UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #8

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sillybilly

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
35,687
Reaction score
102,164
ADMIN NOTE:

This is a trial thread to discuss the trial only. It is not a general discussion thread.

Although WS is based in the USA, we do try to manage the various discussions according to laws of other countries.

As this trial is in the UK, the case is under sub judice so please stick to discussing the trial content without posting anything that violates the following principles:

Basically anything that may prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial
Any suggestion, opinion, or direct accusation that the accused is either guilty OR innocent
(i.e. the accused cannot be called "the killer"; use "the accused", "the alleged killer", or "the defendant")
A defendant’s previous history of any offences is off limits
Scandalizing the court (disparaging judges, lawyers, any officer of the Court) is off limits
Broadcasting anything about proceedings which happen in the jury's absence is off limits
Any non compliance with an Order of the court is off limits

Note in the event of an Appeal subsequent to verdict:

Appeals are usually heard by senior judges who are not likely to be influenced by the media, therefore responsible comment is usually considered acceptable once a trial has concluded, regardless of if there is going to be an appeal.


Reference: UK Contempt of Court Act 1981
 

Sillybilly

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
35,687
Reaction score
102,164
ADMIN NOTE:

Numerous posts have been removed.

There is no MSM or other source to support speculation about any specific mental health issue of the accused. This includes autism, which oddly seems to crop in so many discussions when there is nothing to warrant it.

Sub judice is not the topic of this discussion. It is applicable to all cases in the UK.
 

Sillybilly

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
35,687
Reaction score
102,164
ADMIN NOTE:

This thread is specifically dedicated to discussion of the trial for the accused Lucy Letby. Please discuss this trial without bringing other cases into the discussion. All that does is introduce support for speculation regarding guilt or innocence which is sub judice.
 

Knitty

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
2,369
Reaction score
7,764
MOD NOTE:

From the Verification Process page:

If you would like to add yourself as an expert in a certain field or as an insider to a case, please send an email to [email protected] Please note this is a new email address.

If you do not wish to be identified as an expert in a certain area, we ask that you refrain from answering questions that are specifically directed to those that have been verified as specialist in their area and that you do not claim to be a professional in any area.

If a member posts with "expertise" please check to make sure they are on this list. If not, please do not take their post as professional information, but rather just as another opinion; much as you would with any member of the general posting membership.

Click here for the list of verified professionals and verified insiders.

Please cease the bickering about statistics and statisticians. We have no verified statisticians posting on this thread, no statisticians who have testified in court and whose testimony you can discuss. You may have a conversation in PMs if you wish, but don't bring it to the thread. Up to 20 can participate, and such a thread can't be seen or moderated by moderators or administration.
 

CocoChanel

Retired WS Staff
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
7,312
Reaction score
27,982
ADMIN REMINDER:
If what you post is your OPINION, you MUST a be clear about that with a qualifier like IMHO or similar. Otherwise your post reads as a statement of FACT without the required substantiating link, and it is subject to being REMOVED.
 

annpats

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2021
Messages
2,884
Reaction score
20,131
I forget the context now, but didn't LL say at one point that she had "got rid of the mother"? I think that may have been in reference to Baby E's mother? Doesn't make her a murderer, but again not very caring.
Definitely. It makes it sound like LL didn't think the mother had a right to be there with her new born child!

It really isn't the done thing to be thinking that way, much less telling a colleague well.

In fact, to me, it sounds like LL's thinking is a very egotistical here, and it comes across like she has divine right and wants sole access to the babies herself.

MOO.
 

Sundial

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2022
Messages
167
Reaction score
1,104
I forget the context now, but didn't LL say at one point that she had "got rid of the mother"? I think that may have been in reference to Baby E's mother? Doesn't make her a murderer, but again not very caring.
I’m sure I read that from the prosecutions point of view rather than LL saying this herself? Something along the lines of “once she had got rid of the mother.”
 

Blondiexoxo

Studying Forensic Psychology BSc hons
Joined
Sep 16, 2018
Messages
615
Reaction score
7,968
Going off the alarming rate of deaths at the hospital from June 2015 I would not be surprised to learn that there were other babies harmed re June 2015 that there just wasn’t enough evidence to charge with IMO.

It just seems unusual to me that someone would begin a ‘killing spree’ with so many deaths in quick succession. I’d be more inclined to think that there were atleast 1 or 2 other occasions prior to baby A (if not more) where the perpetrator harmed for the first time, and made the decision to do it again. Baby A-Q sound to me like someone who has begun to act more recklessly being unable to contain the ‘urge’ anymore IMO.

Someone harming babies in a nicu environment, where there are other nurses and doctors etc I’d more expect them to start with their first victim, and have a cooling off period of around a month while they processed what they’d done, waited long enough to see if anyone thought the death was suspicious and decided to do it again. When it comes to harming children, even some of the most cold and calculated individuals have a hard time accepting what they’ve done, I could imagine someone taking a little time to go over the incident in their head, relive it and realise they don’t feel the remorse or guilt they thought they would. Then when some time had passed with no suspicions voiced from colleagues or parents, thought they’d got away with it and decided to harm again IMO.

This isn’t some mad man out on the streets who satisfies their urge to kill with no one around. This is happening in a work environment, where someone spends most of their days/nights. Around colleagues, aswell as other parents. IMO there seem to have been too many babies allegedly harmed or killed in the month of June 2015 for that to be the start. It appears more like June is when this person became more brazen, wasn’t taking as many precautions as they were previously, just had an overwhelming desire to do harm, and wasn’t even thinking about how that amount of incidents in such a short space of time could raise questions.

This amount of alleged victims all in June just doesn’t resonate as being an offender’s first time, even the most naive individual could see how just the June 2015 incidents so close together would raise suspicion.. I honestly do not understand how they didn’t. IMO that should have been when colleagues started questioning if something nefarious was occurring on the unit.
All MOO of course.
 

Eloise

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
2,310
Reaction score
6,996
Going off the alarming rate of deaths at the hospital from June 2015 I would not be surprised to learn that there were other babies harmed re June 2015 that there just wasn’t enough evidence to charge with IMO.

It just seems unusual to me that someone would begin a ‘killing spree’ with so many deaths in quick succession. I’d be more inclined to think that there were atleast 1 or 2 other occasions prior to baby A (if not more) where the perpetrator harmed for the first time, and made the decision to do it again. Baby A-Q sound to me like someone who has begun to act more recklessly being unable to contain the ‘urge’ anymore IMO.

Someone harming babies in a nicu environment, where there are other nurses and doctors etc I’d more expect them to start with their first victim, and have a cooling off period of around a month while they processed what they’d done, waited long enough to see if anyone thought the death was suspicious and decided to do it again. When it comes to harming children, even some of the most cold and calculated individuals have a hard time accepting what they’ve done, I could imagine someone taking a little time to go over the incident in their head, relive it and realise they don’t feel the remorse or guilt they thought they would. Then when some time had passed with no suspicions voiced from colleagues or parents, thought they’d got away with it and decided to harm again IMO.

This isn’t some mad man out on the streets who satisfies their urge to kill with no one around. This is happening in a work environment, where someone spends most of their days/nights. Around colleagues, aswell as other parents. IMO there seem to have been too many babies allegedly harmed or killed in the month of June 2015 for that to be the start. It appears more like June is when this person became more brazen, wasn’t taking as many precautions as they were previously, just had an overwhelming desire to do harm, and wasn’t even thinking about how that amount of incidents in such a short space of time could raise questions.

This amount of alleged victims all in June just doesn’t resonate as being an offender’s first time, even the most naive individual could see how just the June 2015 incidents so close together would raise suspicion.. I honestly do not understand how they didn’t. IMO that should have been when colleagues started questioning if something nefarious was occurring on the unit.
All MOO of course.
Re BBM There might be. I don't think there'd be any evidence, or any evidence left that would be enough to prosecute IMO
There's already one case that was dismissed (or she was found not-guilty of? I can't remember exactly) because of lack of evidence.
 

Dotta

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2021
Messages
5,556
Reaction score
32,315
But what can be done to prevent such situations?

2 nurses attending each baby?
Cameras?
Psychological screening of staff?
Parents/family watching 24/7?

I really don't know.

Broken trust of the public is irreparable:(

Moo
 
Last edited:

Tortoise

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
21,861
Reaction score
102,642
Re BBM There might be. I don't think there'd be any evidence, or any evidence left that would be enough to prosecute IMO
There's already one case that was dismissed (or she was found not-guilty of? I can't remember exactly) because of lack of evidence.
That was baby K. Baby K was transferred to another hospital and died a few days later. LL is accused of her attempted murder.
 

Legal

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Messages
138
Reaction score
1,008
I can't see how to copy a comment from the previous post but Sundial mentioned about how the first reported incident came just after Dr Jayaram's first TV show was aired. I'd never heard of the show before (Born naughty) but out of curiosity, I googled the first episode. This was about a schoolchild who had made threats to kill other pupils. None of the other episodes seem to relate to killing, so I thought this was interesting, though possibly irrelevant.


Summary
Honey, who is nine, has been permanently excluded from school after threatening to kill other pupils. Six-year-old Theo has violent tantrums at the slightest thing.
 

Tortoise

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
21,861
Reaction score
102,642
Going off the alarming rate of deaths at the hospital from June 2015 I would not be surprised to learn that there were other babies harmed re June 2015 that there just wasn’t enough evidence to charge with IMO.

It just seems unusual to me that someone would begin a ‘killing spree’ with so many deaths in quick succession. I’d be more inclined to think that there were atleast 1 or 2 other occasions prior to baby A (if not more) where the perpetrator harmed for the first time, and made the decision to do it again. Baby A-Q sound to me like someone who has begun to act more recklessly being unable to contain the ‘urge’ anymore IMO.

Someone harming babies in a nicu environment, where there are other nurses and doctors etc I’d more expect them to start with their first victim, and have a cooling off period of around a month while they processed what they’d done, waited long enough to see if anyone thought the death was suspicious and decided to do it again. When it comes to harming children, even some of the most cold and calculated individuals have a hard time accepting what they’ve done, I could imagine someone taking a little time to go over the incident in their head, relive it and realise they don’t feel the remorse or guilt they thought they would. Then when some time had passed with no suspicions voiced from colleagues or parents, thought they’d got away with it and decided to harm again IMO.

This isn’t some mad man out on the streets who satisfies their urge to kill with no one around. This is happening in a work environment, where someone spends most of their days/nights. Around colleagues, aswell as other parents. IMO there seem to have been too many babies allegedly harmed or killed in the month of June 2015 for that to be the start. It appears more like June is when this person became more brazen, wasn’t taking as many precautions as they were previously, just had an overwhelming desire to do harm, and wasn’t even thinking about how that amount of incidents in such a short space of time could raise questions.

This amount of alleged victims all in June just doesn’t resonate as being an offender’s first time, even the most naive individual could see how just the June 2015 incidents so close together would raise suspicion.. I honestly do not understand how they didn’t. IMO that should have been when colleagues started questioning if something nefarious was occurring on the unit.
All MOO of course.
I did think like this also, it's very perplexing that there were suddenly so many collapses leading to death in June 2015.

But having looked at the patterns of the charges I changed my thinking. It doesn't look like random out of control urges (imo), it looks targeted at certain babies, if the charges are proven. Baby I for instance was allegedly attacked four times between 30 Sep 2015 and 23 Oct 2015, transferring to another hospital for treatment, recovering, and coming back again, dying as a result of the fifth alleged attack. I also think the change to insulin for baby F, if the charge is proven, and the (alleged) control of his blood sugars/results recorded while she was on shift, shows she didn't particularly care if she witnessed his collapse or death, which is informative, imo.

There are no charges for 5 of the 13 months - July and December 2015, January, March, and May 2016. I don't think this was random, I think with what looks to be target (alleged) victims I think there was a specific aim here, as opposed say to just enjoying it, or attention seeking, and possibly a trigger point we don't know about her.

MOO and speculation.
 
Last edited:

katydid23

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
63,248
Reaction score
191,846

Letby, 32, is said to have injected air into the bloodstreams of the infants while on duty at the Countess of Chester Hospital’s neo-natal unit.

The alleged injections are said to have caused air embolisms, in which gas bubbles enter a vessel or artery and can block the passage of blood.

On Tuesday, November 29, blood expert Professor Sally Kinsey told jurors at Manchester Crown Court she had been asked by Cheshire Police to review the cases of Child A, B and E.

The court has previously heard the mother of premature-born twins Child A and Child B had a rare auto-immune disease which led to an increased risk of blood clots.

However retired paediatric haematologist Prof Kinsey said the condition was not passed on to either her twin son or daughter.

Blood count results for both were also normal during their stay at the unit, the court was told.


Prof Kinsey said that reading the various descriptions of skin discolouration given by medical staff attending Child A’s fatal collapse “really cemented my concern”.
 

Tortoise

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
21,861
Reaction score
102,642
"Ben Myers KC, defending, said: “Your evidence of (Child E) is that there was no explanation for spontaneous bleeding. What you mean is in terms of haematology, isn’t it?”

“Yes,” said Prof Kinsey.

Mr Myers: “That doesn’t mean that he might not have had a gastrointestinal haemorrhage or some other reason?”

Prof Kinsey said: “I agree.”

Lucy Letby: blood abnormalities 'not cause of baby collapses'


Oh yes, that innocent bleeding that wasn't recorded in the nursing notes, or reported to doctors, according to the mother's and father's testimonies and their phone records.

The same nursing notes which had the mother visiting an hour late (with his milk according to the barrister), even though he wasn't to be fed according to LL's notes, and a junior doctor in another department giving advice to omit the feed he was due, which he said he would have consulted the registrar in the neonatal unit about if he had been called, and the mother would have had to guess that she didn't need to bring his milk at his feed time. IMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top