UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #10

[bbsaz]

judging by that picture the entrance is on the left or behind the photo. Ie in the corner. Doesn’t make sense from a layout perspective to have a table in your way when you walk into a room Which would be the case if the door is directly behind the photo taker. Bruised legs, dropped equipment, obstruction etc. Jmo.

could be that where the light is coming from though that that’s the wall with the entrance so the door is on that wall in the bottom left hand corner. Assuming the left hand side wall has no table and the nurse was at the table on the right and LL was standing in the door she still has a clearer line of sight than the nurse. It still makes no sense to have that table on the right in the way of anyone walking into the room with the equipment on the right hand side. Granted though LL would be further away.

I reckon the police are clever enough to take a picture of the view from the doorway, by standing in the doorway...

<modsnip - rude>

 

[bbsaz]

I think it’s quite far fetched that the defence are going with child I’s ‘extreme immaturity’ as the reason for her death imo. Child I was born in August and passed away late October, so by this point her corrected age would have been around full term. Sounds like the defence want jurors to picture child I as a tiny, vulnerable, premature baby, whereas at the time of her death she would have likely been roughly the size of an average new born.

If guilty, I think this charge in particular would show that the victims were certainly targeted for a reason. If a person were just targeting nicu babies at random, surely they’d go for the smaller, more premature and poorly ones. If Child I was indeed targeted repeatedly with attempts on her life for around a month, until eventually being murdered, this would show an obsession with harming this particular baby IMO. Like some sort of mission that one feels just ‘has’ to be completed.

I wonder if baby I or her parents had something in common with other parents in this case… was she an IVF baby? Were her parents considered older or younger? I just have this niggling feeling that, if guilty, these babies were ‘chosen’ for some reason, maybe dislike towards the parents, jealousy, belief that child I was just ‘not meant to be’. I understand identities in this case are protected so we are not likely to learn much about the families of the victims, however, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a common denominator when they are all compared. All MOO of course.

I have noticed that the babies all seem to belong to couples. You often read about Mum and Dad. Of course, many babies are born to a Mum where the Dad isnt on the scene. Yet they all seem to be couples here... and many multiples too.

 

[ColourPurple]

I think it’s quite far fetched that the defence are going with child I’s ‘extreme immaturity’ as the reason for her death imo. Child I was born in August and passed away late October, so by this point her corrected age would have been around full term. Sounds like the defence want jurors to picture child I as a tiny, vulnerable, premature baby, whereas at the time of her death she would have likely been roughly the size of an average new born.

If guilty, I think this charge in particular would show that the victims were certainly targeted for a reason. If a person were just targeting nicu babies at random, surely they’d go for the smaller, more premature and poorly ones. If Child I was indeed targeted repeatedly with attempts on her life for around a month, until eventually being murdered, this would show an obsession with harming this particular baby IMO. Like some sort of mission that one feels just ‘has’ to be completed.

I wonder if baby I or her parents had something in common with other parents in this case… was she an IVF baby? Were her parents considered older or younger? I just have this niggling feeling that, if guilty, these babies were ‘chosen’ for some reason, maybe dislike towards the parents, jealousy, belief that child I was just ‘not meant to be’. I understand identities in this case are protected so we are not likely to learn much about the families of the victims, however, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a common denominator when they are all compared. All MOO of course.

Apart from the ones where there was an obvious reason that their deaths would create more drama (eg twins, triplets, 100 day birthday,due date, years of trying for a baby on ivf) If guilty, I wonder if sometimes the parent's had done one little thing to irritate her. With Baby E who was full term but had an infection, the mother or father have said that they had to tell LL to go away and give them some privacy as they felt she was hovering around for no reason. With Baby I it sounds as if the mother was complaining about things like nurses with colds being near her daughter, and the cleanliness of the hospital.

Now I'm not suggesting that any of them were in the wrong to voice those things, and normally those kind of minor things would not result in anything other than perhaps a nurse being a little miffed and maybe having a moan to acolleague about it. However if you have somebody who is allegedly already targeting babies in the most horrible ways, then maybe something minor like that could be enough to make them decide to target their babies.

IMO

 

[ColourPurple]

I have noticed that the babies all seem to belong to couples. You often read about Mum and Dad. Of course, many babies are born to a Mum where the Dad isnt on the scene. Yet they all seem to be couples here... and many multiples too.

And text mentions of one dad on the floor crying. If guilty, maybe it was fathers she was allegedly targeting , or "hands on " fathers who were on the ward a lot.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

I have noticed that the babies all seem to belong to couples. You often read about Mum and Dad. Of course, many babies are born to a Mum where the Dad isnt on the scene. Yet they all seem to be couples here... and many multiples too.

Interesting point, especially as we haven’t heard about a partner of the accused. If someone had unsuccessful relationships in the past and found it difficult to find love, could that cause jealousy towards happy couples who’ve just had babies. Would it possibly make someone in that position decide that these couples shouldn’t get to take their baby home….

Also, trying to think of a possible motive IF guilty, could how often parents were visiting have factored in and caused one to develop a god complex and decide that the baby wasn’t wanted or wasn’t going to a good family. Sometimes in these cases there is an ‘Angel of death’ who decides that a child would be better off dead in order to justify their actions. So upsetting to think of but just trying to work out a possible motive if guilty, even though sometimes it’s just an urge and obsession, some just like to inflict pain on others. I get the feeling though that if guilty, the pain might have been intended for the parents more so than the babies. All MOO

 

[Blondiexoxo]

Apart from the ones where there was an obvious reason that their deaths would create more drama (eg twins, triplets, 100 day birthday,due date, years of trying for a baby on ivf) If guilty, I wonder if sometimes the parent's had done one little thing to irritate her. With Baby E who was full term but had an infection, the mother or father have said that they had to tell LL to go away and give them some privacy as they felt she was hovering around for no reason. With Baby I it sounds as if the mother was complaining about things like nurses with colds being near her daughter, and the cleanliness of the hospital.

Now I'm not suggesting that any of them were in the wrong to voice those things, and normally those kind of minor things would not result in anything other than perhaps a nurse being a little miffed and maybe having a moan to acolleague about it. However if you have somebody who is allegedly already targeting babies in the most horrible ways, then maybe something minor like that could be enough to make them decide to target their babies.

IMO

I agree this could be possible if guilty imo, some people just take an instant dislike after one little comment or action. I could see a scenario where the more annoying she found the parents, the more drama needed to be created. Such as waiting until the babies 100th day… JMO

 

[ColourPurple]

Interesting point, especially as we haven’t heard about a partner of the accused. If someone had unsuccessful relationships in the past and found it difficult to find love, could that cause jealousy towards happy couples who’ve just had babies. Would it possibly make someone in that position decide that these couples shouldn’t get to take their baby home….

Also, trying to think of a possible motive IF guilty, could how often parents were visiting have factored in and caused one to develop a god complex and decide that the baby wasn’t wanted or wasn’t going to a good family. Sometimes in these cases there is an ‘Angel of death’ who decides that a child would be better off dead in order to justify their actions. So upsetting to think of but just trying to work out a possible motive if guilty, even though sometimes it’s just an urge and obsession, some just like to inflict pain on others. I get the feeling though that if guilty, the pain might have been intended for the parents more so than the babies. All MOO

If guilty, there definitely appears to be targeting. She had many babies that she doesn't appear to have harmed in the same time period that she was allegedly harming and killing other babies. Sometimes allegedly targeting the same baby several times whilst apparently not harming others at all .

 

[Dotta]

If guilty...

Or maybe parents were perceived as quiet and peaceful, who would not make a rucus demanding investigation/autopsy, etc. or sue a hospital?
Thus making it easier to carry on without raising much attention?

As a teacher I meet all kinds of parents - and some, when they feel school is at fault would "move heaven and earth" to protect their kids - in their opinion.
JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

I reckon the police are clever enough to take a picture of the view from the doorway, by standing in the doorway...

<modsnip - rude>

<modsnip> the prosecution are going with the low light = blindness theory according to the testimony, probably realised that was their only bet. If they are trying to paint her as a liar they are doing a terrible job of it IMO.

"if you think about it, apparent inaction to a baby needing care is the opposite to pointing out a baby that could need care especially when the act is potentially self incriminating and against a supposed desire to kill or harm."

But then if you think further, it could mean that someone wanted another nurse to be the one that called in the crash cart, instead of calling it in herself. Just for deflection.

It would not be 'against' a supposed desire to kill or harm, if she had already, allegedly, taken that harmful action against the child. Now she can savour that time and watch all the chaos ensue. JMO

that’s the other thing though, the nurse was a second or two away from actually treating the baby. if the dn and LL were chatting LL would have been able to have a good look.No need for LL to point anything out if she wanted the drama. If she was tasked with keeping an eye on her for the time that the dn wasn’t in the room. It might have looked bad on LL if she did do something but didn’t say anything so might be an example of her covering her tracks though. I’m wondering if we have any reports on the monitor being switched off? I would have thought that would have been mentioned. That’s a big no no.

 

[bbsaz]

<modsnip> the prosecution are going with the low light = blindness theory according to the testimony, probably realised that was their only bet. If they are trying to paint her as a liar they are doing a terrible job of it IMO.


that’s the other thing though, the nurse was a second or two away from actually treating the baby. if the dn and LL were chatting LL would have been able to have a good look.No need for LL to point anything out if she wanted the drama. If she was tasked with keeping an eye on her for the time that the dn wasn’t in the room. It might have looked bad on LL if she did do something but didn’t say anything so might be an example of her covering her tracks though. I’m wondering if we have any reports on the monitor being switched off? I would have thought that would have been mentioned. That’s a big no no.

Dr Evans has suggested the monitor was turned off. I assume this is because Baby I was so poorly when the nurse got to her that a monitor would have been sounding, but wasnt. So must have been switched off (in his assessment)

 

[Dotta]

I’m wondering if we have any reports on the monitor being switched off? I would have thought that would have been mentioned. That’s a big no no.

The issue of monitors being switched off or not being paid attention to in this ward is troubling.

Even mother of Baby I said something about a screeching monitor and a nurse ignoring it.
Very strange.
JMO

 

[bbsaz]

Chester Standard (top)
Daily Mail (bottom)

 

[bbsaz]

My first reaction was that one of the papers deliberately altered the lighting (for sensationalism??). But actually, wasnt the nurse shown a variety of options and had to pick the one closest to how it was on the day?

 

[ColourPurple]

My first reaction was that one of the papers deliberately altered the lighting (for sensationalism??). But actually, wasnt the nurse shown a variety of options and had to pick the one closest to how it was on the day?

Yes I was just about to reply with that info lol. Luckily the jury will have been shown the photo she chose.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Dr Evans has suggested the monitor was turned off. I assume this is because Baby I was so poorly when the nurse got to her that a monitor would have been sounding, but wasnt. So must have been switched off (in his assessment)

If that’s not in the testimony for the prosecution. It’s another glaring hole. They couldn’t pin it to the accused and that could leave any amount of time that that baby was deteriorating without treatment. Those are quite poor quality pictures, that will be noticed IMO. too Blurry, will distort all sorts of details, really not an adequate example to compare low light human vision. Just looks like a blatant attempt to make it look worse than reality IMO. If that’s a Polaroid it’s shockingly poor, if that’s the pixelation due to computer transfer we are not seeing what they see.

 

[ColourPurple]

The issue of monitors being switched off or not being paid attention to in this ward is troubling.

Even mother of Baby I said something about a screeching monitor and a nurse ignoring it.
Very strange.
JMO

I think he was ssuggesting somebody had switched it off rather than it not having been turned on in the first place. Can't wait till we start getting more updates.

 

[Sweeper2000]

The issue of monitors being switched off or not being paid attention to in this ward is troubling.

Even mother of Baby I said something about a screeching monitor and a nurse ignoring it.
Very strange.
JMO

it’s not in the evidence but even some nhs guidelines state it’s really too easy to ignore them.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I think he was ssuggesting somebody had switched it off rather than it not having been turned on in the first place. Can't wait till we start getting more updates.

That’s not for him to say though. He wasn’t there.

 

[bbsaz]

If that’s not in the testimony for the prosecution. It’s another glaring hole. They couldn’t pin it to the accused and that could leave any amount of time that that baby was deteriorating without treatment. Those are quite poor quality pictures, that will be noticed IMO. too Blurry, will distort all sorts of details, really not an adequate example to compare low light human vision. Just looks like a blatant attempt to make it look worse than reality IMO. If that’s a Polaroid it’s shockingly poor, if that’s the pixelation due to computer transfer we are not seeing what they see.

I took a screenshot of a screenshot...
Sure the originals are top quality

 

[bbsaz]

That’s not for him to say though. He wasn’t there.

No, but he knows how these machines work and at what point in a babies deterioration that they are triggered.

And hes been brought in to use his expertise to explain this, so it is EXACTLY for him to say!