UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #35

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
There were so many things that these articles overlook----like the two separate cases where two sets of twins are both attacked, on back to back nights, one by air pumped into their bodies, the other by [ can't remember now---insulin?]

But anyway, what are the odds that TWO sets of twins, born months apart, would both be attacked in the same way on back to back nights?

Also, Baby K----Mom went to her twin son's nursery about 9 pm, to drop off breast milk , as she entered hallway she heard her baby screaming in pain, walks in and sees his mouth bleeding, he is screaming, and Nurse Letby tells the mom to leave the room-- Mom says 'what's going on?'
LL---Trust Me, I'm a nurse, you need to leave, everything is fine...

And that baby was dead 5 hours later. And the Doctor that treated him and tried to save him said he “had never seen a baby bleed like this."

Years later in court, Letby said the grieving mother was 'mistaken' when she said she brought the milk to the nursery at 9 pm. Letby's notes showed 10 pm. And Letby said the mother was wrong about seeing blood. Letby denied the baby was bleeding at 9 pm. HOWEVER the mom had corroboration for her version of the story because she had immediately called her husband about seeing their baby crying and bleeding, and phone records showed that it did happen about 9 pm, as she had said.

Letby's notes, putting it at 10 pm were incorrect. And it seemed she falsified them to try and cover up the fact that the mom saw her baby bleeding at 9 pm but Letby did not report that to a doctor until after 10 pm.

The Guardian says nothing about those kinds of 'discrepancies' in Nurse Letby's medical notes.



A mother of twins walked in on a nurse attempting to murder one of her baby boys who then told her: “Trust me, I’m a nurse,” a court has heard.

Lucy Letby, 32, was trying to kill the five-day-old boy when his mother arrived on the neonatal ward with his milk, jurors were told.


The infant was “acutely distressed” and bleeding from the mouth, the court heard.

The woman, who cannot be named, did not realise Letby was allegedly in the process of attacking her son and was “fobbed off” by the alleged killer.


The trial at Manchester crown court heard how the mother of premature twin boys, who can only be named as Baby E and Baby F, arrived at the unit with their milk.

Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, told the jury she “interrupted Lucy Letby who was attacking [Baby E]”.

He added: “She did not realise it at the time but I’m going to suggest why you can be confident that is what happened. When [she] arrived, [Baby E] was acutely distressed and he was bleeding from his mouth.”

Johnson said Letby allegedly tried to reassure the boy’s mother, telling her the blood was due to a nasogastric tube irritating his throat, adding: “Trust me, I’m a nurse’ – that’s what she [Letby] told the mother.”

The infant, who weighed 1.3kg (just under 3lbs) at birth, rapidly deteriorated and was pronounced dead less than five hours after Letby was seen attacking him, the jury was told.

A doctor present said he “had never seen a baby bleed like this” and that the child lost more than a quarter of his total blood volume, the court heard.


Baby E’s death was initially put down to a gastrointestinal disorder that can occur in premature babies and no postmortem was undertaken. This, Johnson said, was “a big mistake”.

Experts later concluded that Baby E died as a result of gas intentionally injected into his bloodstream and “bleeding indicative of trauma”, the jury was told.

Letby took an “unusual interest” in the twins’ family, searching for them on social media two days after Baby E’s death and several times over the following months – even on Christmas Day 2015, the court heard.

The nurse allegedly “wiped out” the mother’s visit from the medical records then falsely claimed to be in another room when Baby E collapsed. This, the prosecution alleged, was Letby trying to establish an “alibi in someone else’s medical records”.

Jurors were told that Letby then took a “sinister” interested in Baby E’s twin brother, six-day old Baby F.

The nurse allegedly administered a feeding bag laced with insulin to Baby F less than 24 hours after his sibling had died.
 
There were so many things that these articles overlook----like the two separate cases where two sets of twins are both attacked, on back to back nights, one by air pumped into their bodies, the other by [ can't remember now---insulin?]

But anyway, what are the odds that TWO sets of twins, born months apart, would both be attacked in the same way on back to back nights?

Also, Baby K----Mom went to her twin son's nursery about 9 pm, to drop off breast milk , as she entered hallway she heard her baby screaming in pain, walks in and sees his mouth bleeding, he is screaming, and Nurse Letby tells the mom to leave the room-- Mom says 'what's going on?'
LL---Trust Me, I'm a nurse, you need to leave, everything is fine...

And that baby was dead 5 hours later. And the Doctor that treated him and tried to save him said he “had never seen a baby bleed like this."

Years later in court, Letby said the grieving mother was 'mistaken' when she said she brought the milk to the nursery at 9 pm. Letby's notes showed 10 pm. And Letby said the mother was wrong about seeing blood. Letby denied the baby was bleeding at 9 pm. HOWEVER the mom had corroboration for her version of the story because she had immediately called her husband about seeing their baby crying and bleeding, and phone records showed that it did happen about 9 pm, as she had said.

Letby's notes, putting it at 10 pm were incorrect. And it seemed she falsified them to try and cover up the fact that the mom saw her baby bleeding at 9 pm but Letby did not report that to a doctor until after 10 pm.

The Guardian says nothing about those kinds of 'discrepancies' in Nurse Letby's medical notes.



A mother of twins walked in on a nurse attempting to murder one of her baby boys who then told her: “Trust me, I’m a nurse,” a court has heard.

Lucy Letby, 32, was trying to kill the five-day-old boy when his mother arrived on the neonatal ward with his milk, jurors were told.


The infant was “acutely distressed” and bleeding from the mouth, the court heard.

The woman, who cannot be named, did not realise Letby was allegedly in the process of attacking her son and was “fobbed off” by the alleged killer.


The trial at Manchester crown court heard how the mother of premature twin boys, who can only be named as Baby E and Baby F, arrived at the unit with their milk.

Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, told the jury she “interrupted Lucy Letby who was attacking [Baby E]”.

He added: “She did not realise it at the time but I’m going to suggest why you can be confident that is what happened. When [she] arrived, [Baby E] was acutely distressed and he was bleeding from his mouth.”

Johnson said Letby allegedly tried to reassure the boy’s mother, telling her the blood was due to a nasogastric tube irritating his throat, adding: “Trust me, I’m a nurse’ – that’s what she [Letby] told the mother.”

The infant, who weighed 1.3kg (just under 3lbs) at birth, rapidly deteriorated and was pronounced dead less than five hours after Letby was seen attacking him, the jury was told.

A doctor present said he “had never seen a baby bleed like this” and that the child lost more than a quarter of his total blood volume, the court heard.


Baby E’s death was initially put down to a gastrointestinal disorder that can occur in premature babies and no postmortem was undertaken. This, Johnson said, was “a big mistake”.

Experts later concluded that Baby E died as a result of gas intentionally injected into his bloodstream and “bleeding indicative of trauma”, the jury was told.

Letby took an “unusual interest” in the twins’ family, searching for them on social media two days after Baby E’s death and several times over the following months – even on Christmas Day 2015, the court heard.

The nurse allegedly “wiped out” the mother’s visit from the medical records then falsely claimed to be in another room when Baby E collapsed. This, the prosecution alleged, was Letby trying to establish an “alibi in someone else’s medical records”.

Jurors were told that Letby then took a “sinister” interested in Baby E’s twin brother, six-day old Baby F.

The nurse allegedly administered a feeding bag laced with insulin to Baby F less than 24 hours after his sibling had died.

These infamous words:

"Trust me, I'm a nurse"

STILL send shivers down my spine :oops:
 
Genuinely it's very difficult to recall all detail on what was such a lengthy and complex gathering and evaluation of information. I'm saying this in reference to the recent public expressions of doubt about the trial and its outcomes. I think that it seems that allot of what is being said is based on focus on singular components of a broader context. For instance the insulin, the nasogastric tubes and the doubt about how statistics were presented in the trial. I don't think it's right to not bring all of it into a single whole, its an overly compartmentalised evaluation,maybe.

I think maybe the stronger indication in the evidence is perhaps the range of symptoms that you see across the individual baby cases. For instance Baby E is a prominent example and that's across the board of testimony. From the med records, to the baby's range of symptoms and the witness testimony. We have the mums testimony saying very particular things that lucy had said when she came in the room ie the "tube rubbing" which means that the mum would have to have invented it. Then mom is in the diary for a 9 pm feed lucy said it happened at ten and has changed the med records to suit, the sho does not recall advising to emit the feed lucy had put in the med records. Presumably if he had the mom would have been advised to not attend as arranged for the 9 pm feed? You have two people ie the mum and sho saying the opposite of lucy. Then you have the actual symptoms of the baby itself, namely bleeding, sudden desaturation and the skin patterns. This all is one case that has strong similarities across the charges. So much going against what lucy letby said and what other people are saying.

I really think it would be wrong to not apply these instances to the other charges when allot of the med records don't indicate natural pathology of disease. If they don't look the way things look when it's natural maybe it ain't?

Eta. I might be saying they are taking it out of context.
 
Last edited:
I could have sworn the national review was a decent quality publisher?


I don't agree with this, beige ? Yes, normal? Not so much but outwardly yes.

"From the beginning, a strange aspect of the case was that Letby appears to have been, by all accounts, a normal, well-adjusted young woman"

"He's not leaving here alive is he"?

And this seems to miss the IV bag altogether. Think they thought she injected direct to vein.

"A retired pediatrician, whose evidence the police relied on in making their case against Letby, said that with the cases in which the babies were thought to have been poisoned by insulin there was “some kind of smoking gun.” But as Aviv reports: “The blood sample for the first baby had been taken ten hours after Letby had left the hospital; any insulin delivered by her would NO LONGER be detectable.”

Missed a key part of it in that the accusation was that she put it in the IV bag and left.
 
Last edited:
These articles are worthless. Any point that they make can be torn to shreds when you look properly at the evidence. It appears the people writing these articles have only skimmed the surface. What are they going on about with the insulin? Why would insulin not be detectable after she left? It was in the TPN bag!

Letby needed Child F to fall sick because she'd been walked in on after attacking Child E by the mother. She needed it to seem like there was something wrong with both babies (twins)- preferably while not on shift.


I think the timing of the first insulin case is key. It happened after the first 3 deaths when she had been with the babies alone immediately beforehand or hung iv medication. Her own nurse colleague had thought the deaths were strange and had remarked to Letby how unlucky she was and how she needed a break from it being her all the time. In the process of attacking baby E, she was almost caught out by the mother.


Then, less than 24 hours after the death of baby E, she poisoned the TPN bags with Insulin. Letby wanted baby F to fall sick because it would make it appear that there was something wrong with the twins E and F. It would also result in another nurses designated baby falling ill and it would happen when Letby wasn't there, so it would shift the focus away from her in more ways than one.


Letby was the sole signee of the first TPN bag for baby F, she also falsified the reading right before she left to make the readings appear normal. She was letting the insulin build up in baby F's body but giving the impression on paper that was not the case. She wanted baby F to receive insulin for as long as possible after she left.
 
These articles are worthless. Any point that they make can be torn to shreds when you look properly at the evidence. It appears the people writing these articles have only skimmed the surface. What are they going on about with the insulin? Why would insulin not be detectable after she left? It was in the TPN bag!

Letby needed Child F to fall sick because she'd been walked in on after attacking Child E by the mother. She needed it to seem like there was something wrong with both babies (twins)- preferably while not on shift.


I think the timing of the first insulin case is key. It happened after the first 3 deaths when she had been with the babies alone immediately beforehand or hung iv medication. Her own nurse colleague had thought the deaths were strange and had remarked to Letby how unlucky she was and how she needed a break from it being her all the time. In the process of attacking baby E, she was almost caught out by the mother.


Then, less than 24 hours after the death of baby E, she poisoned the TPN bags with Insulin. Letby wanted baby F to fall sick because it would make it appear that there was something wrong with the twins E and F. It would also result in another nurses designated baby falling ill and it would happen when Letby wasn't there, so it would shift the focus away from her in more ways than one.


Letby was the sole signee of the first TPN bag for baby F, she also falsified the reading right before she left to make the readings appear normal. She was letting the insulin build up in baby F's body but giving the impression on paper that was not the case. She wanted baby F to receive insulin for as long as possible after she left.
One thing all the recent “Could she be innocent? ” articles seem to have in common is that they are all based on the fan fiction version of events. The one where LL is some modern day Mother Theresa, working to save lives as sewage poured down the walls around her. With consultants bullying her because she was just so damn good at her job that they felt inferior, and the prosecution blaming her for killing babies purely because she was on shift when they died.

Sure it might sell papers now and add a few more members to the LL fan club, but it’s not based on reality so I can’t see it making a difference long term. The medical “doubts” seem to be the same ones that were used to try to intervene in the trial last year, that were rejected by the judge/defence and debunked by medics online. I can’t understand why the fan club are celebrating as if she’s been found innocent, when all that’s actually happened is that the papers have reported that some people have doubts. I’ve even seen demands that she be released immediately!

It feels like we now have to wait till all those new to the trial play catch up, read all the reports from the trial, listen to the transcripts of the cross examination and eventually come to the same conclusion that the majority of us who actually followed the trial daily for 10 months came to. But I suspect few are going to do that, as people prefer a quick fix, an easy read, somebody else summing everything up for them in a simple format. And that’s where the conspiracy theorists step in …
 
I wonder if LL having so many fans is because she's blonde.
It's not, it's the lack of "hard evidence" and her totally unremarkable background which means it's hard to marry the thought that that "image" has done "these things". It's reasonable but imo all of that data collated and evaluated constitutes hard evidence. It's a hard thing for most and contrary to desire to understand that some people really do wear masks.
 
Interesting article here, I don't think you could exclude women from this characteristic.

"According to the study, men with high levels of psychopathy also use more hand gestures than those with lower scores, and SHORT BURSTS OF BLINKING HAVE also been found in those with higher levels."

 
It would be really bad if people took these articles as proof of innocence. Think they misrepresent it allot tbh. Was a range of evidence that got her sentenced and was drawn from across the board.
Precisely the point!

It's very easy to pick out individual pieces of the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that that particular piece proves nothing at all and means absolutely nothing.

That's not how this case was decided, though. It was the whole of the evidence presented and the totality of the circumstances which resulted in her convictions. If someone saw her injecting insulin into a bag or dislodging a tube then we would not have had a ten month trial!

It is extremely disingenuous of people to say that because one or two pieces of evidence were not evidence of absolute guilt, in and of themselves, that she was unfairly convicted. It's bordering on dishonesty, especially as regards the big professional outlets who should know better and do better journalism. IMO.
 
This is beyond ridiculous now. To put it mildly.

IMO
Those of us who know where these theories originated know how ridiculous this all is . I wonder how long it will take for it to come full circle and for the original sources of the conspiracy theories to become the story.

The babies’ anonymity is making this story so one sided. Under normal circumstances the public would be familiar with the victims , would know their names, see their pictures, know their grieving parents, hear their stories, see and read their reactions to these claims via interviews on tv or in newspapers. But we have none of that. I can totally understand why the families wanted anonymity, but it really is a double edged sword.

Those of us who followed the trial and read the victim impact statements know the babies’ stories but the majority of the British public don’t. Think of the impact of the parents being able to give an interview to the Sunday papers or to one of the popular TV shows, being able to explain why they know LL is guilty.

How she waited till one of them went to do her daily school run before attacking her baby. How another found her baby screaming with blood round their mouth in LL’s care and was told wtteo “Trust me I’m a nurse” and sent back to the labour ward. How LL then lied about what time it all happened, despite the mother being able to pinpoint the time from her phone records because she’d been so worried she’d rang her partner.

They would also be able to explain that the babies who were poisoned with insulin weren’t left “unharmed” and to point out that both of those babies had twin siblings who were also attacked by LL( as that fact never seems to get mentioned by those who deny the insulin poisonings).

I know it’s never going to happen and I understand and respect the families’ decision but Jesus it’s frustrating that LL is being talked about like she’s a victim and the real victims are being forgotten!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
76
Guests online
437
Total visitors
513

Forum statistics

Threads
608,240
Messages
18,236,715
Members
234,325
Latest member
davenotwayne
Back
Top