UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #20

[Marantz4250b]

The large boxes are delivered full of bags and sealed ...the only time one would be individual is if the ward had none and one had to be fetched from another ward. As far as I know that has not been suggested and I'd be very suprised if so as glucose is a very commonly used item and rarely not available imo

TPN is delivered bespoke ...I'm fairly sure they ran through the process from pharmacy to ward fridge in court when the pharmicist took the stand.

The likelihood of someone off the unit having access to actrapid insulin and access to both these items off the unit is very remote imo

Is this the case at the COCH, though?

Also, in the other case, patients on at least 2 wards were poisoned so it was definitely the case that bags for more than one unit (a male ward and a female ward) were adulterated.

Unless you can rule out everyone other then the accused with a massive level of certainty then I'm not seeing how you can arrive at being "sure" of her guilt. It seems possible, very possible, that it could have been someone else. Yes, I know that having two bad actors in the same place at the same time is unlikely but it's far from impossible, IMO.

 

[Tortoise]

In reading all those answers, though, I don't see that she's trying to pin it on anyone. She was just giving answers to the questions put to her, such as how many signatures are required, and suchlike. If you read down those answers I can't really see any that would not be reasonable for a person who was entirely innocent to give. Yes, a guilty person would likely try to divert attention from themselves and towards others but none of those answers are inconsistent with innocence, either.

(IMO) It's not so much that she says her colleagues did the feeds/administered the fluids/TPN etc, it's that she seems to have an uncanny knowledge that there was something about those administrations that resulted in the relevant collapse/death under investigation.

Since she's distancing herself from the administrations, why didn't she believe, for instance, that the collapses would have happened whether or not they'd received those administrations, and since she gladly admitted in every instance that she was part of the response effort, why wasn't she thinking the police suspected she'd done something to the babies after they'd collapsed to ensure they weren't revived? She has pinpointed the exact means by which the experts say the babies were attacked, and said that either other nurses did those or that the bags should have been checked.

 

[Sweeper2000]

(IMO) It's not so much that she says her colleagues did the feeds/administered the fluids/TPN etc, it's that she seems to have an uncanny knowledge that there was something about those administrations that resulted in the relevant collapse/death under investigation.

Since she's distancing herself from the administrations, why didn't she believe, for instance, that the collapses would have happened whether or not they'd received those administrations, and since she gladly admitted in every instance that she was part of the response effort, why wasn't she thinking the police suspected she'd done something to the babies after they'd collapsed to ensure they weren't revived? She has pinpointed the exact means by which the experts say the babies were attacked, and said that either other nurses did those or that the bags should have been checked.

Might simply be that she connected the last interaction with the baby with a possible cause for the collapse. Logical thinking, “this baby collapsed without a obvious reason so perhaps the last interaction with the baby was the reason“. it follows that if these were more or less random collapses she wouldn’t be able to think of the cause so logically it might be the last interaction.

 

[JosieJo]

Is this the case at the COCH, though?

Also, in the other case, patients on at least 2 wards were poisoned so it was definitely the case that bags for more than one unit (a male ward and a female ward) were adulterated.

Unless you can rule out everyone other then the accused with a massive level of certainty then I'm not seeing how you can arrive at being "sure" of her guilt. It seems possible, very possible, that it could have been someone else. Yes, I know that having two bad actors in the same place at the same time is unlikely but it's far from impossible, IMO.

All bags of glucose come in sealed boxes ..the boxes opened on the ward

All TPN is made in pharmacy as per the testimony

I'm not sure how the other case is relevant having victims on 2 different wards

It's a case of finding the common denominator by following the path

Presumably in the other case the nurse moved from ward to ward ?

In this case ..being on the same unit ..and being 2 completely different types of fluid delivered in different ways the common denominator is the unit

It's just then a case of finding "who" the common dominator is on the unit

I'd be very happy to be sure these bags were tampered with on the unit...unless the defence presents something to change this.

As the pathologist said on the stand..anything is possible..what's relevant is what's probable.

 

[Marantz4250b]

(IMO) It's not so much that she says her colleagues did the feeds/administered the fluids/TPN etc, it's that she seems to have an uncanny knowledge that there was something about those administrations that resulted in the relevant collapse/death under investigation.

Since she's distancing herself from the administrations, why didn't she believe, for instance, that the collapses would have happened whether or not they'd received those administrations, and since she gladly admitted in every instance that she was part of the response effort, why wasn't she thinking the police suspected she'd done something to the babies after they'd collapsed to ensure they weren't revived? She has pinpointed the exact means by which the experts say the babies were attacked, and said that either other nurses did those or that the bags should have been checked.

Has she actually "pinpointed" these or was she just answering questions put to her? I can't imagine that she'd randomly mention that a specific administration needed two signatures or that a particular other nuse was there at the time or that particular time.

She doesn't seem to be distancing herself from these administrations from what I can see. She's answering questions as to what took place and if the phrasing of the question is such that it leads to an answer involving other people or further detail as to how many people have to sign-off on it then that is not intentional distancing.

IMO, obvs.

 

[katydid23]

Having the police "call round" - seriously?

That's not remotely an accurate description of events!

Being arrested at 6am in your pajamas, having three more arrests lasting days at time; having to report for bail for months between those arrests and having thirty interviews under caution over more than twenty hours is rather significantly more than merely "having the police call round"!

Now, I'm not an accredited expert on here, and neither are you (yet you see fit to make "factual" comments as to what would not cause PTSD) but the above coupled with having your house, and that of your parents searched at least twice, having your most private possessions and writings exposed to all and sundry including having the gardens dug up might just cause you to go a little bit nuts, I'd suggest. Oh, and not to mention losing the career you've essentially based your entire life around!

When you add to that being remanded in prison for what is now two and a half years in some of the UKs worst prisons then even my inexpert mind can see that a major degree of psychological messed-up'ness is not altogether unlikely. Indeed, it's probably highly likely and I think most people will agree.

The above applies whether guilty or not guilty but especially so in the case of the latter, IMO.

Yes, but how did we get here? How did she end up being charged and arrested?

If innocent, then it is hard to understand why she didn't take steps to avoid this exact situation. People were getting suspicious very early on, about all of the collapses happening around her in the unit. She even knew because her colleagues spoke about her 'run of bad luck.'

Why didn't she do anything to avoid being the prime suspect? If I saw babies all around me collapsing for some unknown reason, I am going to step back and make sure I am NOT the main connection to the events. Many people suggested that to her and she stubbornly rejected the idea.

She has babies collapsing 3 or 4 x in a row, sometimes dying on back to back nights, and she doesn't think that she should take a break so they can figure out what is going so wrong?

After triplet babies O and P died, quite unexpectedly ion back to back nights, the whole unit was shocked. But LL was hellbent on then taking care of the lone surviving triplet, until the parents urgently demanded they all be transferred out of the Countess.

Her friends, colleagues and superiors all tried to convince her to take a 'self care break' but she insists on taking care of babies the next night too, and then Baby Q collapsed unexpectedly. That was a when she was finally deemed suspicious enough to be removed from the unit.

 

[katydid23]

Don’t lose sight of the fact that the question is not “were babies harmed,” but rather “did Lucy Letby harm the babies“. The medical experts are telling us that the deaths were unusual and deliberate, but they can’t tell us who caused them. I think we’re all convinced now in at least the insulin cases that deliberate harm was done. “I trust medical experts and they think she did it” is conflating the medical evidence with evidence of Letby’s involvement and is therefore a mistake.

Yes, the medical experts are saying 'someone' did this. The police investigators and the prosecution are the ones saying Lucy allegedly did this.

 

[Phoenix Lazarus]

She's testifying tomorrow, isn't she? I wonder how long it'll be before the Prosecution take over questioning?

 

[notsure]

Im waiting for the Prosecution to ask the defendant about "on purpose" part of the note.

Because the answers I have already heard make no sense to me at all.

Not at all.

I also noticed that Defence didn't particularly dwell on this subject.

But who can blame them, as this literally sounds like a confession.

JMO

The 'on purpose' part only makes sense if the writer is hypothesising about what they are accused of doing. Why would a killer use that phrase?

 

[Dotta]

The 'on purpose' part only makes sense if the writer is hypothesising about what they are accused of doing. Why would a killer use that phrase?

I don't see any hypothesising in

"I am evil. I did this".

It looks like affirmative sentence to me.
Granted, Im not an Eng native speaker.

JMO

 

[marynnu]

The 'on purpose' part only makes sense if the writer is hypothesising about what they are accused of doing. Why would a killer use that phrase?

I'm not getting what you mean. 'On purpose' means deliberately. Why wouldn't a killer say it?

 

[notsure]

I'm not getting what you mean. 'On purpose' means deliberately. Why wouldn't a killer say it?

Well, just hypothesising... If I were a killer, I think that saying I killed someone would be sufficient. "On purpose" is a bit superfluous, imo.

 

[Lammergeier]

The BBC reports another note that says “I killed them. I don't know if I killed them. Maybe I did. Maybe this is down to me.” Lucy Letby trial: Nurse's notes found in home search released

Which adds a bit more support to the idea that she was venting along the lines of “people say I did this so I must have done” - though I think many will find the idea of saying “I killed them” to be unexplainably strange in the same way as “on purpose”

 

[katydid23]

Yes, the insulin cases are crucial, I think.

As far as my mind is concerned, I'm in pretty much no doubt that insulin introduced from outside the body was the cause of the reactions in the babies. Exogenous insulin produces different markers than insulin produced by the body so I don't think there is any doubt that this was introduced insulin rather than insulin made internally. In my opinion they have proved that to the relevant standard.

What I do not think they have proved (from the evidence we have heard) is precisely WHO was responsible for administering it. Furthermore, I don't see how they can prove, definitively, that it was LL who administered it. Unless they can show a definite chain of custody and who had access to those bags or other pieces of equipment from when they were made up which I doubt they can then where is the evidence other than evidence based on probability? Wasn't it said that at least one of them wasn't hung up by LL? So other people did have access to them.

Let's also remember that this is exactly what happened in another famous and recent case involving a nurse who was actually mistakenly arrested, charged and remanded so this is not some fanciful thinking here.

These are exceptionally serious allegations which, if convicted of, will result in exceptional sentences. The evidence to convict needs to be exceptional in nature, too. Personally, I would be extremely uncomfortable convicting on these charges unless someone could demonstrate to me that the accused person was definitely the cause of the administered insulin.

Letby and the designated nurse signed the prescription chart to record the TPN bag was started and administered via a long line at 12.25am.

A TPN chart is a written record for putting up the bags, and was used for Child F. It includes 'lipids' - nutrients for babies not being given milk.

Letby signed for the TPN bag to be used for 48 hours.Letby was interviewed by police in July 2018 about that night shift.
She remembered Child F, but had no recollection of the incident and "had not been involved in his care".

She was asked about the TPN bags chart. She said the TPN was kept in a locked fridge and the insulin was kept in that same fridge.

She confirmed her signature on the TPN form.


She had no recollection of having had involvement with administering the TPN bag contents to Child F, but confirmed giving Child F glucose injections and taken observations.


She also confirmed signing for a lipid syringe at 12.10am, the shift before. The prosecution say she should have had someone to co-sign for it.

"She accepted that the signature tended to suggest she had administered it."

"Interestingly, at the end of this part of the interview she asked whether the police had access to the TPN bag that she had connected," Mr Johnson added.

UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*

Lucy Letby is on trial in the UK, charged with the murders of 7 infants and the attempted murder of 15 other infants. Media, Maps & Timelines can be posted here. *NO DISCUSSION* in this thread or your post will be removed.

www.websleuths.com

====================================

Letby co-signed for the TPN bag that was tainted with insulin.

She also confirmed giving the child glucose injections and also taken observations of the child.


Also, she signed for a lipid syringe for this child during the previous shift and accepted that she probably administered it.

So she was actively caring for caring for Child F during the time of the insulin poisoning, even though she had told police she did not care for him during that time.

She was also accused of injecting air into his twin brothers body, Child E, the previous night to child F's insulin poisoning. Child E died.

All of the above makes me narrow down the potential subjects to LL, IMO.

 

[katydid23]

The BBC reports another note that says “I killed them. I don't know if I killed them. Maybe I did. Maybe this is down to me.” Lucy Letby trial: Nurse's notes found in home search released

Which adds a bit more support to the idea that she was venting along the lines of “people say I did this so I must have done” - though I think many will find the idea of saying “I killed them” to be unexplainably strange in the same way as “on purpose”

If she doesn't know if she killed them or not, then there is a strong possibility that she may have.

 

[Anxala]

Yes, the medical experts are saying 'someone' did this. The police investigators and the prosecution are the ones saying Lucy allegedly did this.

So we'll just have to wait and see how the prosecution convinces the jury that no one other than LL could be responsible here. I'm not sure how they'll do this, to be honest, with the ambiguity that imo surrounds some of the babies' deaths, but nevertheless, they believe she's guilty so the onus is entirely on them now to bring this case to a BARD conclusive conclusion.

 

[katydid23]

That’s why they’ve tried to get away from it being “reasonable doubt” to satisfied you are sure, to remove this subjective element. It means you don’t need to have actually witnessed the crime yourself, but you still need to be sure.

I suspect if you were the one faced with a lifetime behind bars, you would not be happy with the people choosing your fate to only be 90%.

90% is a pretty strong certainty. In my mind, it is like saying I am certain about 9 out of 10 of these charges, but there is 1 out of 10 I am uncertain about.

 

[katydid23]

So we'll just have to wait and see how the prosecution convinces the jury that no one other than LL could be responsible here. The onus is on them to bring this case to a conclusive conclusion.

I think the fact that she was the only one present for ALL of the cases goes a long way towards proving that.

 

[Dotta]

Well, just hypothesising... If I were a killer, I think that saying I killed someone would be sufficient. "On purpose" is a bit superfluous, imo.

Really?
How do you know that the PURPOSE would not be the main objective of a hypothetical killer?

In other words - the motive.

JMO

 

[notsure]

Really?
How do you know that the PURPOSE would not be the main objective of a hypothetical killer?

In other words - the motive.

JMO

I just can't imagine any killer saying "I did this on purpose." It sounds ridiculous (to me, a native English speaker). It has to mean "They said I did this on purpose." JMO