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

New Posts

Marantz4250b said:
She may have done but the evidence presented doesn't definitively point to that, imo.

I think that her number 1 priority was getting the attention and adoration of others; the doctor she fancied, other nurses, the parents and, probably, her own parents. This seems to be the general consensus, as far as I can see.

She did what she was convicted of in order to get that intention, imo. Yes, she caused horrendous levels of suffering but I don't think that she did what she did for the primary purpose of causing suffering. That was just the collateral damage of her getting what she wanted, that being the attention.

I absolutely think that she couldn't give a flying toss what the consequences were to anyone and couldn't have cared less whether these babies suffered or died and that she didn't care one iota what pain or grief it caused to anyone else. Her "thrills" weren't derived from causing people to suffer, though. Imo and I think that is borne out by the evidence presented.
Click to expand...
My post was in response to the question of LL being evil or not. I don't think it matters WHY she purposely murdered a bunch of innocent newborns, or if she liked to see them suffering or not.

Just the fact that she purposely fed them insulin, or pumped air into their veins, etc, is enough for me to consider her evil. It doesn't matter 'why' she was motivated to do so. I think she may be one of the most evil serial killers I know of. Her targets were the most innocent, most vulnerable of any. Which makes her a wicked coward. IMO

Who cares how her 'thrills' were derived? Just the fact that she was thrilled with the attention she got, FOR saving babies, when she knew she was the one harming them, is enough to label her as an evil person, IMO.

She'd kill one baby and the next day try to kill the remaining twin, as if the suffering of the parents was not already insurmountable. She even set her sights on triplets at one point---hoping to take them all out! How does it matter whether she was getting satisfaction from attention or satisfaction from the suffering? Either way, she was getting satisfaction from killing innocent babies. That is th literal definition from evil, IMO.
 
Marantz4250b said:
She may have done but the evidence presented doesn't definitively point to that, imo.

I think that her number 1 priority was getting the attention and adoration of others; the doctor she fancied, other nurses, the parents and, probably, her own parents. This seems to be the general consensus, as far as I can see.
Click to expand...
So it's not evil to kill babies if you are doing so to get the attention from others? How does that make it less evil ?
Marantz4250b said:
She did what she was convicted of in order to get that intention, imo. Yes, she caused horrendous levels of suffering but I don't think that she did what she did for the primary purpose of causing suffering. That was just the collateral damage of her getting what she wanted, that being the attention.
Click to expand...
So a nurse who kills a baby and then goes after the surviving twin the next day, after comforting the grieving parents and sending them condolence cards in between the attacks, is NOT considered purposely causing suffering?

I don't buy that. I think she loved to see others suffering. She dwelled on that. Wrote condolences and took pictures of the ones she sent and kept them on her phone. She'd look up grieving families on FB. She often targeted more than one child within each family. That is the ultimate suffering, for a parent to lose two newborns, inexplicably, within days.

I can't see that as collateral damage.
Marantz4250b said:
I absolutely think that she couldn't give a flying toss what the consequences were to anyone and couldn't have cared less whether these babies suffered or died and that she didn't care one iota what pain or grief it caused to anyone else.
Click to expand...

Again, isn't that evil in itself, that she could kill babies in painful torturous ways, and she didn't care, but kept on going and going, repeatedly?
Marantz4250b said:
Her "thrills" weren't derived from causing people to suffer, though. Imo and I think that is borne out by the evidence presented.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Her thrills were derived from seeing the suffering. She derived many various ways for these babies to be harmed. Poisoning, air pumped into veins, being severely overfed, having sharp objects internally damaging organs, dislodging breathing tubes. The causes of the victims suffering were many and were diverse. It was an important thing to her, IMO.
 
katydid23 said:
My post was in response to the question of LL being evil or not. I don't think it matters WHY she purposely murdered a bunch of innocent newborns, or if she liked to see them suffering or not.

Just the fact that she purposely fed them insulin, or pumped air into their veins, etc, is enough for me to consider her evil. It doesn't matter 'why' she was motivated to do so. I think she may be one of the most evil serial killers I know of. Her targets were the most innocent, most vulnerable of any. Which makes her a wicked coward. IMO

Who cares how her 'thrills' were derived? Just the fact that she was thrilled with the attention she got, FOR saving babies, when she knew she was the one harming them, is enough to label her as an evil person, IMO.

She'd kill one baby and the next day try to kill the remaining twin, as if the suffering of the parents was not already insurmountable. She even set her sights on triplets at one point---hoping to take them all out! How does it matter whether she was getting satisfaction from attention or satisfaction from the suffering? Either way, she was getting satisfaction from killing innocent babies. That is th literal definition from evil, IMO.
Click to expand...

I would also add
DERANGED :oops:
 
Is anyone live tweeting her testimony?
Parker Knoll said:
Todays link

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, June 24 - Letby gives evidence

The retrial of Lucy Letby, who stands accused of attempting to murder baby girl Child K, continues at Manchester Crown Court today (Monday, June 24).
www.chesterstandard.co.uk www.chesterstandard.co.uk
Click to expand...
1:02am

Lucy Letby, 34, of Hereford, denies interfering with the tubing of Child K at any point or that she did anything to harm Child K.
She denies a single count of attempted murder.
The jury of six men and six women has been told that Letby was convicted at a trial last year of the murders of seven babies and the attempted murders of six other infants at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016.
A court order prohibits reporting of the identities of the surviving and dead children involved in the case.


The defence case is expected to begin today, with the court hearing that this part of the trial is expected to last two days.


In any event, the court will not be sitting on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday this week.
 
2:47am

The judge apologises for the late start.
Nicholas Johnson KC, prosecuting, says there are minor amendments to be made to their jury bundle, which include adding page numbers to the interview transcript. Those are being presented for the jury first.

2:51am

Lucy Letby is called to give evidence.

Benjamin Myers KC, for Letby's defence, is asking questions.
Letby denies attempting to kill Child K. She denies intending to do the baby girl any harm at all.
 
10:55am

Mr Myers refers to the events of 3.45-3.50am on February 17, 2016. Letby says she has no recollection of that event.
She says she does have a memory of seeing Child K in nursery 1 at some point, but "cannot be specific with timings".
Mr Myers raises Dr Jayaram's evidence.
Letby says she does not recall anything like that happening, or of the consultant doctor coming in when she was present. She does not recall saying 'she has just begin to desaturate'. She says she does not remember being there in those circumstances.

As PK has mentioned, I wonder what she can remember - obviously not a lot as it's the same old "I don't recall" line. She definitely recalls, imo.

It's a rubbish defence - why not just say I didn't say/do that? By saying "I don't recall" you aren't denying that it happened and are, in effect, agreeing that it did.
 
3:19am

Letby denies being the person present to call for help in room 1. She had said in police interview she would not know why the alarm would be silenced.
Asked about it, she said she could have been "possibly waiting to see if she [Child K] self-corrected" when Child K's saturation levels dropped.
Letby says she was "trying to be helpful" to police and "think of reasons why" she would be in the nursery at the time.
She denies accepting she was in the nursery at that time.

3:25am

The police interview asked Letby about telephone messaging in connection with Child K.
Letby says "it happens frequently" that nursing colleagues message each other about babies. The court is shown an example of that messaging between Letby and a nursing colleague. The colleague is the first to bring up Child K, and Letby responds with details about the baby girl's potential arrival.

A message conversation with another colleague, Ailsa Simpson, is relayed to the court. Ms Simpson refers to a '24wkr', which Letby confirms to the court is Child K.

3:29am

Letby is asked about her shift that night on February 16/17. She says she was in room 2, but would go to other rooms to assist other nurses with their babies, or collect medications. She adds room 1 is where most of the medications are kept, for use for the whole unit.
"It was a busy [room], people would be in and out of the nursery [that night]."

3:32am

Letby confirms she was designated nurse for two babies in room 2 that night. A colleague, Sophie Ellis, assists with co-signing of medication that night. Mr Myers says from the chart, Sophie Ellis is designated nurse for babies in rooms 3 and 4.
Letby says it is not a problem that colleagues from other nurseries come to help co-sign, as two nurses are required for such tasks. Asked what would happen to babies in those other nurseries, Letby says a nurse would be asked to look out for those babies while the designated nurse was away from them.
 
3:35am

Letby says it was "common practice" for her and colleagues to assist other nurses, and she would not have an independent recollection of such assistance.
Mr Myers refers to events and duties from that night, and asks Letby to explain what they were. One of them is a feed via a naso-gastric tube for a baby in room 2 at 12.30am. Letby explains the process.
Mr Myers asks if the feed starts at exactly 12.30am. Letby: "No." Mr Myers says if that time noted gives an idea of how long the process takes. Letby says it does not, and the process of an NGT feed would take approximately 15-20 minutes.

Letby says the nursing notes of entries such as '1am' are "an approximation", such as taking observation readings, and would not necessarily be at 1am exactly.

Mr Myers refers to the 3.30am readings. Letby is noted as carrying out a feed and observations for a baby that is not Child K.

Letby is also recorded, at 3.30am, as being a co-signer on a log book for getting a 50ml morphine syringe out of a storage fridge. Letby says that was the time when it was withdrawn from the fridge. She adds it would take time for that morphine syringe to warm up to room temperature, and would not be used immediately.

She adds that time it was taken out would be "as accurate" as they could.



An observation chart for a baby which Letby was caring for that night (not Child K) is shown to the court.

Letby has signed observation readings for the baby at 9.30pm, 12.30am, 3.30am and 6.30am.

A feed chart is shown for the baby. One of the readings is for 3.30am. She says "this would take a period of time". Asked about an 'average' of time, she says "about 10-15 minutes", which would be longer if there was also a nappy change. She adds the feed would not necessarily be commenced at 3.30am exactly.
 
3:51am

Letby says she can see from the notes, she had changed this baby's nappy at the 3.30am feed.

Mr Myers asks if Letby has any memory of the 3.50am desaturation for Child K.

Letby says she does not, and has no memory of being asked to look after Child K by Joanne Williams.

3:59am

Letby says she has no memory of the circumstances which led her to being involved in the morphine administration for Child K at that time. She is listed as a co-signer for it.
Asked about the 3.30am 'morphine commenced' reading on the fluid chart, Letby says that time would be an 'approximation'.
The chart also shows, in Letby's writing, '0350 100mg kg morphine'. Letby says she does not remember writing that note.
An infusion chart for the prescription of the morphine syringe is shown. Dr Jayaram has signed for the prescription at 3.50am as the doctor's signature. Letby and Joanne Williams have signed for the nurses' signatures. The '3.50am' time is in Dr Jayaram's writing, Letby says.
Letby says the time could not have been before 3.50am.
 
4:02am

Letby is noted, on the schedule, as co-signer for a baby (not Child K) that Caroline Oakley was designated nurse for a baby in nursery 1.
Later that night, Caroline Oakley and Lucy Letby are co-signers for medication for Child K. Mr Myers asks if either of them were the designated nurse for Child K. Letby says they were not. Mr Myers asks if there was any significance to that. Letby says there is not.
Letby later adds admission records for Child K on a computer shortly after 6am. The timing on the computer system is accurate, the court hears. She says she does not recall writing the records.
Letby denies interfering with Child K's ET Tube moments later.


A chart for a saline bolus is prescribed for Child K, signed for by Dr Jayaram and administered by Caroline Oakley and Lucy Letby at 6.25am. That timing would be accurate, Letby says.

Letby is asked about the third desaturation. She says has no recollection of it.

Letby's last involvement with Child K recorded is around that time. The court hears her night shift finished around 8am, and she had no further involvement with Child K after that point.

Letby denies trying to hurt Child K, or trying to interfere with her to give the impression she was more unwell.

Letby: "No, absolutely not."

4:07am

That concludes the questions by Mr Myers.
The court will take a 20-minute break.
 
katydid23 said:
4:02am

Letby is noted, on the schedule, as co-signer for a baby (not Child K) that Caroline Oakley was designated nurse for a baby in nursery 1.
Later that night, Caroline Oakley and Lucy Letby are co-signers for medication for Child K. Mr Myers asks if either of them were the designated nurse for Child K. Letby says they were not. Mr Myers asks if there was any significance to that. Letby says there is not.
Letby later adds admission records for Child K on a computer shortly after 6am. The timing on the computer system is accurate, the court hears. She says she does not recall writing the records.
Click to expand...

She says she doesn't recall writing the admission records for Baby K into the computer system---BUT obviously she did so. I don't think it helps her case any to 'not recall' so many things.
katydid23 said:
Letby denies interfering with Child K's ET Tube moments later.
Click to expand...
Maybe she did it but does not recall? :rolleyes:
katydid23 said:
A chart for a saline bolus is prescribed for Child K, signed for by Dr Jayaram and administered by Caroline Oakley and Lucy Letby at 6.25am. That timing would be accurate, Letby says.

Letby is asked about the third desaturation. She says has no recollection of it.

Letby's last involvement with Child K recorded is around that time.
Click to expand...

It seems odd that she had so many 'recorded' notations where she was handling things for Baby K, and texting co-workers about Baby K, and being right there when Baby K had her 3rd desaturation incident, after being confronted by the senior doctor at the child's bedside-----but she has 'no recollection' of the THIRD desaturation.


It just doesn't ring true to me, especially when her unit had had so many shocking unexpected deaths and near deaths during that time. Wouldn't a child in your unit that you are getting meds for, changing nappies for, noting observations for, caring for having 3 code reds be memorable ?
katydid23 said:
The court hears her night shift finished around 8am, and she had no further involvement with Child K after that point.

Letby denies trying to hurt Child K, or trying to interfere with her to give the impression she was more unwell.

Letby: "No, absolutely not."

4:07am

That concludes the questions by Mr Myers.
The court will take a 20-minute break.
Click to expand...
 
katydid23 said:
3:19am

Letby denies being the person present to call for help in room 1. She had said in police interview she would not know why the alarm would be silenced.
Asked about it, she said she could have been "possibly waiting to see if she [Child K] self-corrected" when Child K's saturation levels dropped.
Letby says she was "trying to be helpful" to police and "think of reasons why" she would be in the nursery at the time.
She denies accepting she was in the nursery at that time.

3:25am

The police interview asked Letby about telephone messaging in connection with Child K.
Letby says "it happens frequently" that nursing colleagues message each other about babies. The court is shown an example of that messaging between Letby and a nursing colleague. The colleague is the first to bring up Child K, and Letby responds with details about the baby girl's potential arrival.

A message conversation with another colleague, Ailsa Simpson, is relayed to the court. Ms Simpson refers to a '24wkr', which Letby confirms to the court is Child K.

3:29am

Letby is asked about her shift that night on February 16/17. She says she was in room 2, but would go to other rooms to assist other nurses with their babies, or collect medications. She adds room 1 is where most of the medications are kept, for use for the whole unit.
"It was a busy [room], people would be in and out of the nursery [that night]."

3:32am

Letby confirms she was designated nurse for two babies in room 2 that night. A colleague, Sophie Ellis, assists with co-signing of medication that night. Mr Myers says from the chart, Sophie Ellis is designated nurse for babies in rooms 3 and 4.
Letby says it is not a problem that colleagues from other nurseries come to help co-sign, as two nurses are required for such tasks. Asked what would happen to babies in those other nurseries, Letby says a nurse would be asked to look out for those babies while the designated nurse was away from them.
Click to expand...
From your quote/post :
"She adds room 1 is where most of the medications are kept, for use for the whole unit".

Is this one of the reasons LL always wanted to be in Room 1?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 156 more.
Total: 1,818 (members: 157, guests: 1,661)

Online statistics

Members online
157
Guests online
1,661
Total visitors
1,818
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,212
Messages
18,091,808
Members
230,814
Latest member
akoyaqueen
Back
Top