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

[Tortoise]

Even if she hasn't been psychiatrically assessed, and I highly doubt she has with a not guilty plea, I wonder if the prosecution has had some guidance from mental health professionals on a kind of remote assessment of her from police interviews and diary writings etc, to help with presentation to the jury in opening and closing speeches. It sounded like that might be the case from their opening speech.

IMO

 

[Supernovae]

It seems to me that the evidence is getting stronger as we move through the different cases. The allegations are becoming more difficult to explain away. I don't think this is a coincidence. If guilty, I think this shows a level of caution at the outset, natural when one is starting to experiment with a new idea, but then the perpetrator becomes more confident, more reckless, more willing to take risks. So, the evidence becomes more damning.

Alternatively, looking the other way down the telescope, the later cases were the ones that drew suspicion. The earlier cases are the more speculative ones based on coincidence or the fact that the deaths were surprising.

 

[Dotta]

Re the alleged hatred of the defendant

It might be self hatred.
- the note (still kept at home for Police to find)
- the allusion of insulin in the bag (also during the Police interview)
- strange text messages - for me they shout of (alleged) guilt.

As if giving clues and waiting for response.

Moo

 

[Tortoise]

Alternatively, looking the other way down the telescope, the later cases were the ones that drew suspicion. The earlier cases are the more speculative ones based on coincidence or the fact that the deaths were surprising.

I don't think they're speculative. X-rays showing air where it shouldn't be are factual, as are babies with pneumonia improving between collapses. IMO

 

[JosieJo]

Alternatively, looking the other way down the telescope, the later cases were the ones that drew suspicion. The earlier cases are the more speculative ones based on coincidence or the fact that the deaths were surprising.

Imo it's more that air embolus is rare whereas trauma and low blood sugars are a lot easier to see straight away

 

[Jazmania]

It's the different methodologies that are hard to reconcile with each other. If the air embolism narrative is true then she perfected an inconspicuous, low risk method of meeting whatever Munchausen like need she was alleged to be fulfilling - almost ingenious really. The insulin cases (or at least this one) could be seen as a calculated risk to divert attention by creating a problem when she wasn't there. It's the intentionally perforating the oesophagus, as she was alleged to have done with Child E, that borders on insanity in my opinion. If an autopsy were performed it would inevitably raise questions. If she, as Dr Evans suggested, intentionally inserted a surgical introducer to achieve, just imagine how this would look if a colleague walked in at just the wrong moment.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I think this is why the prosecution aren't pinning themselves down with a motive as has been the case with other healthcare serial killers:

Beverley Allitt: Munchausen's
Ben Geen: liked to play the hero
Colin Norris: hated old people.

It's helpful to seal the deal with the Jury to have a neat narrative, but they've eschewed that in this case because the narratives of the individual cases are just so chaotic.

Yes, with the first few cases she's allegedly being very inconspicuous attacking children in undetectable ways with no one around. Now suddenly she's injecting children with an air embolism when the doctors are right there by the incubator, jamming instruments down their throat and poisoning with insulin. Could be escalating behaviour. Seeking more and more risky situations. Seems insane. Maybe she was having a mental breakdown but the salsa texts suggest she seemed quite relaxed at this time.

I also wondered that we had a cluster of cases in June, then nothing for the whole of July. I read many serial killers have a cooling off period so perhaps this is relevant!

 

[Tortoise]

OMG, reading the daily mail article, I've only just realised the possible significance of the text conversation from 4th August ...

On 4th August at 7.55pm just before LL is about to start her night shift, her colleague texts about Baby E's death and says what a run of bad luck LL is having and that she needs "a break from it being on her shift"

Around 4 hours after that conversation LL administers a TPN bag, allegedly poisoned with insulin that will impact Baby F not only throughout LLs night shift but through the following day's shift too. If the insulin proves to be fatal once LL finishes her shift then voila, she gets a "break from the deaths being on her shift"

Nurse Lucy Letby 'poisoned baby by contaminating two intravenous bags'

Neonatal nurse Lucy Letby poisoned a baby boy by contaminating two bags of intravenous feed with insulin that could not be detected by the human eye, a court heard today.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Baby E being 'attacked with a sharp instrument' and baby F with insulin, were also the next alleged victims after this text exchange -

LL texted a colleague that B had moved to a recovery room in the unit.
Colleague: "There's something odd about that night and the other three that went so suddenly."
LL: "What do you mean? Odd that we lost three and in different circumstances?'
Colleague: "I don't know, were they that different?" "Ignore me, I'm speculating."
LL: "[C] was tiny, obviously compromised in utero. [D] septic. It's [A] I can't get my head around."

and then this text

LL: "I had a mini meltdown last night about what's happened at work..."I just need some time off with mum and dad."

 

[notsure]

Yes, with the first few cases she's allegedly being very inconspicuous attacking children in undetectable ways with no one around. Now suddenly she's injecting children with an air embolism when the doctors are right there by the incubator, jamming instruments down their throat and poisoning with insulin. Could be escalating behaviour. Seeking more and more risky situations. Seems insane. Maybe she was having a mental breakdown but the salsa texts suggest she seemed quite relaxed at this time.

I also wondered that we had a cluster of cases in June, then nothing for the whole of July. I read many serial killers have a cooling off period so perhaps this is relevant!

It's literally beyond belief for me. I'd rather keep looking at any other possible scenarios.

 

[Tortoise]

It's literally beyond belief for me. I'd rather keep looking at any other possible scenarios.

It's no wonder that her colleagues and superiors took as long as they did to contemplate the unimaginable, IMO

 

[notsure]

It's no wonder that her colleagues and superiors took as long as they did to contemplate the unimaginable, IMO

Good point!

 

[Eloise]

This is what I see and feel too. Don’t know who it’s meant to harm the most.

Parents imo... it's the parents who are most harmed.

To me, if guilty, the bit I'm really struggling with is that she had the ability/capacity to be able to see and articulate the absolutely devastating effect the deaths of the babies had on their parents... she speaks in texts of things like "Dad was on the floor crying saying 'please don't take our baby away' when we took him to the mortuary. It's just heartbreaking.” and then, if guilty, she goes and inflicts that pain again?, sometimes on parents who had already lost one baby. Suggesting that, if guilty, she does not find it heartbreaking at all, in fact quite the opposite.

re BBM - exactly. If guilty I think her motivation was feeding off the grief of the parents. If guilty I think it will turn out she enjoyed their grief. I think she said stuff like that because that's simply what you're meant to say and believe.
however that's JMO, it could turn out to be something different (if guilty). Spite at the whole world in general and this is just how she went about it because it was there in front of her, for example (if guilty and I make no judgment on her guilt).

Even if she hasn't been psychiatrically assessed, and I highly doubt she has with a not guilty plea, I wonder if the prosecution has had some guidance from mental health professionals on a kind of remote assessment of her from police interviews and diary writings etc, to help with presentation to the jury in opening and closing speeches. It sounded like that might be the case from their opening speech.

IMO

Isn't there kind of a catch 22 where if you start to put forward the idea that she might have a personality disorder or a mental illness or something like that - something that would be mitigating - then you're kinda also saying 'she did do it but there was a reason for it or she couldn't help it'? So because she's adamant she didn't do it, you can't really try and say 'she didn't do it because she had a psychiatric condition of some kind' because that's actually saying she did, she just wasn't competent mentally at the time? Genuine question of the legalities of doing that.

 

[notsure]

Can the jurors actually see the defendant, or are they behind some kind of screen?

 

[Becci]

Police investigating baby deaths at Countess of Chester Hospital

Cheshire Constabulary confirmed the probe will focus on the deaths of eight babies but will also review seven further deaths, as well as six non-fatal collapses.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Dotta]

I read once that Police were busy digging up the back garden and searched the gutters at home of LL.
I wonder what evidence were they expecting to find?

 

[Tortoise]

Can the jurors actually see the defendant, or are they behind some kind of screen?

Yes they can see the defendant and the defendant can see them.

Only witnesses giving evidence from behind a screen cannot see the defendant, and vice versa, but the witness can be seen by the judge the jury and the barristers.

 

[Tortoise]

Isn't there kind of a catch 22 where if you start to put forward the idea that she might have a personality disorder or a mental illness or something like that - something that would be mitigating - then you're kinda also saying 'she did do it but there was a reason for it or she couldn't help it'? So because she's adamant she didn't do it, you can't really try and say 'she didn't do it because she had a psychiatric condition of some kind' because that's actually saying she did, she just wasn't competent mentally at the time? Genuine question of the legalities of doing that.

I don't think they would put forward the idea that she had any mental disorders.

But the prosecution probably would seek to be guided on her motivations so that they can bring forth any examples that would assist the jury in their deliberations, I would think.

 

[Dotta]

Yes they can see the defendant and the defendant can see them.

Only witnesses giving evidence from behind a screen cannot see the defendant, and vice versa, but the witness can be seen by the judge the jury and the barristers.

How interesting!

Why do some witnesses give evidence from behind the screen?

I thought if a witness is a nurse, this person is known to LL.

Or maybe the point is that the screen hides the witness from the public?

 

[Tortoise]

I read once that Police were busy digging up the back garden and searched the gutters at home of LL.
I wonder what evidence were they expecting to find?

I don't know if they were expecting to find anything as much as it would have been remiss of them if they didn't do a search and she had hidden something. Like an insulin bottle, or an instrument (allegedly) used, or something.

 

[Tortoise]

How interesting!

Why do some witnesses give evidence from behind the screen?

I thought if a witness is a nurse, this person is known to LL.

Or maybe the point is that the screen hides the witness from the public?

There can be various reasons that a witness doesn't want to see the defendant, they might feel uncomfortable and too anxious, for example.

 

[Dotta]

There can be various reasons that a witness doesn't want to see the defendant, they might feel uncomfortable and too anxious, for example.

Thank you.
I consider you my mentor