VERDICT WATCH UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #28

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
esther43 said:
Mmm. Funny that TC was advising that, knowing he had the visit from the RCPH coming up in September.
The weirdest thing is that after the RCPH issued the report in November, TC was still seemingly not willing to contact the police imminently.
I am ever curious about who bought the insulin to light. I am still unsure if senior management heard about it before the police got involved or whether it was uncovered by the police.
Click to expand...
As a poster wrote above, this Tony seems to be a Union rep.
Note that he asked about "social things".

JMO
 
I thought this was interesting too, in relation to her 2016 diary -

judge's summing up - Recap: Lucy Letby trial, July 10 - judge's summing up, jury out :

11:42am

"In her 2020 interview, Letby was asked about the diaries. She said she thought she started documenting names amid concerns of the rising number of babies dying."

--

From earlier evidence - Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, April 17 :


1:00pm

"A page from Letby's 2016 diary is shown to the court, with a note on April 8: 'LD [long day] twins'. The following day is 'LD twins resus]. It is followed in a different coloured pen by 'Salsa - Buckley'.
A page of June 20-26 from Letby's diary, has for June 23: 'LD ([name of Child O's initial])'
June 24: 'LD ([name of Child P's initial) A+E'
June 25: 'LD ([name of Child Q's initial)'"


--

Mother's evidence - Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, February 15

"...the decision was made for the birth to take place, via c-section, on April 8.
The babies, weighing 3lb each, looked "very nice".
The family were taken to the neonatal unit to see them in room 1 the following day and the family were "happy", and at that time it was not known what they were going to be called - deciding on the names a week later."

--

Judge's summing up for twins L&M - Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, February 15

"Letby said her taking home the notes was an "error" and denied taking them from a confidential waste bin. She added she cared for the twins on subsequent days "quite frequently", during which time there were no adverse incidents."

--



It seems to me she didn't know the name of twin M at the time she made the note of his resus in her diary, and it was likely written when it occurred, before he was named.

JMO
 
esther43 said:
Mmm. Funny that TC was advising that, knowing he had the visit from the RCPH coming up in September.
The weirdest thing is that after the RCPH issued the report in November, TC was still seemingly not willing to contact the police imminently.
I am ever curious about who bought the insulin to light. I am still unsure if senior management heard about it before the police got involved or whether it was uncovered by the police.
Click to expand...
11:08am

Mr Johnson says the 'gang of four' didn't do a very good of scapegoating Lucy Letby, as they missed the insulin evidence - "the best bit of evidence".
He says "all the clues point in one direction, don't they? She's sitting in the back of court."
He says the four "didn't even know" about the "wildly out of kilter" insulin readings when they "blew the whistle".

11:17am

"Her ignorance of insulin c-peptide...and the ratio [to insulin]...allowed her to poison [Child F and Child L].
"What she didn't know about the disconnection [between the insulin and insulin c-peptide ratio] leaves a biological footprint which leaves foul play.
"She would have got away with that - if police hadn't...referred the cases to Dr [Dewi] Evans."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, June 19 - closing speeches



11:16am

This was the 60th case Dr Dewi Evans looked at, the court is told, and saw the relation between insulin and insulin c-peptide in the blood plasma laboratory result for Child L.

He suggested to police a specialist should be approached to review his findings.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, July 6 - judge's summing up
 
Tortoise said:
I thought this was interesting too, in relation to her 2016 diary -

judge's summing up - Recap: Lucy Letby trial, July 10 - judge's summing up, jury out :

11:42am

"In her 2020 interview, Letby was asked about the diaries. She said she thought she started documenting names amid concerns of the rising number of babies dying."

--

From earlier evidence - Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, April 17 :


1:00pm

"A page from Letby's 2016 diary is shown to the court, with a note on April 8: 'LD [long day] twins'. The following day is 'LD twins resus]. It is followed in a different coloured pen by 'Salsa - Buckley'.
A page of June 20-26 from Letby's diary, has for June 23: 'LD ([name of Child O's initial])'
June 24: 'LD ([name of Child P's initial) A+E'
June 25: 'LD ([name of Child Q's initial)'"


--

Mother's evidence - Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, February 15

"...the decision was made for the birth to take place, via c-section, on April 8.
The babies, weighing 3lb each, looked "very nice".
The family were taken to the neonatal unit to see them in room 1 the following day and the family were "happy", and at that time it was not known what they were going to be called - deciding on the names a week later."

--

Judge's summing up for twins L&M - Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, February 15

"Letby said her taking home the notes was an "error" and denied taking them from a confidential waste bin. She added she cared for the twins on subsequent days "quite frequently", during which time there were no adverse incidents."

--



It seems to me she didn't know the name of twin M at the time she made the note of his resus in her diary, and it was likely written when it occurred, before he was named.

JMO
Click to expand...
Perhaps the hospital initialled them “A, B, C” for identification purposes until they had names, and that’s what was in the diary? Alternatively she wrote them retrospectively.
 
Last edited:
mucbetam said:
A Long Sentence.
The more I think about the weight of this case and how it will be - and I wish only the babies would be - remembered for hundreds of years, literally - the more I realise that it will be not only what I earlier and deliberately termed the media ministry, but also highly likely the other obvious which again I will deliberately call the department of court cases will be, while of course ensuring that the judiciary is made to feel independent entirely and subject only to rules and histories in the common law as their guide, will in absolute terms be calling the precise shots on how this is handled inside the court, and directions in the same regard I am sure will be issued outside of the court, before the media storm ensues. Maybe a long sentence some of the barristers who didn't like my last post will make them feel that sentence and all its errata itself deserves a long sentence. However I can quite clearly see how it will be a quite obvious briefing that shall be daily given to the current LC, and the PM, and that the current M for the MoM as I have termed it, will be involved, surely, if not only to issue a national position on the matter to the M in the actual ministry's name, at the earliest possible time. All that takes positioning, a great deal of discussion, and time. I can't see how HH the J MG KC isn't going to be in regular contact at the highest of levels, and that restrictions will be very rigid until those mentioned give the go ahead (with appropriate deference to HH the J MG MC). I dare to conjecture there is far more going on in this case at the national level than Manchester CC and it is perhaps worthy of consideration as a bigger picture. That's all I am noting at the moment. Maybe that's not relevant or doesn't make a lot of sense, but for some you will realise the absolute gravity of all of this. I say this without present experience or employ in respect of such matters at such levels but with a great deal of intuition and corroborating evidence I suppose. Sorry if this adds no value whatever, just my train of thought and a mere stream of dreamy consciousness.
Click to expand...
I really haven’t followed Websleuths lately due to my husband’s heart attack (thank you so much for all your kind words, he’s now home and I’ve gaffer taped him to the chair)

BUT for the love of an English Breakfast, what the heck does this post mean^^^?
 
Diddly1 said:
I really haven’t followed Websleuths lately due to my husband’s heart attack (thank you so much for all your kind words, he’s now home and I’ve gaffer taped him to the chair)

BUT for the love of an English Breakfast, what the heck does this post mean^^^?
Click to expand...
No one seems to be able to figure it out!
 
Tortoise said:
...


It seems to me she didn't know the name of twin M at the time she made the note of his resus in her diary, and it was likely written when it occurred, before he was named.

JMO
Click to expand...
RSBM

I agree. If the twins weren't named for a week it makes sense that the note referring to them as "twins" was likely made during that one week period when they had no names, rather than afterwards where she could have used the initial of their names like she did with the triplets. Although I'd add that, if guilty, the "twin resus" note could have been added before it happened, as a reminder of something she was planning to do, in the same way she wrote that she would be working that (extra) shift.

JMO, if guilty.
 
Tortoise said:
When, and if, the judge gives them a majority direction.

He hasn't yet, they have been asked to reach unanimous verdicts.
Click to expand...
Is it ever the case that they are already in that position - reporting back not u
Diddly1 said:
I really haven’t followed Websleuths lately due to my husband’s heart attack (thank you so much for all your kind words, he’s now home and I’ve gaffer taped him to the chair)

BUT for the love of an English Breakfast, what the heck does this post mean^^^?
Click to expand...
I rephrased this post for a member called Lucy, as it was written without much thought about the content or structure, however, it was deeply criticised by someone sounding like they were perhaps a barrister or civil servant, as though a senior government official cannot and would not ever pick up the phone to a judge, and as though somehow the 'rule of law' takes precedence over relationships and precludes discussions in such matters. It was also implied that this is somehow a garden variety criminal trial and not one which has the potential to be a significant national talking point (and distraction). It clearly is not. However, there were admittedly a number of errors on my part, in what I was merely speculating, and some helpful input was introduced later by someone with far greater expertise than me, a mere observer speculating admittedly in a stream of consciousness fashion.

Then a history teacher weighed in implying that somehow drawing attention to potential interest in the case by those more involved in the governance than the legal side somehow implies an unfriendliness towards the justice system. There was concern expressed that ministers or other government people might be trying to influence judges or that judges might be swayed by government influences. This was considered an absurd idea - that was the position in effect. However, this was not what the speculation was about. I was simply speculating that this case will have such reverberations in society, that it is likely to be on the radar of officials and thus, members of the highest levels of governance in the country, and that actions are likely to be being taken as to how the outcomes might be handled, and how the press might be briefed in such a regard, and that cross government collaboration on that might include senior people across 3 potential departments / ministries. Among many other priorities of course. The posts which critiqued and seemed to make bullying and mocking, condescending remarks seemed also to have noble aspirations regarding what government should and shouldn't do and how judges should and shouldn't behave, again written in the spirit of rule of law primacy but were far removed from the reality, IMO. Though I feel these sentiments were perhaps slightly naive, I appreciate though the spirit with which the critiques were written.
 
Last edited:
ColourPurple said:
RSBM

I agree. If the twins weren't named for a week it makes sense that the note referring to them as "twins" was likely made during that one week period when they had no names, rather than afterwards where she could have used the initial of their names like she did with the triplets. Although I'd add that, if guilty, the "twin resus" note could have been added before it happened, as a reminder of something she was planning to do, in the same way she wrote that she would be working that (extra) shift.

JMO, if guilty.
Click to expand...

WaxLyrical said:
Ah sorry I totally misread your post!

Yes, totally agree that would suggest she wrote it at the time. Good spot!
Click to expand...
What's even more remarkable about it is that she wasn't the designated nurse for the twins on the day of baby M's resus. (IMO)
 
Tortoise said:
11:08am

Mr Johnson says the 'gang of four' didn't do a very good of scapegoating Lucy Letby, as they missed the insulin evidence - "the best bit of evidence".
He says "all the clues point in one direction, don't they? She's sitting in the back of court."
He says the four "didn't even know" about the "wildly out of kilter" insulin readings when they "blew the whistle".

11:17am

"Her ignorance of insulin c-peptide...and the ratio [to insulin]...allowed her to poison [Child F and Child L].
"What she didn't know about the disconnection [between the insulin and insulin c-peptide ratio] leaves a biological footprint which leaves foul play.
"She would have got away with that - if police hadn't...referred the cases to Dr [Dewi] Evans."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, June 19 - closing speeches



11:16am

This was the 60th case Dr Dewi Evans looked at, the court is told, and saw the relation between insulin and insulin c-peptide in the blood plasma laboratory result for Child L.

He suggested to police a specialist should be approached to review his findings.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, July 6 - judge's summing up
Click to expand...
Oh so it was Evans who spotted it! I see...
 
Tortoise said:
There's this too...

11:42am

Mr Johnson says Letby had not been questioned about Child F and Child L in 2018, but was questioned about it in the following interviews.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 5 - cross-examination continues
Click to expand...
Interesting. So some time between first and second interview it potentially came to light. I believe it was in the March 2019 that TC stepped down, so perhaps that was the breaking point.
Though someone else had been acting up in his position since May 2017 at more or less the exact same time as it was decided the police needed to be involved.
 
esther43 said:
Interesting. So some time between first and second interview it potentially came to light. I believe it was in the March 2019 that TC stepped down, so perhaps that was the breaking point.
Though someone else had been acting up in his position since May 2017 at more or less the exact same time as it was decided the police needed to be involved.
Click to expand...
It has to be the biggest 'coincidence' of them all.

Police identify their suspect in 2018, based on medical reviews which were done without knowledge of the staff members involved, and then insulin poisonings come to light, at which their suspect was present and assisting the designated nurses.

I wish I knew the odds of that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 146 more.
Total: 640 (members: 147, guests: 493)

Online statistics

Members online
147
Guests online
493
Total visitors
640
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,939
Messages
18,195,387
Members
233,656
Latest member
Artificiallife86
Back
Top