UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #11

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry dotta :(

it’s just me putting the info together. I’m kind of guessing that at the age of 25 she hadn’t quite become settled enough for a serious relationship. 25 is quite young to really have that side of life down imo especially for one committed to her goals. Maybe had little experience with boyfriends before. Not much anyways. Probably too involved with work and getting secure in a new house. The house gives her that opportunity IMO.
She seemed "too involved" all right.
But I'm not sure if it was only work.

Oh well, we all have noble goals but sometimes grim reality gets in the way.

Too bad!

So the dream house was sold?
Oh dear...

Oh, what should you be sorry about?
I'm certainly not! :D

PS
My "name" starts with capital letter D :)

JMO
 
Last edited:
She seemed "too involved" all right.
But I'm not sure if it was only work.

Oh well, we all have noble goals but sometimes grim reality gets in the way.

Too bad!

So the dream house was sold?
Oh dear...

Oh, what should you be sorry about?
I'm certainly not! :D

PS
My "name" starts with capital letter D :)

JMO
It certainly does.

yep house was sold in 2019. I think I remember someone saying she was struggling financially or something like that. She would not have been able to do any extra shifts at this point in time as well so that might explain it. No extra money for the mortgage. I think the selling of the house coincides with her being in custody as well. I have no idea on what the protocol for her work contract would be at this point in time. Can’t figure out if there was grounds for a dismissal legally. I don’t know if her contract was terminated or not. In the eyes of the law she is still innocent of any wrongdoing.

I was apologising for the story making you tearful. It seems very much like a story of shattered hopes and dreams. Also a story of well made plans and efforts being ruined. Very sad and I’m not one for a sad story lovely Dotta.
 
I was apologising for the story making you tearful. It seems very much like a story of shattered hopes and dreams. Also a story of well made plans and efforts being ruined. Very sad and I’m not one for a sad story lovely Dotta.
Apology accepted haha
 
I agree. There is clearly a personal connection here.

With reference to the house; it's been mentioned on here a few times that she owned it but I've never seen evidence of that actually being the case. She may have done, of course, but a three bed semi is a tad unusual for a 25 year old single nurse. Nothing wrong with it, and it makes little difference to the discussion, but it's just a bit noteworthy.

Do we know that she actually owned it or was she renting?
Re the house, just injecting here slightly, I have a family member (single) who has owns a 3 bedroomed house, bought around a similar age as the accused here.. Good job too etc, but no intention whatsoever for a family. In fact, when asked why buy a property of that size with no intention to have a family, my scenario here, they said property was a good investment whether someone wanted a family or not. It’s odd sure, I absolutely agree with you, BUT, it’s not unusual imo.
 
I’m not sure I would describe her as having a ‘low stimulus preference’ when she has complained in text messages about being bored when looking after babies that only needed feeding. But I do find it interesting how we all perceive these things differently. JMO.
Agreed.

Something else I have a hard time understanding----if she is innocent of all this, how did she end up here on trial, when she knew early on that people were getting suspicious?

When people began being suspicious of her 'run of bad luck' ---what was her reaction? It seems that her reaction was to lean into MORE night shifts and more time in room 1.

If I was being suspected of harming babies at my job, I would do everything possible to show I was NOT doing anything of the sort. I would make sure not to be seen in that light by changing whatever I needed to change so that I would no longer be seen as a murder suspect.

But she seemed to do the opposite. She continued to put herself in questionable circumstances by going into other nursery rooms without being asked to, and continued to work some extra night shifts, even when she had been moved to day times.

I just wonder why she didn't take it more seriously, if she is innocent, and didn't take steps to stop being connected to the 'run of bad luck.'
 
I’m not sure I would describe her as having a ‘low stimulus preference’ when she has complained in text messages about being bored when looking after babies that only needed feeding. But I do find it interesting how we all perceive these things differently. JMO.
duplicate
 
Re the house, just injecting here slightly, I have a family member (single) who has owns a 3 bedroomed house, bought around a similar age as the accused here.. Good job too etc, but no intention whatsoever for a family. In fact, when asked why buy a property of that size with no intention to have a family, my scenario here, they said property was a good investment whether someone wanted a family or not. It’s odd sure, I absolutely agree with you, BUT, it’s not unusual imo.
Yes, my cousin bought a 3 bedroom house at 25, but not because she planned to start a family. She began renting out both bedrooms to co-workers so she could then save her entire pay check. Soon she was able to buy another home for herself and used the 1st house as investment property.
 
Agreed.

Something else I have a hard time understanding----if she is innocent of all this, how did she end up here on trial, when she knew early on that people were getting suspicious?

When people began being suspicious of her 'run of bad luck' ---what was her reaction? It seems that her reaction was to lean into MORE night shifts and more time in room 1.

If I was being suspected of harming babies at my job, I would do everything possible to show I was NOT doing anything of the sort. I would make sure not to be seen in that light by changing whatever I needed to change so that I would no longer be seen as a murder suspect.

But she seemed to do the opposite. She continued to put herself in questionable circumstances by going into other nursery rooms without being asked to, and continued to work some extra night shifts, even when she had been moved to day times.

I just wonder why she didn't take it more seriously, if she is innocent, and didn't take steps to stop being connected to the 'run of bad luck.'
And that then makes me wonder, what others may have done to take themselves out of the suspect category? When these unexplained collapses began and people began suspecting foul play, I am sure there were a few possible suspects, not just LL. I wonder what the others did to make themselves less suspicious?

We may have ended up with LL as the defendant because she did not take any evasive action, while others may have done so. JMO
 
Agreed.

Something else I have a hard time understanding----if she is innocent of all this, how did she end up here on trial, when she knew early on that people were getting suspicious?

When people began being suspicious of her 'run of bad luck' ---what was her reaction? It seems that her reaction was to lean into MORE night shifts and more time in room 1.

If I was being suspected of harming babies at my job, I would do everything possible to show I was NOT doing anything of the sort. I would make sure not to be seen in that light by changing whatever I needed to change so that I would no longer be seen as a murder suspect.

But she seemed to do the opposite. She continued to put herself in questionable circumstances by going into other nursery rooms without being asked to, and continued to work some extra night shifts, even when she had been moved to day times.

I just wonder why she didn't take it more seriously, if she is innocent, and didn't take steps to stop being connected to the 'run of bad luck.'
But, IMO, you cannot measure yourself against somebody in grip of (alleged) compulsions/obsessions.
Or other (alleged) serious mental problems.
How can you even understand this person's state of mind?
What is "right" for you, might mean "wrong" for such a person.
And vice versa.

JMO
 
See I disagree with most of that. I don’t see a lack of social engagement at all. I also think she does come across as bitchy at times. And a bit of a busybody. The constant texting, the searching families on Facebook…not saying these things indicate guilt of course, but I also don’t think they indicate that she prefers low stimulation. Very much looking forward to hearing more about her when the trial is over though. We still know so little. JMO.
Nailed it. I completely agree.

She seemed pretty socially engaged with all of the texting and messages ---some fun and lighthearted but others kind of sharp and cutting towards others. And way too much private info about parents of the babies flying around her messages for my taste.
 
Not sure if this has been previously mentioned or if even relevant, but from the map of the unit it looks like the drug cabinet is in nursery 1. Could this be relevant if LL is guilty, as to why she always wanted to be in that room?
I had a similar thought upon seeing that. It would make it easier for her to have access if she was designated to room 1.

I had no idea room 1 was so separated from the other nurseries either.
 
But, IMO, you cannot measure yourself against somebody in grip of (alleged) compulsions/obsessions.
Or other (alleged) serious mental problems.
How can you even understand this person's state of mind?
What is "right" for you, might mean "wrong" for such a person.
And vice versa.

JMO
OK, but I was saying IF SHE IS INNOCENT, so I was not comparing myself to someone with alleged compulsions/obsessions. I was trying to understand how an innocent person would continue on that suspicious path.

I totally understand how a guilty person would, because as you pointed out, they have compulsions and obsessions which can take over.
 
OK, but I was saying IF SHE IS INNOCENT, so I was not comparing myself to someone with alleged compulsions/obsessions. I was trying to understand how an innocent person would continue on that suspicious path.

I totally understand how a guilty person would, because as you pointed out, they have compulsions and obsessions which can take over.
If she is innocent - why would she behave as if guilty?
Avoid night shifts if she prefers them?
Apologising for something she didn't do?

It would be suspicious IMO.
 
I find this suggestion by dr bohin odd.

“Mr Myers says Dr Bohin had said there was no evidence it was in situ as Child I was bottle feeding, so the tube couldn't be in.

"Well, someone could've put one in," Dr Bohin replies.”


im wondering what grounds she has to suggest something like that. Seems to be suggested to fit a diagnosis made before the facts are looked at.
When a baby in SCBU is bottle feeding, they start off tentatively. My eldest started bottle feeding 4 weeks prior to her being discharged, her NG tube was only removed days before she was discharged. Breast or bottle feeding is a process, usually the longest process to get a baby out of SCBU. Imagine having a full meal put in your stomach every 3 hours, and then having to work for it. Feeding is very difficult for a premature baby, and often the thing that keeps them in hospital longer. Towards the end of their stay in SCBU, they're referred to as a "feeder, grower". It's the hardest part for a parent, because you assume that feeding through breast or bottle should be easy, but it isn't for tiny babies who have been used to a full feed every couple of hours.

As a mum of three premature babies, the cases where the babies are close to going home are the most harrowing, because they're only in hospital at this point because of feeding, there is no medical need. And then when they're struck down and crash, it's seen as "well, they're a preemie baby is hospital". As a parent in that position there could be no greater shock.

Don't view these instances as a sick baby in SCBU, view them as your newborn who you have at home with you and then ask yourself if you think that would be a natural occurrence.
 
See I disagree with most of that. I don’t see a lack of social engagement at all. I also think she does come across as bitchy at times. And a bit of a busybody. The constant texting, the searching families on Facebook…not saying these things indicate guilt of course, but I also don’t think they indicate that she prefers low stimulation. Very much looking forward to hearing more about her when the trial is over though. We still know so little. JMO.
that’s fair enough. I haven’t seen anything bitchy from her. No talking behind backs, no ostracism of other, no derogatory comments. Busybody I would agree with but that’s not a negative could be work orientated. The texting and use of tech I think means a preference for communication at a distance or lack of face to face high intensity coms which is normal. It’s the lack of face to face I am referring to It also means preference for low stimulation imo.
 
If she is innocent - why would she behave as if guilty?
Avoid night shifts if she prefers them?
Apologising for something she didn't do?

It would be suspicious IMO.
If people thought I was killing babies, I would not put myself in the position for them to continue thinking that. I would stop that from happening, however I needed to so I wouldn't continue being a suspect.

Who cares what shift I had to change, which room I had to work in, or which hospital I might transfer to, or whatever---I just would never want to be on trial for murder.

Who was asking for her to apologise for something she didn't do?

Some coworkers were suspicious about her 'run of bad luck.' All she had to do was try to end that run of bad luck by not putting herself in the same circumstances for awhile. I would do anything to avoid being falsely accused of murder.

It wouldn't have been suspicious for her to say she was overwhelmed by the recent sudden collapses and to take a break or stay in room 3 and 4 for awhile, to emotionally recover. Then if the collapses continued, she would no longer be suspected.
 
Well I don't think Mr Myers argument stands to reason because in the first alleged incident child I was being bottle fed by her mother when she was awake and by NGT when she was asleep.


Also we didn't get to hear about this evidence because of the lack of reporting earlier last week, but in the opening speech for the incident in question the prosecution said this :


" '[Child I] noted to be pale in cot by myself at 03:20hrs … apnoea alarm in situ and had not sounded. On examination [Child I] centrally white, minimal shallow breaths followed by gasping observed.'

The registrar was called to the unit at 3.23am. On arrival, he saw nurses giving Child I full CPR. The notes suggest he had to reposition the ETT.

A consultant doctor administered adrenaline, intubated and ventilated Child I.

An X-ray showed gross gaseous distention throughout the bowel and signs of chronic lung disease of prematurity (CLD).

Child I, the prosecution say, had the same problem that she had when Letby had fed her on September 30.

The medical team felt that the abdominal distention had affected her ability to expand the chest and in turn caused desaturation.

Both nursing and medical staff commented on a bruised like discolouration to the right of the sternum. They assumed this was the result of chest compressions.

The category of nursing care was raised a level.
"Ironically," the prosecution say, Letby was made the designated nurse, as she was more qualified.

Medical notes showed the ETT had been "displaced" and, at 4.25am, the NGT was "curled in the oesophagus", which the prosecution say would have prevented release of the pressure created by excess air in the stomach."

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders
I would also just like to comment on "Chronic Lung Disease of prematurity". It may not be so relevant in this case but I saw this mentioned in a previous case. Babies who are born premature and have scarring on their lungs and breathing problems are diagnosed with Respiratory Distress Syndrome. The neonatal period is for 28 days only, so if a baby still exhibits the symptoms of Respiratory Distress Syndrome beyond this point, they will be diagnosed with Chronic Lung Disease. This is typically a premature baby who is still requiring oxygen a month after they are born. This has a whole scope of outcomes, often dependent on the gestation they were born.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
140
Guests online
2,280
Total visitors
2,420

Forum statistics

Threads
602,485
Messages
18,141,057
Members
231,408
Latest member
curiosities
Back
Top