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
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:

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
247
Guests online
1,580
Total visitors
1,827

Forum statistics

Threads
599,615
Messages
18,097,483
Members
230,890
Latest member
1070
Back
Top