UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #24

[WaxLyrical]

As someone has mentioned before somewhere & which is a very good point imo if she was trying to kill baby i
Then why would she draw attention to the baby by pointing out he/she looked pale.
It just doesn't add up really.

I’ve definitely asked this question some time ago back when we were originally hearing about this baby, and in the responses I got, what stuck out for me was this:

If Letby attacked the baby, the alleged ‘plan’ would be for the designated nurse to find the baby deteriorating, not Letby. If I remember correctly, the designated nurse started pottering around at the desk or something, and so Letby had to say or do something to get the nurse cotside. Otherwise, if the baby died, the last person who looked after the baby would have been Letby. So it was a way of placing distance between her and the baby collapsing.

The “how dark was the room” situation all feels a bit like a red herring to me. The overall biggest thing for me with this scenario, is why any nurse would say “she looks pale”. If she thought the baby was pale she’d be right over to the cot herself, no thought involved. I think this is what set off the designated nurse’s spidey senses, even though they’re now talking about the lighting in the room.

JMO.

 

[katydid23]

Crikey i didn't know she said she loved being involved in the resuscitation process. Who did she say that to pls?

She said so in any of her discussions with Dr Choc. I will find some of those and repost them here.

If it was about death itself, I think some of the babies would have been found dead by others. Even when she was not around. But instead, she was usually the one calling for the crash cart, or for the Doctor on call, or answering the Code Red, and being the most calm, measured competent nurse, and getting praise for her work. JMO

 

[Tortoise]

I think it makes perfect sense. The goal is not 'the death' ----the goal is to create chaos and then get attention and sympathy for being a hero and a martyr. The goal is getting praise and acknowledgement for being such an amazing nurse and for saving babies and sometimes losing them but still carrying on in spite of such tragedy. Teamwork.

I think if she just wanted to murder them, she could have given them a very fast acting poison or smothered them with something or given them much more air at one time. In fact, none of the babies were just found dead. That would take the excitement out of it for her, IMO.

She made it more of a game----each child was given a chance to 'fight' for recovery. Often they would collapse 2, 3 or 4 times. It mirrored fate, just as she said. She LOVED being involved in the resuscitation process.

So it was exciting for her when she could point out a baby that was about to collapse. That is what she craved. And that was what she was looking FOR, not at.

I think if this were the case she wouldn't be charged with the attempted murders. The prosecution has advanced medical opinion that these children would have died if it were not for the intervention they received, and so she had alleged intent to kill.

That explanation also doesn't take account of the evidence that she was in a state of excitement after the deaths. If she is guilty, it also doesn't take account of the evidence that she would make alleged multiple attempts on the same weakened babies on the same shift until they did die. And it also doesn't take account of the alleged poisonings by her that continued when she was off shift.

I don't think this motivation fits much of the evidence presented, if she is guilty, including some babies allegedly being targeted multiple times with weeks in between, and including her own note, saying 'because I am a horrible evil person' and 'I am evil', in the context of whether she is found guilty.

JMO

 

[Blondiexoxo]

As someone has mentioned before somewhere & which is a very good point imo if she was trying to kill baby i
Then why would she draw attention to the baby by pointing out he/she looked pale.
It just doesn't add up really.

If guilty, I think she wanted to be the one to ‘spot’ it. That was the goal IMO, to make it known that she was the one to raise the alarm, but in baby I’s case she made sure that she pointed it out from a distance. Standing in a doorway and saying how a baby ‘looks pale’ puts distance between LL and baby I, so she ‘was there but not involved’

As she said in her interview ‘perhaps I was able to spot something she couldn’t’.. and on the stand ‘I knew what I was looking for- at’ - in other words her colleague did not know what she was looking for, LL was more qualified and experienced. As she’s alluded to multiple times whilst on the stand, she believed some nurses weren’t qualified enough to be caring for the ITU babies.

I think, if guilty, aswell as thriving in the whole process of a baby collapsing and the ensuing drama and resuscitation, she also wanted to make it known that she was the one who ‘noticed’ a babies decline, so others would consider her more experienced and competent than some of the staff.

If guilty, personally I think the babies that didn’t have LL as a designated nurse when they collapsed, some of them were targeted specifically for the purpose of making a ‘less qualified’ nurse feel responsible and look incompetent infront of others. Like she said in a text to a colleague when she wanted to go in room 1 something to the effect of ‘I’ve been helping (colleague) with meds/feeds in 1, so atleast still involved but don’t have the responsibility’…
Personally, if guilty I think that text explained some of the collapses that happened to babies who were designated to another nurse at the time. The responsibility wasn’t on her in those cases.

MOO

 

[Tortoise]

8:14am

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, continues today (Monday, June 5).
We will be bringing you live updates throughout the day, in what is the 31st week of the trial before a jury.
For a recap of the trial so far, visit our index here: Countess nurse Lucy Letby: What has happened in trial so far

9:17am

A reminder of what happened last week, which only saw half a day of evidence heard in court due to juror unavailability and the bank holiday: Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 2 - cross-examination continues
And a round-up story from that Friday afternoon: Letby denies ‘getting thrill’ at seeing parents bathe dead baby

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 5 - cross-examination continues

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[katydid23]

I think if this were the case she wouldn't be charged with the attempted murders. The prosecution has advanced medical opinion that these children would have died if it were not for the intervention they received, and so she had alleged intent to kill.

That explanation also doesn't take account of the evidence that she was in a state of excitement after the deaths. If she is guilty, it also doesn't take account of the evidence that she would make alleged multiple attempts on the same weakened babies on the same shift until they did die. And it also doesn't take account of the alleged poisonings by her that continued when she was off shift.

I don't think this motivation fits the evidence presented, if she is guilty.

MOO

I think both things can be true. She did, IF guilty, try multiple times to send the child to the brink of death. That is attempted murder.

But I do think she enjoyed the process, of the child being on the brink, and all that entails. Just my personal opinion. I could be wrong.

But it could explain why she quickly points out babies who are about to collapse. And why none of the babies were found dead. I believe if she really wanted to, she could have given them triple the amount of air, or insulin, once the first few collapsed instead of dying.

I don't think she was setting out just to kill outright. I think it was more complicated than that. JMO

 

[katydid23]

If guilty, I think she wanted to be the one to ‘spot’ it. That was the goal IMO, to make it known that she was the one to raise the alarm, but in baby I’s case she made sure that she pointed it out from a distance. Standing in a doorway and saying how a baby ‘looks pale’ puts distance between LL and baby I, so she ‘was there but not involved’

As she said in her interview ‘perhaps I was able to spot something she couldn’t’.. and on the stand ‘I knew what I was looking for- at’ - in other words her colleague did not know what she was looking for, LL was more qualified and experienced. As she’s alluded to multiple times whilst on the stand, she believed some nurses weren’t qualified enough to be caring for the ITU babies.

I think, if guilty, aswell as thriving in the whole process of a baby collapsing and the ensuing drama and resuscitation, she also wanted to make it known that she was the one who ‘noticed’ a babies decline, so others would consider her more experienced and competent than some of the staff.

If guilty, personally I think the babies that didn’t have LL as a designated nurse when they collapsed, some of them were targeted specifically for the purpose of making a ‘less qualified’ nurse feel responsible and look incompetent infront of others. Like she said in a text to a colleague when she wanted to go in room 1 something to the effect of ‘I’ve been helping (colleague) with meds/feeds in 1, so atleast still involved but isn’t have the responsibility’…
Personally, if guilty I think that text explained some of the collapses that happened to babies who were designated to another nurse at the time. The responsibility wasn’t on her in those cases.

MOO

THIS^^^^^

 

[Tortoise]

I think both things can be true. She did, IF guilty, try multiple times to send the child to the brink of death. That is attempted murder.

But I do think she enjoyed the process, of the child being on the brink, and all that entails. Just my personal opinion. I could be wrong.

But it could explain why she quickly points out babies who are about to collapse. And why none of the babies were found dead. I believe if she really wanted to, she could have given them triple the amount of air, or insulin, once the first few collapsed instead of dying.

I don't think she was setting out just to kill outright. I think it was more complicated than that. JMO

Attempted murder, according to the law in this country, is specifically intent to kill, not to bring someone to the brink of death.

Attempted Murder​

In contrast to the offence of murder, attempted murder requires the existence of an intention to kill, not merely to cause grievous bodily harm: R v Grimwood (1962) 3 All ER 285. The requisite intention to kill can be inferred by the circumstances: R v Walker and Hayles (1990) 90 Cr App R 226.
Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

 

[Blondiexoxo]

I think if this were the case she wouldn't be charged with the attempted murders. The prosecution has advanced medical opinion that these children would have died if it were not for the intervention they received, and so she had alleged intent to kill.

That explanation also doesn't take account of the evidence that she was in a state of excitement after the deaths. If she is guilty, it also doesn't take account of the evidence that she would make alleged multiple attempts on the same weakened babies on the same shift until they did die. And it also doesn't take account of the alleged poisonings by her that continued when she was off shift.

I don't think this motivation fits the evidence presented, if she is guilty, including her own note, saying 'because I am a horrible evil person' and 'I am evil', in the context of whether she is found guilty.

JMO

If guilty, I could see there being multiple motives, but the main one being power & control.

Having the power to decide when a life would end, the power to devestate parents, the power to put the responsibility on another colleague, making a colleague look less competent, the control of breaking the rules and taking home handover sheets, the control of choosing a moment when a baby was celebrating their 100 day milestone or just days away from being allowed home. Controlling who and when would collapse, knowing she had the power to do it by her hand, whenever she wanted. If guilty of course.

Also the incident when she was unhappy about not being put in room 1 and after texting a colleague then minutes later a baby collapses. Could, if guilty, suggest that she was angry at not being in room 1, even more angry when colleague didn’t agree with her wanting to be in there, so by causing a collapse she clawed back some control, demonstrated her power in an ‘I will do what I want when I want’ way. Same with the handover sheets IMO, breaking the rules just because she could. If guilty.

MOO

 

[Tortoise]

But it could explain why she quickly points out babies who are about to collapse. And why none of the babies were found dead. I believe if she really wanted to, she could have given them triple the amount of air, or insulin, once the first few collapsed instead of dying.

<RSBM>

But that is the evidence which is important to consider, in her motivation, if she is guilty. If babies were found alone and dead with their monitors off there would have been a murder inquiry much sooner, and it would be over. Of course there are ways to murder which are more assured of death, but that just means that she was (allegedly, and if guilty) trying to find undetectable ways of killing the babies, so that she could get away with it. IMO

 

[katydid23]

Attempted murder, according to the law in this country, is specifically intent to kill, not to bring someone to the brink of death.

Attempted Murder​

In contrast to the offence of murder, attempted murder requires the existence of an intention to kill, not merely to cause grievous bodily harm: R v Grimwood (1962) 3 All ER 285. The requisite intention to kill can be inferred by the circumstances: R v Walker and Hayles (1990) 90 Cr App R 226.
Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

I agree that she was a killer, IF guilty. I am just saying she likes the process of resuscitation, and leading the charge, being the hero. That doesn't mean she wasn't trying to kill many of them.

She is charged with attempted murder because she did things that pushed them to the brink of death, and without the complex resuscitation efforts, they ALL would have died. I'm just saying that I think she loved that part of the chaotic process. She did not want them to just die without the chaos she created and was able to take part in. JMO

 

[JosieJo]

If guilty, I could see there being multiple motives, but the main one being power & control.

Having the power to decide when a life would end, the power to devestate parents, the power to put the responsibility on another colleague, making a colleague look less competent, the control of breaking the rules and taking home handover sheets, the control of choosing a moment when a baby was celebrating their 100 day milestone or just days away from being allowed home. Controlling who and when would collapse, knowing she had the power to do it by her hand, whenever she wanted. If guilty of course.

Also the incident when she was unhappy about not being put in room 1 and after texting a colleague then minutes later a baby collapses. Could, if guilty, suggest that she was angry at not being in room 1, even more angry when colleague didn’t agree with her wanting to be in there, so by causing a collapse she clawed back some control, demonstrated her power in an ‘I will do what I want when I want’ way. Same with the handover sheets IMO, breaking the rules just because she could. If guilty.

MOO

This is how I see it if guilty...I think multiple reasons could be behind the attacks

 

[katydid23]

<RSBM>

But that is the evidence which is important to consider, in her motivation, if she is guilty. If babies were found alone and dead with their monitors off there would have been a murder inquiry much sooner, and it would be over. Of course there are ways to murder which are more assured of death, but that just means that she was (allegedly, and if guilty) trying to find undetectable ways of killing the babies, so that she could get away with it. IMO

That^^ is true as well. She needed to cover her tracks.

I am just saying that I think she loved calling in the crash carts and leading the charge. That was part of the high for her. Just my opinion, that it was more about that whole process of her being the hero, and the amazing nurse, so she wanted to bring them to the brink, and share in the intensity of the emergency and the teamwork effort.

 

[Tortoise]

I agree that she was a killer, IF guilty. I am just saying she likes the process of resuscitation, and leading the charge, being the hero. That doesn't mean she wasn't trying to kill many of them.

She is charged with attempted murder because she did things that pushed them to the brink of death, and without the complex resuscitation efforts, they ALL would have died. I'm just saying that I think she loved that part of the chaotic process. She did not want them to just die without the chaos she created and was able to take part in. JMO

I'm not even sure it's been demonstrated that she liked the process of resuscitation. Some of the evidence has been that the resus drugs chart went missing when it was needed, a mother was phoned instead of the consultant, she hadn't written down the number of doses of adrenaline a baby had received, and apparently although we've yet to hear about it, she was texting during one of the resuscitations. This all sounds like sabotage, if the evidence is true.

JMO

 

[Tortoise]

I'll post Chester Standard updates when they start.

This is the link for Sky if anyone is interested in posting, if not I'll be putting them all in the media thread later.

6m ago10:01

Good morning​

Welcome back to Manchester Crown Court where the trial continues of a nurse accused of murdering seven babies, and the attempted murder of ten more.
Letby's cross-examination continues today - this is her seventh day of questioning by prosecution barrister Nick Johnson KC.

4m ago10:04

What the trial covered last week​

The trial was only in session for a few hours last week, on Friday afternoon.
During this time the prosecution finished covering the case of Child I, as well as discussing Children J and K.
None of the children involved can be named, so have been assigned letters from A to Q. Letby still has to be questioned on Children L, M, N, O, P and Q.

Lucy Letby trial: Facebook searches of nurse accused of murdering babies read out in court

Lucy Letby, a former neonatal nurse, has been back in court for another day of cross-examination by the prosecution on Friday. She is accused of the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of 10 others, and denies all the charges.

news.sky.com

 

[bbsaz]

I think it makes perfect sense. The goal is not 'the death' ----the goal is to create chaos and then get attention and sympathy for being a hero and a martyr. The goal is getting praise and acknowledgement for being such an amazing nurse and for saving babies and sometimes losing them but still carrying on in spite of such tragedy. Teamwork.

I think if she just wanted to murder them, she could have given them a very fast acting poison or smothered them with something or given them much more air at one time. In fact, none of the babies were just found dead. That would take the excitement out of it for her, IMO.

She made it more of a game----each child was given a chance to 'fight' for recovery. Often they would collapse 2, 3 or 4 times. It mirrored fate, just as she said. She LOVED being involved in the resuscitation process.

So it was exciting for her when she could point out a baby that was about to collapse. That is what she craved. And that was what she was looking FOR, not at.

100% agree

 

[katydid23]

I'm not even sure it's been demonstrated that she liked the process of resuscitation. Some of the evidence has been that the resus drugs chart went missing when it was needed, a mother was phoned instead of the consultant, she hadn't written down the number of doses of adrenaline a baby had received, and apparently although we've yet to hear about it, she was texting during one of the resuscitations. This all sounds like sabotage, if the evidence is true.

JMO

You know more about this case than I do. Maybe I am completely wrong. There's a chance we will never know exactly what the motivation might be?

I am going from the many texts between her and Dr Choc, where he heaps the praise on her for her amazing calm demeanour during the resuscitations. And they carry on long convos about it----her praising him as well, and saying there's no one she'd rather be beside her over him.

And he says the same about her, as she is so organised and makes the right decisions, etc.

And also how she talks to her coworkers about Team Spirit, and working together to save each baby, etc.

I agree with you that she tried to sabotage things and of course she allegedly did the damage in the first place. But in spite of that, she enjoyed being the Hero that helped save the day, AND/OR also being the martyr, who always had these tragic situations to deal with.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

The different methods used and when they were used suggests IMO someone who became aware that if babies were all showing the same symptoms and dying then suspicion would arise. After the first few collapses when her colleague was messaging about how strange it was and LL says ‘were they really that similar?’ Or words to that effect.

It’s strange IMO how after this message was baby E I think, who presented with bleeding (something not seen in the first 4 collapses if I recall) so a slightly different symptom, then F was insulin so that was also very different, then came the overfeeding (again a different method) however - F & G didn’t die from the insulin or overfeeding. If guilty I think when the change of method didn’t work, air embolism was settled on as the MO and to try and avert suspicion, the falsifying of notes before the actual collapse began, to show a gradual decline so not to draw suspicion. Somewhere along the way insulin was tried again which also failed to cause death, so back to air embolism again.

IMO there is a pattern between the methods used, what colleagues were saying in messages - a colleague questioning the incidents prompted a slight change in method aswell as in some instances, a gap before the next collapse - the falsifying notes before the event came around or just after child E who’s mother turned up unexpectedly and took her by surprise, this required notes to be altered after the fact, to reflect a different time in order to cover tracks. So going forward, notes started to show a gradual decline documented (by LL allegedly) before the sudden collapse. Only if guilty..

All MOO

 

[katydid23]

Andy Gill

https://twitter.com/MerseyHack

The cross examination of nurse Lucy #Letby by Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, is due to continue at #Manchester Crown Court today. Miss Letby denies murdering 7 babies and attempting to murder 10 others at The Countess of #Chester Hospital in 2015 and 2016.
@BBCNWT

@bbcmerseyside

 

[WaxLyrical]

I'm not even sure it's been demonstrated that she liked the process of resuscitation. Some of the evidence has been that the resus drugs chart went missing when it was needed, a mother was phoned instead of the consultant, she hadn't written down the number of doses of adrenaline a baby had received, and apparently although we've yet to hear about it, she was texting during one of the resuscitations. This all sounds like sabotage, if the evidence is true.

JMO

Further to this, there were at least a couple of incidences where she downplayed the babies’ signs of deterioration. Off the top of my head one of the triplets (?) who was being proposed to move up to a higher dependency room, and she pushed back on that, and also this recent case where the designated nurse felt the baby’s crying meant another deterioration was imminent and Letby played it down.