UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #5
- Thread starter sleuth777
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2022
- Messages
- 2,972
- Reaction score
- 9,352
One of the inconsistencies I noticed was that in many of these cases babies recovered which doesn’t suggest them being Kill targets. Also that some were allegedly attacked more times, why some and not others? That’s largely my angle at this time, why some and not others?
My thinking about the speculated time of this trial suggests that there is allot of evidence to go over and the fact that the police investigation took so long with multiple arrests suggests they had to spend allot of time gathering evidence and putting it together for the prosecution. This suggests that they didn’t have much to go with that as well as the senior staff not really suspecting anyone means there is no consistent pattern other than LL “being present” as suggested by the defence. So many inconsistencies in seemingly all of it so far.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Well, its only 5 months to go now. They only sit for a matter of hours each day
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2022
- Messages
- 2,972
- Reaction score
- 9,352
Live coverage of today’s trial. I will update this with others if this one isn’t kept up to date.
news.google.com
Google News
Comprehensive, up-to-date news coverage, aggregated from sources all over the world by Google News.
news.google.com
I'm working on a detailed timeline for the case, will let you all know when it's ready and post it in the timeline thread.
In the meantime I've put together a list of the alleged attempted murders and murders, with notes as to whether or not LL was the babies' designated nurse - always on the search for patterns!
8 Jun 2015 - Twin Baby A - murder charge - nightshift - designated nurse
10 Jun 2015 - Twin Baby B - attempted murder charge - nightshift - not designated nurse
14 Jun 2015 - Baby C - murder charge - nightshift - not designated nurse
22 Jun 2015 - Baby D - murder charge - nightshift - not designated nurse
4 Aug 2015 - Twin Baby E - murder charge - nightshift - designated nurse
5 Aug 2015 - Twin Baby F - attempted murder charge - nightshift - not designated nurse
7 Sep 2015 - Baby G - attempted murder charge - nightshift - not designated nurse
21 Sep 2015 - Baby G - 2 x attempted murder charges - dayshift - designated nurse
26 Sep 2015 - Baby H - attempted murder charge - nightshift - designated nurse
27 Sep 2015 - Baby H - attempted murder charge - nightshift - not designated nurse
30 Sep 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder) - dayshift - designated nurse
13 Oct 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder) - nightshift - not designated nurse
14 Oct 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder) - (next) nightshift - designated nurse
22 Oct 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder) - nightshift - not designated nurse
23 Oct 2015 - Baby I - murder charge - (same) nightshift - not designated nurse
27 Nov 2015 - Baby J - attempted murder charge - nightshift - designated nurse
17 Feb 2016 - Baby K - attempted murder charge - nightshift - designated nurse
9 Apr 2016 - Twin Baby L - attempted murder charge - dayshift - unclear who the designated nurse was
9 Apr 2016 - Twin Baby M - attempted murder charge - (same) dayshift - unclear who the designated nurse was
3 Jun 2016 - Baby N - attempted murder charge - nightshift - not designated nurse
15 Jun 2016 - Baby N - 2 x attempted murder charges - dayshift - designated nurse
23 Jun 2016 - Triplet Baby O - murder charge - dayshift - designated nurse - also supervising a student nurse
24 Jun 2016 - Triplet Baby P - murder charge - dayshift - designated nurse
25 Jun 2016 - Baby Q - attempted murder charge - dayshift - designated nurse
In the meantime I've put together a list of the alleged attempted murders and murders, with notes as to whether or not LL was the babies' designated nurse - always on the search for patterns!
8 Jun 2015 - Twin Baby A - murder charge - nightshift - designated nurse
10 Jun 2015 - Twin Baby B - attempted murder charge - nightshift - not designated nurse
14 Jun 2015 - Baby C - murder charge - nightshift - not designated nurse
22 Jun 2015 - Baby D - murder charge - nightshift - not designated nurse
4 Aug 2015 - Twin Baby E - murder charge - nightshift - designated nurse
5 Aug 2015 - Twin Baby F - attempted murder charge - nightshift - not designated nurse
7 Sep 2015 - Baby G - attempted murder charge - nightshift - not designated nurse
21 Sep 2015 - Baby G - 2 x attempted murder charges - dayshift - designated nurse
26 Sep 2015 - Baby H - attempted murder charge - nightshift - designated nurse
27 Sep 2015 - Baby H - attempted murder charge - nightshift - not designated nurse
30 Sep 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder) - dayshift - designated nurse
13 Oct 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder) - nightshift - not designated nurse
14 Oct 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder) - (next) nightshift - designated nurse
22 Oct 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder) - nightshift - not designated nurse
23 Oct 2015 - Baby I - murder charge - (same) nightshift - not designated nurse
27 Nov 2015 - Baby J - attempted murder charge - nightshift - designated nurse
17 Feb 2016 - Baby K - attempted murder charge - nightshift - designated nurse
9 Apr 2016 - Twin Baby L - attempted murder charge - dayshift - unclear who the designated nurse was
9 Apr 2016 - Twin Baby M - attempted murder charge - (same) dayshift - unclear who the designated nurse was
3 Jun 2016 - Baby N - attempted murder charge - nightshift - not designated nurse
15 Jun 2016 - Baby N - 2 x attempted murder charges - dayshift - designated nurse
23 Jun 2016 - Triplet Baby O - murder charge - dayshift - designated nurse - also supervising a student nurse
24 Jun 2016 - Triplet Baby P - murder charge - dayshift - designated nurse
25 Jun 2016 - Baby Q - attempted murder charge - dayshift - designated nurse
BabaVanga
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2021
- Messages
- 151
- Reaction score
- 1,103
Excellent
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2022
- Messages
- 2,972
- Reaction score
- 9,352
Don’t forget the prosecution Will have done the same. That’s why I’m referring to what they and the defence have to offer and said as a way of summing it all up. The defences position is that the only consistent feature is LL being around, near or far apparently.
Lizziesiddal
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2019
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 22
I’ve just reactivated my account to reply to this as I sort of agree with you.
I’ve been following this case on and off since LL’s first arrest in 2018. I live in the next county, so not far, and it would appear on our local news.
For a long time I felt she couldn’t have done it, but there is a lot about the case that bothers me. If she were to be found guilty, I think there is something of ‘The Imp of the Perverse’ about her actions. It is a phrase coined by Edgar Allan Poe. In a nutshell, it is a metaphor for doing the wrong thing simply because it’s the wrong thing to do. Children do it a lot. Think Eve in Eden: eat of the fruit of any tree but that one. She picks the forbidden one. Homer in an episode of the Simpsons: do not press the big red button that says Don’t Push. He pushes it. Now think… I could squeeze a tiny bit of air into there. I shouldn’t, it could be fatal. She does it anyway. Just to see… And it becomes compulsive, addictive. Other ways need to be found also to feed the Imp.
How or why this should happen to someone’s mind is unfathomable. In a medical setting it’s catastrophic.
All just speculation and MOO
"The impulse increases to a wish, the wish to a desire, the desire to an uncontrollable longing, and the longing ... is indulged."
EA Poe
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2020
- Messages
- 3,544
- Reaction score
- 20,029
As far as I understand, they aren't alleging that she made searches for any of them until after she'd done what she is charged with.
Last edited:
FruitTingles
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,918
- Reaction score
- 4,723
I like your thinking here.
If as you say the air embolism cases are proved ...it does lead to LL because an air embolism would take 1 to 2 minutes only to cause the collapse....and only LL was there
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2020
- Messages
- 3,544
- Reaction score
- 20,029
Wasn't there at least one other nurse present in one of the cases? They were preparing medication together, I think.
Great
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2022
- Messages
- 2,972
- Reaction score
- 9,352
If victim selectivity was a potential here there would be some form of pattern. Nothing so far to indicate it but I think if there was one it would be found in the the medical notes, similar health conditions, same time on the unit, events happening around the same time or in similar circumstances like no one else being around.
You know what, good work and thank you. That’s actually really good and gives us a table of information to refer to. Any chance you can attach the prosecution’s examples of LL doing weird stuff like DR rav finding her near the incubator please. Thanks again.
You know what, good work and thank you. That’s actually really good and gives us a table of information to refer to. Any chance you can attach the prosecution’s examples of LL doing weird stuff like DR rav finding her near the incubator please. Thanks again.
Last edited:
BabaVanga
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2021
- Messages
- 151
- Reaction score
- 1,103
If anyones interested I found this The Trial of Lucy Letby, Episode 1: Nurse on trial
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2022
- Messages
- 2,972
- Reaction score
- 9,352
Yeh but we need more than simply being on the ward. That’s the prosecution’s point, her working at the same time as the events is the only consistent feature in this case so far. Not being in direct proximity or being seen to do anything particularly suspect across the cases or even in a significant minority of them. It’s also a fact that AE is the strongest suggested cause of the events not currently “proven”, we have not yet heard the defences witnesses disputing the AE “theory” so will have to wait on just how conclusive the evidence is.
Last edited:
respectfully snipped
Well lets go through this.
The prosecution has said that the expert's opinion was that Child A was injected with air a minute or two prior to his collapse. The trial reports have not covered this part of the testimony, if it was given.
Baby A
His care had been passed over to LL at 8pm, at which time he was stable.
LL says she believes Melanie Taylor (the dayshift nurse going off duty) administered the glucose fluids at 8.05pm. MT doesn't recall which one of them did it, but the nursing chart for this administration of fluids was signed by LL. Suffice to say there was probably two of them, one in an assisting role and it's probably not relevant (IMO) if the air was administered afterwards, closer to the time of the collapse. Certainly the prosecution did not say MT ever said anything different in her police statement.
MT was on the computer typing up her notes at 8.18pm
LL was at this time the only nurse with Baby A.
LL made the nursing notes for 8.20pm - his hands and feet were white.
Baby A collapsed at 8.26pm and LL called for help.
Baby A's heart stopped at 8.33pm, he was pronounced dead at 8.58pm.
Baby B
LL was not the designated nurse for Baby B, who is in room 1. LL was charged with looking after two babies in room 3.
At 12.05am LL signed for Baby B's nutrition prescription. It should have been 2 nurses signing.
At 12.16am - LL recorded Baby B's blood gases.
At 12.30am - Baby B's monitor alarm sounded - she had stopped breathing and developed purple patches like Baby A's. She was revived.
The handover sheet showing nurse allocation for Baby B was found at LL's home.
Baby C
LL was not the designated nurse, she was assigned two babies in another room. In police interview she denied being in room 1 until the resuscitation. Her texts that evening before 11pm were -
"A message sent to LL says: "You ok? x" LL replies: "I just keep thinking about Mon. Feel like I need to be in [neonatal unit room] 1 to overcome it, but [nursing colleague] said no x" The colleague responds: "I agree with her, don't think it will help. You need a break from full-on ITU, you need to let it go or it will eat you up..."
LL responds: "Not the vented baby necessarily, I just feel I need to be in 1, to get the image out of my head." LL adds: "It probably sounds odd but it's how I feel x"
The colleague responds: "Well it's up to you but I don't think it's going to help."
After further messages are exchanged, the colleague suggests: "Why don't you go in 1 for a bit?" LL responds: "Yeah, I have done a couple of meds in 1." LL later adds: "Forget I said anything, I will be fine, it's part of the job. Just don't feel like there is much team spirit tonight x" The colleague replies: "I am not going to forget but think you're way too hard on yourself"
Prosecution opening says - (in police interview) "She then agreed that she had been the only person in the room when Child C had collapsed."
Baby C collapsed twice between 11pm and 11.15pm, while LL was standing next to Baby C's incubator (according to nurses Sophie Ellis and Melanie Taylor) and SE his designated nurse was away from the incubator. (the first time she'd just left the room to go to the nurses station, the second time she was at the computer). He could not be revived after the second collapse.
All links to this information are in the media thread.
Last edited:
It may have been the babies who recovered (at least the first or second time in some cases) who were attacked over and over because they didn't die the first or second time. This in itself is a consistency; a pattern.
The healthier babies weren't as vulnerable, this is likely why the weaker ones were targeted. It would also not raise as much suspicion if they already had problems as opposed to being healthy.
Another consistency is that each baby was unusually hard to resuscitate after having collapsed, the unusual discoloration, and the fact that the babies recovered quickly once removed from the accused presence, or 'orbit,' and of course, that Letby was there for all 22 incidents.
That the prosecution took so long to gather evidence gives me confidence that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence, that likely needed to be meticulously analyzed, and analyzed again.
I've followed circumstantial cases that have taken years. And in all of those, there was only one victim.
I'm not at all surprised this investigation took so long.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Online statistics
- Members online
- 56
- Guests online
- 2,507
- Total visitors
- 2,563