VERDICT WATCH UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #29

[ColourPurple]

That's what I have an issue with, tbh. I see the rationale of concluding someone is guilty of something if you've concluded they've already committed a number of closely related crimes which share a good number of similarities. Although, only just, I have to admit.

I'm troubled with the insulin cases, however, because they aren't similar to the others, in my opinion. They are, to my mind, of a totally different nature and, whereas in the other cases only very few other people could have done them, in the insulin ones there are a lot of people who could have had access to those bags. There is very little to connect them to everything else that LL is accused of, in my opinion.

"There is very little to connect them to everything else that LL is accused of, in my opinion."

How about the fact that both babies that were poisoned with insulin also had a twin who was allegedly attacked by LL too? And the alleged methods used on the poisoned babies' twins were the same methods used to attack various other babies? Allegedly. JMO, if guilty etc.

 

[marynnu]

Unless LL didn't do any of them and there was another person adulterating bags with insulin?

Would all the fridges be locked or just the ones storing potentially dangerous/controlled substances?

All drug cupboards & fridges are locked, regardless of the nature of the drug. Dangerous/controlled drugs are normally in a cupboard within a cupboard & the key is held separately by the nurse in charge.

 

[JosieJo]

Unless LL didn't do any of them and there was another person adulterating bags with insulin?

Would all the fridges be locked or just the ones storing potentially dangerous/controlled substances?

As in one person trying to harm / kill babies with insulin and another person trying and killing babies also with different methods?

I dont see the insulin cases as that different...if we look at all the case there are what ? 4 alleged methods? All different...are we to think then 4 different people are attacking babies because they are different methods?

Looking at it ...4 methods may be different but the common factor is they are all methods a neonatal nurse would know are lethal
Air Embolism
Insulin
Overfeeding
Trauma

 

[Parker Knoll]

It stretches the realms of credibility that there could be more than one person on the ward causing harm. She just switched up and changed out methods.
JMO

 

[bobbymkii]

The losers (most of us!) have a second chance of glory by backing the winner. Or a chance of failing twice, depending on your point of view.

Looks like most of those will fall tomorrow. When the deliberations clock hits 32 hours, you'll no doubt be reaching under the ring and then it's @marynnu with a steel chair! And the pin! One! Two! Three! *DINGDINGDING*

 

[Kemug]

Yes, I really cannot get my brain to believe that there was more than 1 nurse attacking babies in the relevant year or so. Just can't believe that it's possible, or even likely.

 

[Parker Knoll]

It’s not. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s a freaking DUCK.
JMO.

 

[Tortoise]

Unless LL didn't do any of them and there was another person adulterating bags with insulin?

Would all the fridges be locked or just the ones storing potentially dangerous/controlled substances?

This is why the prosecution asked the jury to pay attention to the circumstances of baby L, because his glucose was poisoned while the bag was hanging, meaning he was deliberately targeted, and with LL being on shift and assigned to the nurseries the babies were in, for both poisonings.

 

[Anxala]

This is my first 'verdict watch' trial/case. It's an interesting albeit confusing and, got to say, disconcerting experience.

Why are people so concerned that the jury members - in possession of far more info than we are - might be struggling here?

Particularly as they're barely into their second week of deliberations.

 

[Dcflag]

This is my first 'verdict watch' trial/case. It's an interesting albeit confusing and, got to say, disconcerting experience.

Why are people so concerned that the jury members - in possession of far more info than we are - might be struggling here?Particularly as they're barely into their second week of deliberations.

I think the deliberations game shows we were all expecting a pretty quick verdict return (very wrongly obviously!)

I don’t think the worry stems from people struggling as such, more that with them not sitting for a whole week there’s just been speculation as to why.

I do think though, we’ve all massively underestimated the length of deliberations!

 

[katydid23]

That's what I have an issue with, tbh. I see the rationale of concluding someone is guilty of something if you've concluded they've already committed a number of closely related crimes which share a good number of similarities. Although, only just, I have to admit.

I'm troubled with the insulin cases, however, because they aren't similar to the others, in my opinion. They are, to my mind, of a totally different nature and, whereas in the other cases only very few other people could have done them, in the insulin ones there are a lot of people who could have had access to those bags. There is very little to connect them to everything else that LL is accused of, in my opinion.

There is one big similarity between the insulin poisonings and the other crimes----they all involve attacks on innocent babies for no apparent reason.

I really doubt there are two staff members at CHOC that are randomly attacking preemies in the unit.

ESPECIALLY when you consider that both insulin cases involved twins and the other twin was also attacked. Are we going to accept that both twins were victims of attack but by two different attackers?

 

[katydid23]

This is my first 'verdict watch' trial/case. It's an interesting albeit confusing and, got to say, disconcerting experience.

Why are people so concerned that the jury members - in possession of far more info than we are - might be struggling here?Particularly as they're barely into their second week of deliberations.

I think because that question presented to the judge seemed to indicate that someone did not understand the medical issues in the insulin cases. The question was basically irrelevant and a bit of a red flag.

 

[katydid23]

The losers (most of us!) have a second chance of glory by backing the winner. Or a chance of failing twice, depending on your point of view.

I am about to lose for a second time, unless the verdict comes one hour after they begin next deliberations ---

 

[katydid23]

That's what I have an issue with, tbh. I see the rationale of concluding someone is guilty of something if you've concluded they've already committed a number of closely related crimes which share a good number of similarities. Although, only just, I have to admit.

I'm troubled with the insulin cases, however, because they aren't similar to the others, in my opinion. They are, to my mind, of a totally different nature and, whereas in the other cases only very few other people could have done them, in the insulin ones there are a lot of people who could have had access to those bags. There is very little to connect them to everything else that LL is accused of, in my opinion.

But realistically, would both twins have been attacked by two different staff members?

Both insulin cases involve twins, and each twin was attacked on the following day. Did two different attackers assault the babies?

It makes much more sense that it was one crazy staff member that harmed both twins in each case.

And look at the big picture----TWO sets of twins, both sets born at COCH.
BOTH sets of twins attacked---one by insulin poisoning, the other by A/E.

What are the odds that any of that happened naturally or by more than one attacker?

 

[Lincoln34]

I don't think that's a realistic scenario. If a new bag & line were prepared they would replace the old ones and the old set is discarded straight away. It's a bit if a process as you have to attach the line to the pump, so nobody could simply swap them. And why would they, really?

@marynuu - Can I just say how much I’ve appreciated your insight and wisdom on this complex case? Many many thanks. You have answered some of my questions before I posted them - good for the threads! And I have really appreciated your sagacious and sometimes very witty posts . Thanks.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

That's what I have an issue with, tbh. I see the rationale of concluding someone is guilty of something if you've concluded they've already committed a number of closely related crimes which share a good number of similarities. Although, only just, I have to admit.

I'm troubled with the insulin cases, however, because they aren't similar to the others, in my opinion. They are, to my mind, of a totally different nature and, whereas in the other cases only very few other people could have done them, in the insulin ones there are a lot of people who could have had access to those bags. There is very little to connect them to everything else that LL is accused of, in my opinion.

I literally can't post or link anything here as it would be breach of T&Cs but a few months ago on the *outside* internet, on a well known discussion threads site, I read a theory about insulin and a different member of staff. That's why this insulin debate has now got me shook up again.

It defies belief but what if there were two people both being harmful?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

But realistically, would both twins have been attacked by two different staff members?

Both insulin cases involve twins, and each twin was attacked on the following day. Did two different attackers assault the babies?

It makes much more sense that it was one crazy staff member that harmed both twins in each case.

And look at the big picture----TWO sets of twins, both sets born at COCH.
BOTH sets of twins attacked---one by insulin poisoning, the other by A/E.

What are the odds that any of that happened naturally or by more than one attacker?

Possibly only in the tiny chance that the two people were in some form of collusion, or competition, consciously or unconsciously even - I'm going into deep dark realms* of the psyche when I speak to that possible phenomena.

*and also what I would personally call 'demonic forces'

JMO MOO

 

[esther43]

There would have been around 12 nursing staff with potential access. But you're right, it's hard to say for sure who injected the insulin. Assigning responsibility to LL only works in the context of the other cases.

Defo, though I think the texts asking the colleague to update her are suspicious.forgot about that little fishing expedition! I don't know what your experience is in Mary but in mine, for most people a handover is enough!

 

[marynnu]

@marynuu - Can I just say how much I’ve appreciated your insight and wisdom on this complex case? Many many thanks. You have answered some of my questions before I posted them - good for the threads! And I have really appreciated your sagacious and sometimes very witty posts . Thanks.

Are you my number one fan?? Seriously, thanks very much for those lovely comments, I don't know what to say really.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

How about if LL were guilty but *knew* she hadn't had anything to do with insulin issues that would leave her in a very odd predicament wouldn't it?