over my eyes and – laughing maniacally – I fire off many thousands and thousands of bullets into the side of the barn. I then drop the gun, walk over to the wall, examine it closely for some time, all over, pacing up and down: I find one spot where there are three bullet holes close to each other, and then I draw a target around them, announcing proudly that I am an excellent marksman. You would, I think, disagree with both my methods and conclusions for that deduction. But this is exactly what has happened in Lucia’s case: the prosecutors have found 7 deaths, on one nurse’s shifts, in one hospital, in one city, in one country, in the world, and then drawn a target around them. A very similar thing happened with the Sally Clark cot death case.

Before you go to your data, with your statistical tool, you have to have a specific hypothesis to test. If your hypothesis comes from analysing the data, then there is no sense in analysing the same data again to confirm it. This is a rather complex, philosophical, mathematical form of circularity: but there were also very concrete forms of circular reasoning in the case. To collect more data, the investigators went back to the wards to find more suspicious deaths. But all the people who have been asked to remember ‘suspicious incidents’ know that they are being asked because Lucia may be a serial killer. There is a high risk that “incident was suspicious” became synonymous with “Lucia was present”. Some sudden deaths when Lucia was not present are not listed in the calculations: because they are in no way suspicious, because Lucia was not present.

 

[Alyce]

The nurse looked tearful as she was denied bail.

Susan, 60, and John Letby, 77, from Hereford, had been watching proceedings from a public gallery at Chester crown court.

The court heard Letby’s trial is likely to take up to six months – and unlikely to happen until next summer.


The case was adjourned until next week for legal submissions and then to February 19, 2021.



'Baby killer' nurse mouths 'I love you' as she's denied bail and taken to cells

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Obviously, at a basic level they have to believe that they've got enough evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. What I'm suggesting is that if they had a killer piece of evidence a year ago for a watertight case then they would have charged her sooner and if they didn't have that killer bit of evidence then, given the facts of this particular case, and barring a confession, it's unlikely to have suddenly materialised now. And crucially, it's unlikely to suddenly materialise at any point in the future. My suspicion is that the charging decision may have happened now, over two years since she was first arrested and 4- 5 years after the alleged offences, for precisely that reason. They've got no choice but to go with the case they've got, even if it's borderline and relatively circumstantial, or not charge her at all.

I think it is important to understand that each offence being investigated must pass both stages of the CPS Full Code Test for a charge to be authorised. There is NOT an option to charge with an offence if the standards are not met.

This is a complex enquiry with a number of serious incidents being investigated.

The police have a remit to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry. This not only means obtaining evidence that supports the arrested persons involvement in an offence but also gathering any evidence that may support the arrested persons innocence.

Consider that remit to pursue ALL those reasonable lines of enquiry for both guilt and innocence. This will go a long way to explaining the long period of bail and the three instances of arrest.

There is rarely a smoking gun. Painstaking detective work is the name of the game.

 

[dotr]

Random thoughts.. speculation, imo, fwiw.

It might be interesting to know if all/most of the babies, were of similar ethnicity/religion or not.

Were the babies that died more inclined to have long term disabilities, than the other babies who were not in peril of dying( getting murdered)?

Were the parents of the deceased babies, considered more "high maintenance" while their babies were still alive? ( The nurse in Ontario who murdered many senior citizens targeted the patients she considered "annoying/problematic/demanding")

Crazy thought, but were the babies that died all delivered by the same (male perhaps) doctor? ie.
misdirected revenge?

 

[Deleted member 238128]

One thought I had was were they all suffering from Sepsis - it can develop quickly after birth and there’s an increased risk if the baby is premature. I’m interested in the “unusual mottling” of the skin the babies had but I notice that it’s reported a little differently from one media outlet to the other, for example The Sun says the mottling was noticed “after resuscitation” but The Daily Fail says it was after the babies died. It reads like either way the rash wasn’t present before tragic events played out and if so, that is very odd.

 

[Rosegold68]

so many questions wondering if she was somehow acting as an 'angel of mercy' type, or if there was a reason to tie in with her disordered thinking

when males murder we NEVER think this

i'm wondering if she was just plain nasty, evil,twisted....a monster....like we instantly label male killers of children

this is my own opinion

 

[Sarahlou]

so many questions wondering if she was somehow acting as an 'angel of mercy' type, or if there was a reason to tie in with her disordered thinking

when males murder we NEVER think this

i'm wondering if she was just plain nasty, evil,twisted....a monster....like we instantly label male killers of children

this is my own opinion

I think people tend to think that because these types of killings are very unusual and different (imo) If it was a male nurse I'd be wondering the same about them. I'd really like to know what made her do this (if she is guilty)

 

[JosieJo]

At the moment if guilty and without any evidence available as yet obviously..I'm going for the munchausan by proxy theory ...enjoyed the drama of the collapse and involment in the parents grief ... just me pure speculation at the moment

 

[HollyHunter9]

At the moment if guilty and without any evidence available as yet obviously..I'm going for the munchausan by proxy theory ...enjoyed the drama of the collapse and involment in the parents grief ... just me pure speculation at the moment

This is what I'm leaning towards too. I also think sometimes people in these positions let it go to their head a bit. They see themselves as gods and enjoy the attention and pedestal that the families often put them on. I would also guess that after she got away with the first one it gave her a bit of a thrill. I do also think the hospital needs an external investigation. Very odd it went on for years and no one noticed ?

 

[Deleted member 238128]

Police search home of nurse, 28, after arresting woman over murder of 8 babies

I had thought it was just the parents who were on holiday in Torquay just before Lucy was arrested, but it reads like Lucy was with them...maybe the hospital noticed something while Lucy was absent which triggered suspicions?

 

[Angleterre]

Obviously, at a basic level they have to believe that they've got enough evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. What I'm suggesting is that if they had a killer piece of evidence a year ago for a watertight case then they would have charged her sooner and if they didn't have that killer bit of evidence then, given the facts of this particular case, and barring a confession, it's unlikely to have suddenly materialised now. And crucially, it's unlikely to suddenly materialise at any point in the future. My suspicion is that the charging decision may have happened now, over two years since she was first arrested and 4- 5 years after the alleged offences, for precisely that reason. They've got no choice but to go with the case they've got, even if it's borderline and relatively circumstantial, or not charge her at all.

Even if they had as you word it “ a killer piece of evidence “ a year ago, they wouldn’t necessarily charge then on one case alone because they want to keep all the indictments together at Crown Court because if they had charged her on one of the cases where death occurred then that case would then have to go through the process and dates set for the case to be heard at Court but it would then be a stand alone case rather than one of many which shows a course of conduct. I wouldn’t want to split the indictments. I think it needs to be borne in mind that they are investigating 17 cases and therefore it’s about getting the evidence for each and every one and therefore, IMOO the three year investigation is not indicative of not having a solid prime facia case as opposed to having circumstantial with just enough to charge at this point in time . I don’t believe that to be the case. I have personally worked on a case where two offenders were subject of an investigation from 1960 to 1995 and they were arrested and bailed and arrested and released on numerous occasions so that as we built the case, any issues that needed clarification of the evidence could be put to the defendants which in turn would either move the case forward or put to bed a line of enquiry. My case had 108 victims and took 4 years to get it ready to finally enable it to go to crown court. So I don’t think that we can say, until we hear the opening of the prosecutions case. It’s all kept very low key and quiet as much as can be as it’s not necessary to increase the public’s fear of crime. ALL MOO