UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #8

[Sundial]

I would like to know a lot more about this searching and what it comprised and how many others names or data was searched. Where was she getting the info from? Using their names or email addresses or mobile phone numbers to search for accounts?

Is it possible the hospital itself or the unit or ward has an FB presence / 'check in' so the parents themselves may have liked or followed a page or joined a support group or charity connected and she's seen their info there? Maybe they donated to a fundraiser or something? I can't imagine going on FB would be in your mind if you've just had a premie but hey who knows.

Surely 'looking up' parents would be a very hit and miss event anyhow and not actually result in seeing their FB pages?

This is a good point actually. Where I am there is actually an nhs trust where parents have liked a page or interacted with it. Of course, some of them whilst giving photos to said page would also have had to consented to this under privacy/GDPR rules. But the moment that parent does (perhaps as you say; intended as a support page), you then see those parents (particularly if your also part of that same page as a member of staff) coming up as having “interacted” in some way with the page/group.

Having said that, even then, unless “friended” on sm it would still be quite hard to believe she would get information alone on there from every single parent in the case. Surely at least “some” of them would have privacy settings on even in 2018, A-Q is an awful lot of cases.

 

[Kemug]

I've said this before, and it's possibly a bit far out, but is there any possibility that LL herself was 'playing detective' as she herself suspected something seriously underhand was going on?

If that were the case, surely she would have said that to LE when she was first arrested? Plus the Defence would have surely included it in their Opening?

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

I have been off Facebook for nearly 3 years now but I think I remember having an option for your page to be private except for friends and friends of friends. If they were 'friends with the hospital and LL was also, that could be how she may of had access to parents info.
JMO

 

[hobbitengland]

As someone who going through Ivf, I know a bit but the process.

Yes you are more likely to have multiple

In the UK they mostly only use one embryo at a time to lower the risk. The only time they tend to us muti embryo it likes a hail mail attempt because of the woman's age

I do also think there small link to Ivf babies being born early and complete pregnancy. But that may be linked to the issue mother may already have

I don't think the lucky statement about treating all patient equally is out sort for someone working in healthcare. People know how Ivf process is. I think it shows empathy for what parents have already gone though but you still care about all your patients

Facebook parents is odd though. Does anyone was it just murdered / attempt one she Facebook or where there other. If it is just a victim family she Facebook that truly evil. But if it every patient she had, then that just creepy, Weried, morally wrong

 

[Eloise]

Just based on my own experiences in hospital having babies plus knowing how things went for friends who had IVF, IME the midwives will know the circumstances of conception if they're remarkable in any way, and your obstetrician or midwife will bear in mind that the pregnancy was conceived by IVF in their treatment of you. But once the baby is born its not relevant to the baby and how its cared for at all.

 

[ShireChe]

The problem with the Facebook searching is we are so far only hearing what the prosecution want us to hear. We don't know if the same pattern of searching was done for other parents not involved.

Obviously it's still somewhat unprofessional, but if as the defence has claimed that nursing and her career were everything to her, you could see how/why that might happen.

The thing that I can't really wrap my head around is her saying 'she doesn't know why she searched them' . It'd be interesting to actually see the transcript of the interview where she said that.

I could quite understand LL not remembering actually doing the individual search, but if it was done innocently then there would be a simple explanation like 'i wanted to see how they were coping' or something along those lines.

 

[Tortoise]

This is a good point actually. Where I am there is actually an nhs trust where parents have liked a page or interacted with it. Of course, some of them whilst giving photos to said page would also have had to consented to this under privacy/GDPR rules. But the moment that parent does (perhaps as you say; intended as a support page), you then see those parents (particularly if your also part of that same page as a member of staff) coming up as having “interacted” in some way with the page/group.

Having said that, even then, unless “friended” on sm it would still be quite hard to believe she would get information alone on there from every single parent in the case. Surely at least “some” of them would have privacy settings on even in 2018, A-Q is an awful lot of cases.

It wasn't all the babies' parents, if we can rely on the reporting.

We've only heard in opening speeches and evidence to date about her looking up the parents of A to J in the period June 2015 to January 2016.

Feb 2016 was when K collapsed. LL was moved to day shifts at some point between Feb and April 2016. 25 June 2016 is the date of Q's collapse. LL was moved to an admin role in July 2016, and I'm presuming she was dismissed at some point in 2017. Police were brought in in May 2017.

She looked up the surname of O on Facebook on the anniversary of his death in June 2017, and the parents of K in April 2018, before her arrest in July 2018.

 

[JosieJo]

To me ..what makes the Facebook searches more relevant are..

Remembering anniversaries of deaths years later.

Remembering multiple parents names years later

Searching multiple alleged "victims" parents in quick succession at the same time

Searching for many of the babies on the charge list

She accepted she had searched parents once presented with the evidence so why not just say .."I can't remember specific searches but I used to try and check how parents were"

You could forgive one or two searches of parents you may want to see how they are doing ..but not the above.

The sending of the sympathy card ...how did she get the address? I'd be interested to hear that.

Regarding the defence cross examination of the phone / tech expert..they asked were there other searches done which they replied lots of searches ...I think there was a mention of other families..or words to that effect.

But why did the defence not ask detail such as how many other families were searched as this would be very relevant...unless they did but it wasn't reported

 

[Tortoise]

Searching up parents of babies she was never the designated nurse for also stands out. Especially months later. IMO

 

[AnnesCuthberts]

As someone who going through Ivf, I know a bit but the process.

(snipped by me)

Best of luck with the IVF process, hobbitengland! I think I mentioned earlier in this thread about my friend being pregnant after going through IVF and the fear I was developing reading a lot of horror stories. Happy to report her baby is now here, safe and loved. It sounded like such a gruelling process from what my friend would tell me, so I'm keeping you in my thoughts! <3

 

[Tortoise]

<RSBM> My continued fence sitting is at the mercy of and deeply rooted in a need to understand why LL - if guilty - did what she did because I can't start to believe she did what what she did until I know *what it is that motivated her and made her do it.

Presumably this isn't about LL, it's in response to the heinousness of the allegations, and you would feel the same no matter who was in the dock? Or not?

Only I'm trying to understand this in relation to the poisoning of the baby's feed which the defence doesn't argue against, added to a bag with the baby's name on, and added to a bag that didn't have his name on, and was therefore a different batch. No other babies were poisoned by the stock bags. Someone with access to the keys in the unit had intent.

I don't really understand how having to understand a motive, which is confession territory, affects one's ability to determine whether something happened or not. JMO

Edited to say just because I don't understand it doesn't mean I don't accept people have different views btw, I am just interested in knowing whether this is anything to do with the person who stands accused, or not.

 

[Tortoise]

By far and away the parents she searched on Facebook the most were the parents of twins A&B and twins E&F.

She looked up the parents of A&B five times and E&F ten times.

Baby A's cause of death was "unascertained".

Baby E's mother's account of what happened to baby E when she came across him bleeding and screaming was not reported to doctors or recorded in his notes.

 

[Dotta]

Presumably this isn't about LL, it's in response to the heinousness of the allegations, and you would feel the same no matter who was in the dock? Or not?

Only I'm trying to understand this in relation to the poisoning of the baby's feed which the defence doesn't argue against, added to a bag with the baby's name on, and added to a bag that didn't have his name on, and was therefore a different batch. No other babies were poisoned by the stock bags. Someone with access to the keys in the unit had intent.

I don't really understand how having to understand a motive, which is confession territory, affects one's ability to determine whether something happened or not. JMO

Edited to say just because I don't understand it doesn't mean I don't accept people have different views btw, I am just interested in knowing whether this is anything to do with the person who stands accused, or not.

I noticed the disbelief of general public that she might be the culprit early on.

I see it as the subtype of famous "white western woman syndrome" - also add: young and conventionally attractive.

But looks have nothing to do with the actions - vide classical/philosophical "The Picture of Dorian Gray" by Oscar Wilde.

What is more - attractiveness has always been powerful weapon of criminals.

Always look at facts/evidence.

Moo

 

[Supernovae]

Facebook parents is odd though. Does anyone was it just murdered / attempt one she Facebook or where there other. If it is just a victim family she Facebook that truly evil. But if it every patient she had, then that just creepy, Weried, morally wrong

Death of baby in Lucy Letby case came ‘completely out of the blue’, witness says

THE death of a baby allegedly murdered by nurse Lucy Letby came as a “big surprise” and was “completely out of the blue”, her trial has…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Earlier, the court heard Benjamin Myers KC, for Letby's defence, ask intelligence analyst Claire Hocknell if Letby had made Facebook searches for the parents of many children at the neonatal unit - not just the ones named on the indictment.

Ms Hocknell confirmed that was the case.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, November 14

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

3:17pm

Ben Myers KC asks to clarify that the nursing notes made, which have been gone through in 'broken up parts' in the sequence of events, are actually made of larger notes. The intelligence analyst agrees.
Mr Myers also refers to the sequence of events showing Letby searched for the mum of Child E and Child F several times on Facebook in the weeks and months after Child E died. He asks if it is correct Letby also searched for the names of parents who are not part of this case. The intelligence analyst agrees.

I know it's come up in other bits of cross examination but those are the ones I could find.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I noticed the disbelief of general public that she might be the culprit early on.

I see it as the subtype of famous "white western woman syndrome" - also add: young and conventionally attractive.

But looks have nothing to do with the actions - vide classical/philosophical "The Picture of Dorian Gray" by Oscar Wilde.

What is more - attractiveness has always been powerful weapon of criminals.

Always look at facts/evidence.

Moo

Ooh really?!? I was not aware of this unless you mean 'charmers', chancers, and con artist types? Judging by the standards of people who arrive on our screens in shows such as Jerry Springer or Judge Judy and Jeremy Kyle show (UK version of ritual humiliation of petty criminal losers), good looks and dapper appearance are not criminal tendencies, quite the opposite. Also we're usually talking about men criminals and I can't think of any examples of women.

I'm personally in disbelief about LL because she appears so incredibly middle of the road and quite plain, slightly dull, possibly slightly 'frumpy' for her age but not much, and very average indeed whilst also being extremely hard working and having never stood out for anything unusual as far as we know yet. Hardly the profile of a serious offender - is there any precedence for this!?

Also I have had such horrific personal experiences with the NHS and other dysfunctional institutions that I'm personally biased as I have seen, witnessed, and personally experienced the extreme lengths they can go to to persecute an average person to cover up high level abuses or failings. JMO IMO I have total faith in the justice system and will wait and see.

 

[Dotta]

Ooh really?!? I was not aware of this unless you mean 'charmers', chancers, and con artist types? Judging by the standards of people who arrive on our screens in shows such as Jerry Springer or Judge Judy and Jeremy Kyle show (UK version of ritual humiliation of petty criminal losers), good looks and dapper appearance are not criminal tendencies, quite the opposite. Also we're usually talking about men criminals and I can't think of any examples of women.

I'm personally in disbelief about LL because she appears so incredibly middle of the road and quite plain, slightly dull, possibly slightly 'frumpy' for her age but not much, and very average indeed whilst also being extremely hard working and having never stood out for anything unusual as far as we know yet. Hardly the profile of a serious offender - is there any precedence for this!?

Also I have had such horrific personal experiences with the NHS and other dysfunctional institutions that I'm personally biased as I have seen, witnessed, and personally experienced the extreme lengths they can go to to persecute an average person to cover up high level abuses or failings. JMO IMO I have total faith in the justice system and will wait and see.

And yet, the mountain of evidence is growing against HER, not some enigmatic institution IMO.

ETA
Thank you England
Merci France
What a match!!
What a thriller

 

[Eloise]

I noticed the disbelief of general public that she might be the culprit early on.

I see it as the subtype of famous "white western woman syndrome" - also add: young and conventionally attractive.

But looks have nothing to do with the actions - vide classical/philosophical "The Picture of Dorian Gray" by Oscar Wilde.

What is more - attractiveness has always been powerful weapon of criminals.

Always look at facts/evidence.

Moo

Nah, not for me. I feel no particular sympathy for white women. It just seemed like there was so little evidence. However having come to understand a bit more about the UK legal process, it seems that that was deliberate. They really do save it all for the jury as much as they can.

 

[Kemug]

I noticed the disbelief of general public that she might be the culprit early on.

I do agree, if you mean when she was arrested, and then later when she was refused bail. But I think a lot of people did a sharp turnaround as soon as the Prosecution outlined its case, I know I did.

 

[crystalline]

I think it was more to do with the pure disbelief someone could do something so awful to defenceless babies, one tends to trust a female to be gentle and kind especially towards innocent precious babies (men can be too but other women turn to other women for understanding of babies more) also I feel like there are more women actively delving deeper and discussing this case than there are men? I mean I could be wrong but I feel this threads active posters are mainly female?

Purely because we don't want to think someone could be so evil, I feel women are more connected to swing into protection mode of not only their own children but others too while they are so young. Maybe it's in our genetics. Now it would however be equally awful if it were a male, however as it is a female we are just still in somewhat how can another women do this. Just IMO

I do however feel there are to many coincidences and a pattern forming here now.

I do also however agree with a post above having seen NHS incompetence first hand with close relatives as little as 4 years ago, I'm still on the fence as yet. Be interesting to hear the defence.

 

[Dotta]

I mean myriads of defending opinions I read based solely on her looks:
"pure, innocent looking, wholesome, angelic, sweet, butter wouldn't..." etc, etc.

She was even compared to "a lamb being led to a slaughter house".

With zero knowledge of facts/evidence.

What do good looks or lack of them have in common with alleged heinous acts?

Nothing IMO.

It is all in the mind.

Moo