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

[dotr]

Hello all,

I'm fascinated by this case and came across the site whilst reading up on it. Everyone here seems to be very much more measured and rational than most other places, to be honest.

Cards on the table from the outset; I'm one of the folks who are having real trouble getting my head round that fact this she's potentially a murderer. Now, yes, I know that it's very easy to say "pfft, she can't possibly have done it because she doesn't seem the type" but, that's undeniably how my mind is working, I'm afraid. I'm more than willing to accept that she's guilty if that's the direction in which the evidence points but....it just seems so unlikely, for all the reasons which have been gone over again and again on here and elsewhere.

It is, as far as I can see, exceptionally rare for someone fitting her general profile to be a serial murderer, let alone of new-born babies; a 25 year-old, female, with no apparent turbulent childhood, who is from what seems to be a normal middle-class family, with good education, who's friends all say she was one of the most caring and responsible people they've met and who appeared to be intent on getting into a "caring" profession is very, very rare in terms of being a murderer surely? I can't think of any murderer who seems to fit that profile.

I don't think she's the attention seeking "look at me" type either. Something that struck me about the photos of her that are doing the rounds is that none of them are self taken. They all seem to have been taken by other people (friends from the context of them) in very normal social situations for someone of her age. What I also think this suggests is that it backs up the statements from people who know her who have said that she's an absolutely lovey person. People clearly want to take photos of her and people don't usually take photos of people they don't like or have a bad vibe about, they certainly don't put them on the internet.

As others have said, there seems something very "off" about this. I'm not nailing my colours to the mast here and saying that I definitely think she's not guilty - it just seems so unlikely though. I still don't think that any actual cause of death has been suggested for any of these babies from any "official" source, which just seems bizarre. Were Coroners Inquests carried out in relation to any of these deaths?

Having said all that, I wonder if she intends pleading guilty - perhaps on some diminished responsibility grounds? I say this for a couple of reasons; she was arrested twice before the arrest on which she was charged. On the final arrest the charges seemed to have been made quite rapidly. Does this suggest that the police have come up with completely damning evidence and she's confessed? Her barrister said something to the effect of "She wants a resolution to this as soon as possible". He didn't say that she's "keen to clear her name" or to "move on with her life", which is I think is interesting......or perhaps it isn't?

The prosecution requested that she be held in custody for her own protection. Now, there is obviously the fear that people will have a go at her (although in reality such things seem to be rare) but is it not also possible that if she's guilty that she might have hidden drugs somewhere in order to kill herself - might explain the very detailed search of her house and parents houses? Surely in a case like this the standard prosecution request for someone to be remanded would be due to the severity of the accusations, yet that doesn't seem to have been mentioned?

I'm really, really puzzled by this case and, to be honest, I'll be disappointed if it transpires that she's guilty.

Welcome to Ws Marantz4250b, thanks for the well-thought out post!

 

[Marantz4250b]

Many thanks!

 

[Marantz4250b]

There is one other thing that struck me about her as regards her family history which doesn't seem to have been mentioned other than in passing by the media reports. This might come over as harsh - and it probably doesn't mean anything at all, so I'm not sure I should even be bringing attention to it - but the only thing which seems to have been put in the public domain which seems to be "out of the ordinary" are the ages of her parents. Seventeen years between them. Her father is reported as being 77 which means he was 47 when she was born. Okay, that's a bit older than is usual (then again, I know a couple of guys who have become fathers for the first time around 50 so perhaps not as unusual as I thought) but I don't think it really means anything.

It's "unusual" but not extreme or anything and I only mention it as a point of interest, rather than it actually signifying anything. There seems to be absolutely nothing else which isn't completely and utterly normal about her.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Hi Everyone, I am joining in after just finding this discussion.
I am really interested in this case, I was born at and have worked at the Countess of Chester hospital, I currently live just down the road. One of my friends had a child in neonatal care during the time period LL worked there but she has no specific memories of her.
I have been suprised by the lack of discussion of the case locally, I think it had been forgotten until the recent arrest and charging of LL.
I am new to this place so I do apologise if my comments aren't contributing much to the discussion.
I am under the impression that LL will plead not guilty and a trial will follow. Do you think it likely that the public will be allowed into the public gallary? I'm wondering if covid restrictions will be removed, and whether the trial would be open to the public? I would like to attend.
Do you guys think it likely that she will plead not guilty?

Given that you have worked at the hospital, does this form part of your thinking that she'll plead not guilty? I mean, is it the impression you get from having spoken to ex-colleagues, for instance? Apologies if I'm putting my nose where it doesn't belong?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Seems a bit of a loner to me. I think she had a BF some years ago but no doubt they will crawl out of the woodwork in the months to come. Also I can’t think of many 29 yr olds who go on holiday to Newquay with their parents at that age. Has now been suspended for 18 months from practising as a nurse. This case is so OFF

If she's convicted I'm sure that loads of "boyfriends" will come crawling out from under every stone. I suspect that there will be a lot of attention seekers looking to make a few quid in their number.

I'm not sure that I see the going on holiday with the parents as that significant though. Couple of reasons; I may be wrong but I think that she was suspended from work at the time that that took place? She is reported to have been living back with her parents so this might have been an opportunity to get away from the local area and avoid any attention from the locals? If her parents were going anyway then it seems not unreasonable that she might go along too - I can't begin to imagine what it must be like if she is an innocent person and had to spend days on end alone with this sort of torment hanging over her head. It's the type of thing that might drive someone to desperate measures. The impression given of her seems to be of someone who is rather quiet and perhaps more "nervous" than others so perhaps the "holiday" was more for her than the parents?

There is also the fact that her father is reported to be in his late 70's. Perhaps he is in poor health and her mother is not able to cope well so she went to lend support - who better than a nurse?

 

[Marantz4250b]

My underlying point, which I've been making on and off since the third page of this thread, is that this is a fact pattern that has produced miscarriages of justice in the past and it troubles me that people have moved on to speculating what motive/personality disorders she may have.

Of course it's possible they've got something rather more concrete than that in relation to one or more of the deaths, but in terms of what that could be nothing really makes sense in my mind. If she'd been virtually caught in the act then I feel like they would have done more than move her to administrative duties and only have her arrested two years after the alleged killings. The other possibility would be that they had evidence of her misappropriating drugs, but if that was in play, I would have thought it would be its own charge on the indictment. Beyond that what else could there be? There were a lot of deaths, she was around for a lot of them, the deaths seemed odd, she was a bit weird, but that's exactly the sought of circumstances and reasoning that has lead to those miscarriages of justice.

I'm not sure that moving her administrative duties is anything significant at all, to be honest. If there had been any suggestion about her harming patients or misappropriating drugs then surely she would have been barred from the premises (and nursing via an interim ban as she now has) until the matter was investigated properly? The dangers in allowing someone under those suspicions to retain access would have been too great - the employers could be facing corporate manslaughter charges (if a public body can commit such crimes) had they allowed her continued access.

You say that there were "a lot" of deaths. I don't think we can say that for certain as all that has been produced thus far is raw numbers of fatalities. Those figures are meaningless without greater context. I think (off the top of my head) that the number of fatalities in 2015 was 5 and the following year it was 8, again, I can't recall the specific figures. Unless we know the number of patients who passed through that department over the relevant years though it means nothing. If the numbers of patients have doubled then it actually represents a lower death rate. Yes, that's extremely simplistic but it's just to make the point that we know very little about this case.

Is the "increase" in deaths of newborns, especially premature babies which they mostly seem to be, unique to this hospital, I wonder? Are we sure that there hasn't been a similar increase elsewhere? Was there something which resulted in more premature births during this time? If so then it seems logical that more would die?

As you say, it's a bit troubling that lots of people seem to be moving to the default position that she has severe mental health issues. There seems to be nothing to back that up. Moreover, if she does suffer from some serious issues, especially of a nature severe enough to lead her to murder babies is it not likely that it might have shown itself at some point? I don't claim to have any insight into how the NHS assesses the fitness of its medical staff but I can't believe that it simply does nothing. The Allitt case was a huge event, I seem to recall the NHS and medical profession in general carrying out all sorts of in depth investigations, I'm sure some of that would have been to do with spotting severe mental health issues in front line medical staff.

LL would have started her training around 2008 (18 years old) and apparently qualified in 2011. The Allitt case was well behind by then but still fresh enough that the lessens learnt would have been relevant and any recommendations in the various reports implemented. I'm not saying for certain that any severe mental health issues would definitely have been spotted but, realistically, how likely is it that such things would have gone unnoticed for what is now twelve years since she first started training? Surely, in the wake of Allitt, there are going to be methods and procedures in place to flag, as far as is reasonably possible, people who have severe mental health or personality disorder problems from the day they start their training to make sure that they don't get anywhere near patients, especially in the case of someone training to be a special care baby nurse?

 

[polerina]

I honestly think that at the end of a three year long invstigation they wouldn't have finally charged her with such serious offences if they didn't have a very strong case and a significant amount of evidence. The police will have brought the evidence before the Crown Prosecution Service before the charges were brought to confirm if they agree that there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction and it is in the public interest to prosecute. I therefore think that if this goes to trial we are going to see some significant and likely shocking evidence.

I have worked for the NHS for a number of years in different positions and in different hospital Trusts. I've worked in the Countess of Chester in the past as well. I'm afraid that in my experience there aren't really sufficient robust the methods and procedures in place to flag up potentially mentally disturbed staff members. During the employment and training process it is largely up to the staff member to disclose themselves whether they have had or currently experience any mental illness. Due to the laws protecting people from discrimination in the work place, the employer doesn't really have the right to demand the information. This is in direct contrast to a previous position I worked in which required a high level of security clearence, they have the power to request your medical records and conduct interviews with people who know you to thoroughly check your character and history. I think this means that LL could easily qualify as a children's nurse and work in a neonatal environment while being mentally unsound - as worrying as that is.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Thanks for the comments, very much appreciated and, yes, I do agree with your thoughts. She seems so unlike the type though from everything that's been published about her.

I completely understand that there are legal issues relating to non-discrimination and personal data protection but it surprises me that there are not more things which are done in relation to vetting medical staff prior to them being placed in a position in which they could murder a large number of people. The right to demand private information against the Human right to privacy is a balancing act and it doesn't seem too unreasonable to make some enquiries. Asking something along the lines of do you now, or have you at any time suffered from the following medical conditions..... seems proportionate in the circumstances.

 

[polerina]

Thanks for the comments, very much appreciated and, yes, I do agree with your thoughts. She seems so unlike the type though from everything that's been published about her.

I completely understand that there are legal issues relating to non-discrimination and personal data protection but it surprises me that there are not more things which are done in relation to vetting medical staff prior to them being placed in a position in which they could murder a large number of people. The right to demand private information against the Human right to privacy is a balancing act and it doesn't seem too unreasonable to make some enquiries. Asking something along the lines of do you now, or have you at any time suffered from the following medical conditions..... seems proportionate in the circumstances.

You are exactly right about the balancing act between a persons right to privacy and the rights of an employer to appropriatly vet staff. I think it's probably something a lot of employers are struggling with right now.

If I recall correctly, when you commence employment with the NHS you go through a screening process with occupational health. I think you fill in a form and there is a question similar to the one you posted " do you now, or have you ever suffered from xyz" but if you just tick 'no' they don't check up on you. If you do chose to disclose a medical issue, then you'd see an occupational health Dr at work who would decide if you were fit to practice. So I think the onus is still largely on the staff member to disclose and give details. If someone is determined to hide their issues, I think they can - unless their behaviour is so problematic and bizarre that it draws attention to itself!

It's a really interesting point though. I wonder if LL has any kind of 'interesting' medical history?

 

[Kitkat28]

Thanks for the comments, very much appreciated and, yes, I do agree with your thoughts. She seems so unlike the type though from everything that's been published about her.

I completely understand that there are legal issues relating to non-discrimination and personal data protection but it surprises me that there are not more things which are done in relation to vetting medical staff prior to them being placed in a position in which they could murder a large number of people. The right to demand private information against the Human right to privacy is a balancing act and it doesn't seem too unreasonable to make some enquiries. Asking something along the lines of do you now, or have you at any time suffered from the following medical conditions..... seems proportionate in the circumstances.

That’s a slippery slope though. Lots of people would never work again if they had to disclose their mental health issues on job applications. Saying that employers aren’t allowed to discriminate doesn’t stop it happening, and if there are two equally qualified candidates the employer will always pick the one who is “healthy”.

 

[Marantz4250b]

You are exactly right about the balancing act between a persons right to privacy and the rights of an employer to appropriatly vet staff. I think it's probably something a lot of employers are struggling with right now.

If I recall correctly, when you commence employment with the NHS you go through a screening process with occupational health. I think you fill in a form and there is a question similar to the one you posted " do you now, or have you ever suffered from xyz" but if you just tick 'no' they don't check up on you. If you do chose to disclose a medical issue, then you'd see an occupational health Dr at work who would decide if you were fit to practice. So I think the onus is still largely on the staff member to disclose and give details. If someone is determined to hide their issues, I think they can - unless their behaviour is so problematic and bizarre that it draws attention to itself!

It's a really interesting point though. I wonder if LL has any kind of 'interesting' medical history?

Good info, thanks.

A way to negate people lying on the form would be to do it in the way in which it's done when someone applies for a firearm/shotgun certificate. On the application form (which is here) Part B asks about medical conditions and history and asks for a declaration as to what specific conditions you have or have suffered from in the past. You are required to provide the details of your GP and to sign an authorisation for your GP to talk to the police. The police send a letter to your GP along the lines of Joe Bloggs has made an application to us and has declared that he/she has not suffered from X,Y,Z conditions. Is this true? If no response is forthcoming from the GP then the police issue the certificate. Although a doctor is not legally required to respond to the letter, he/she is ethically bound to reply if they know that what you have declared on the form is untrue.

In addition to the above, when a certificate is issued a marker is placed on your medical file so that a doctor knows to report if certain medical conditions flag up in the future.

In the case of medical professionals this could be done when someone initially starts their training or at some early point before they are given access to patients or dangerous drugs, I would think.

Anyway, that's getting a bit off topic.

Yes, I think it will be interesting to see if LL has any interesting past medical history. Although, if she pleads guilty we may never find out much.

 

[Marantz4250b]

That’s a slippery slope though. Lots of people would never work again if they had to disclose their mental health issues on job applications. Saying that employers aren’t allowed to discriminate doesn’t stop it happening, and if there are two equally qualified candidates the employer will always pick the one who is “healthy”.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way saying that it should become a standard requirement of every employer. In any event, in 99% of employment situations the justification on Human Rights grounds would never be met. However, in the types of employment where people are asking to be put in positions of immense power over the vulnerable (such as doctors and nurses) then I don't think it is unreasonable to inquire as to whether a candidate has severe mental health issues going on or has had them previously. Realistically, those situations are few and it would very rarely be a private sector employer making these inquiries when related to medical personnel. It would be the NHS (who are already bound by strict confidentiality rules) or perhaps Universities when someone starts training or at the point at which they are going to be given access to patients or drugs.

 

[Tortoise]

The kind of condition responsible for offences of this nature, if murder is proven, is very unlikely to have been previously diagnosed or found in patient's medical records. Strange behaviours and paranoid delusions which are perhaps much more common than complex personality disorders and rarer pathologies would be difficult to disguise in a working environment such as a neo natal unit. IMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

The kind of condition responsible for offences of this nature, if murder is proven, is very unlikely to have been previously diagnosed or found in patient's medical records. Strange behaviours and paranoid delusions which are perhaps much more common than complex personality disorders and rarer pathologies would be difficult to disguise in a working environment such as a neo natal unit. IMO

Absolutely, but surely some sort of examination of a medical professional's medical history is reasonable? I'm just watching a documentary on Beverley Allitt. That describes her as a massive attention seeker from an early age, with dozens of hospital and GP visits for non-existent maladies. She was also known to be violent towards a boyfriend. During her training she had something like 160 sick days and barely scraped through. No, she hadn't been diagnosed with anything but a medical history such as she had should have raised grave concerns, one would have thought. I gave the example of what is needed in the form of a declaration when you apply for a firearm certificate. If that sort of medical history came to attention during an application then very serious questions would be raised and you would be highly unlikely to be successful in your application. Should a person with that sort of history be allowed access to patients and dangerous drugs?

On the subject of Lucy Letby; people are suggesting that she's another Allitt with a similar disorder whereas, to me, from what we know (which is admittedly little at present) she seems to be the exact opposite of Allitt. There seems to be no suggestion that she's an attention seeker to any degree and those who know her who have spoken to the press have all said she was extremely hard working and would be the first home from a night out to study. She was passionate about becoming a nurse from a very young age whereas Allitt basically fell into it by chance and probably pursued it for no other reason than it was an extension of her attention seeking disorder. I don't think that there is a single "selfie" among the photos of LL which are currently public. I think that if Allitt's case were happening today then the internet would be full of pictures she took of herself. I don't think she'd have turned her FB off either as LL appears to have done. Whatever she is, I don't think she's another Beverley Allitt.

 

[polerina]

It is certainly interesting, though obviously such a terribly terribly sad case. It is interesting to hear everyones thoughts and I'm enjoying the discussion with you all. Thanks to everyone who has shared some words on this one.

 

[GimmeAclueBlue]

Not been here for a while but this case brought me back! I did not go through all posts but i live I staffs UK where one of our hospitals .....south staffs used a scapegoat or two for failings within NHS. It's does go on.

But the story about the triplets and her killing two within a day of each other just sways me so much! The fact they found it hard to bring the newborns bk to life is odd as is the motteling of the skin after death.
I don't know why but instantly syringe came to mind when searching guttering, i guess it's took so long to rearrest as they were tracing all deaths on her watch which would be extensive. I just can't understand if they r so sure why not arrest her in the first place OR Sooner over at least one death so she was in prison then they could gather more evidence and charge her with the rest......2 years seems a long *advertiser censored* time

 

[Marantz4250b]

Not been here for a while but this case brought me back! I did not go through all posts but i live I staffs UK where one of our hospitals .....south staffs used a scapegoat or two for failings within NHS. It's does go on.

But the story about the triplets and her killing two within a day of each other just sways me so much! The fact they found it hard to bring the newborns bk to life is odd as is the motteling of the skin after death.
I don't know why but instantly syringe came to mind when searching guttering, i guess it's took so long to rearrest as they were tracing all deaths on her watch which would be extensive. I just can't understand if they r so sure why not arrest her in the first place OR Sooner over at least one death so she was in prison then they could gather more evidence and charge her with the rest......2 years seems a long *advertiser censored* time

The fact that two of the triplets died within a day of each other is certainly unusual and desperately sad but it doesn't, of itself, prove foul play. Indeed, it could be strongly indicative of something else, perhaps an unspotted error, adulterants in some medication that was being used or perhaps an undiscovered virus. These were apparently respiratory issues and we are currently in the depths of a deadly respiratory pandemic caused by a virus which was almost completely unknown this time last year, after all. True, they were unable to resuscitate them but she is also charged with another nine or ten counts of attempted murder where the babies collapsed and were able to be resuscitated. So, if she was setting out to kill babies she wasn't very good at it as she failed more times than she succeeded.

I was quite puzzled as to why they were searching her house and parents house so intently as, as far as we are aware, none of the crimes are alleged to have anything to do with anywhere but the hospital. Why would she keep a syringe and take it home when she could just dump it in a sharps bin at work and its gone? However, if you look at the Allitt case, she had a rota book at her home which she presumably kept to hide evidence. A police officer on another discussion board supplied good reasonings as to why they would have conducted such searches and in such detail - an SD card, for instance, is very easy to hide. Yes, Allitt, did have a syringe but I think it was the case that she had that to inject herself as she had a very long history of faking medical maladies as an attention seeking ploy and was known to have injected herself.

The other reason for the searches may have been that they knew that if they didn't obtain enough evidence from questioning her and had to release her that she may have hidden drugs somewhere in order to harm others or kill herself. The Allitt case is one of the few points of reference the police would have had. When Allitt was suspended and moved in with family friends she started poisoning members of that family including the dog! Can you imagine the fall-out if she'd been allowed out and had gone on a killing rampage using drugs the police didn't look for given what Allitt did? The prosecution barrister at Crown in LL's case objected to the bail application on the grounds that she should be remanded due to there being a high likelihood that she might come to harm. I find it strange that the bail objection wasn't on the grounds of the severity of the charges or the risk of harm to others, both of which would have been just as relevant and more usual. I wonder whether they feel that she might harm herself if allowed bail? Perhaps she has said that she would?

The police can't just arrest someone and keep them banged up indefinitely on the off-chance that they'll find more evidence. Yes, two years does seem a long time (It was actually closer to two and a half) but ex-police officers on this thread have given good explanations as to why an investigation of this nature can be very time consuming. The thing is that they weren't so sure that she had done it when they first arrested her (or at least didn't have the required evidence to convince a court) so wanted to question her about it which is why they arrested her.

 

[GimmeAclueBlue]

The fact that two of the triplets died within a day of each other is certainly unusual and desperately sad but it doesn't, of itself, prove foul play. Indeed, it could be strongly indicative of something else, perhaps an unspotted error, adulterants in some medication that was being used or perhaps an undiscovered virus. These were apparently respiratory issues and we are currently in the depths of a deadly respiratory pandemic caused by a virus which was almost completely unknown this time last year, after all. True, they were unable to resuscitate them but she is also charged with another nine or ten counts of attempted murder where the babies collapsed and were able to be resuscitated. So, if she was setting out to kill babies she wasn't very good at it as she failed more times than she succeeded.

I was quite puzzled as to why they were searching her house and parents house so intently as, as far as we are aware, none of the crimes are alleged to have anything to do with anywhere but the hospital. Why would she keep a syringe and take it home when she could just dump it in a sharps bin at work and its gone? However, if you look at the Allitt case, she had a rota book at her home which she presumably kept to hide evidence. A police officer on another discussion board supplied good reasonings as to why they would have conducted such searches and in such detail - an SD card, for instance, is very easy to hide. Yes, Allitt, did have a syringe but I think it was the case that she had that to inject herself as she had a very long history of faking medical maladies as an attention seeking ploy and was known to have injected herself.

The other reason for the searches may have been that they knew that if they didn't obtain enough evidence from questioning her and had to release her that she may have hidden drugs somewhere in order to harm others or kill herself. The Allitt case is one of the few points of reference the police would have had. When Allitt was suspended and moved in with family friends she started poisoning members of that family including the dog! Can you imagine the fall-out if she'd been allowed out and had gone on a killing rampage using drugs the police didn't look for given what Allitt did? The prosecution barrister at Crown in LL's case objected to the bail application on the grounds that she should be remanded due to there being a high likelihood that she might come to harm. I find it strange that the bail objection wasn't on the grounds of the severity of the charges or the risk of harm to others, both of which would have been just as relevant and more usual. I wonder whether they feel that she might harm herself if allowed bail? Perhaps she has said that she would?

The police can't just arrest someone and keep them banged up indefinitely on the off-chance that they'll find more evidence. Yes, two years does seem a long time (It was actually closer to two and a half) but ex-police officers on this thread have given good explanations as to why an investigation of this nature can be very time consuming. The thing is that they weren't so sure that she had done it when they first arrested her (or at least didn't have the required evidence to convince a court) so wanted to question her about it which is why they arrested her.

Brill reply so informative thank you! As I'm sure you can see from my post I don't know what to think and its all, at this point just based on assumption as so little info has been in the paper or available in msm

 

[Marantz4250b]

Brill reply so informative thank you! As I'm sure you can see from my post I don't know what to think and its all, at this point just based on assumption as so little info has been in the paper or available in msm

Many thanks.

I'm in a similar position. It's difficult to know what to think on this one due to very scant information being available. It's just so hard to envisage her as a monstrous baby killer from the little information we have. Literally no one seems to have a bad word to say about her. The press, especially the gutter press, are usually very good at turning up dirt on people if there is any to be found so I'm surprised we haven't heard anything. It's two and a half years since she was first arrested and no news outlet, even the really scummy ones, has printed anything other than she's the most amazing, sweet, caring person I've ever met, which is just beyond weird given that she's been charged with murdering eight infants and attempting to murder ten others. Even trawling the internet seems to turn up no one who's ever met her saying anything against her. A post on a board I found yesterday was from someone who's mother worked in that hospital for 35 years (although she didn't know LL) and she said that the entire department LL worked in was in total disbelief when she was arrested.

Whenever this type of thing happens it's almost always the case that you can spot in what people say that they either had misgivings about a person or aren't totally surprised when they get arrested. There is none of that in her case. None at all. If she actually did this and the people who know her well all say that they had no idea she was capable of it then I think she's one of the most dangerous, devious criminals in British history. From what we know though I just can't see that, to be honest. Very, very strange, this one.

 

[Bakers]

Not sure if the timeline and information of each baby has been posted, this article lists it all.

Shocks me to the core that she is accused of attempted murder of a Maddie and then 3 days later a seperate charge of murder on Maddie.

Failed the first time so did it again? That’s a whole extra degree of twisted.

In full: the murder and attempted murder charges faced by Hereford nurse Lucy Letby