Hope not too busy. The disagreement about the baptism relates to whether or not it was appropriate timing. I would guess it could be seen by the parents that staff were kind of preparing for the worst And certain staff thought it unnecessary at that time To give them that idea. I think.
the bitchiness is a question mark to us with no references to the actual comments made. The context is comments made to LL seniors.
“Letby responds to Ms Griffiths: "Thank you. That's really nice to hear as I gather you are aware of some of the not so positive comments that have been made recently regarding my role which I have found quite upsetting.
"Our job is a pleasure to do & just hope I do the best for the babies & their Family. Thank you to you & [another colleague] for your support X".
Letby messages her colleague: "Im still frustrated/upset with what's gone on but don't think such rubbish nights & being tired help"
Her colleague responds: "Good reply as it's important they know about the bitchiness which is all it is. Yes re tired..."
The colleague added: "Anyway. You're a star. You e done yourself proud. You've given positive memories to the family whatever the outcome. Let's hope they can tease her in a few yrs about her 'attention seeking' ways. Sleep well. Xx”
Personally sounds to me like Lucy was in favour of the baptism and others were not. I’m gathering that from the comment about giving the family positive memories (ie a nice service in case the worst happens)
Although on writing this it could just be my perspective
Looks like the jury may be finding Baby H's case as hard to follow as some of us. And yes, even with all the technology available , I find that sometimes a pen and paper is what you need to write down thoughts and information and to put them straight in your mind and see them clearly.
On that note, I know it's possibly drifting a but but it's relevant to the procedure; we know that the jury have been given iPods which contain the evidence bundles, rather than being given physical paper copies.
Personally, I find locating and analysing things on a computer, especially a tablet, much more time consuming any annoying than having physical printed papers arranged with an index. To me, actually being able to see a physical stack of papers or a book or notepad makes it much easier to locate a particular statement or paragraph.
I had to do a quote for an order today transferring some products and prices from a suppliers quote to the one I was doing for the customer but I needed to change certain things as we were keeping some of the stuff they wanted. Ordinarily I'd print the supplier's quote and have that in front of me but the printer broke so I had to do it by switching between two documents on a computer screen. I don't find that easy. Maybe someone much younger may do but not me.
It makes me wonder how easy a jury will find it to deliberate over things when the time comes. Speaking for myself I might find it fairly difficult if it's all electronic.
I found this article from Feb 2017 that details the findings of the review by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. LL would have been able to read this and although it doesn't mention bringing in the police, it does recommend an independent case review of each death be undertaken. And I guess the logical next step would be to involve the police.
I know I've mentioned it before - and I am doing so again because it's just so utterly unbelievable - but the time to "bring in the police" was when they had such dire suspicions that she was harming patients that they actually changed her shifts to study whether the trail of carnage followed her!
It is not in doubt that this actually happened as it was in the prosecution's opening speeches. If she is guilty and this truly did happen then someone needs to go to jail for it, quite frankly!
So, even when that trail of destruction did allegedly follow her it still took them months to take her off patient-facing duties and a year or so to call the police in!
It definitely doesn't include any mention of murder though, so I still don't understand why she was writing about 'killing them on purpose' and such things, before anybody knew it was a murder investigation. Nobody had accused her of that at the point she wrote the note. I would be more inclined to believe the note was words written in anguish, if it was written AFTER her first arrest. But it wasn't. MOO.
We don't know that. She had not been accused in the official, legal sense but none of us know what was being said or implied by rumour about her. Such talk may have been rife for all we know.
Hi. Thanks for posting this. For me, it did leave me questioning whether the use of three shots of adrenaline was the 'right treatment'
I found it incredibly sad that they had begun this vigorous approach as a result of all the questionable losses. It's a testimony to the bizarre culture in which they had become submerged IMO.
I understand that, it's difficult not to. It's such an abhorrent crime that anyone who was charged would be subjected to such opinions. As I say, I can understand people wanting to believe that she's guilty before all evidence has been heard, because it's natural to want to blame someone or something for the awful things that happened on this unit during this time. That isn't to say that LL is to blame, just that it's an understandable explanation in the circumstances. I do find it baffling though, that someone would want to latch on to every indication of innocence and dismiss or reason away every piece of evidence to the contrary without hearing all of the evidence first.
I find your defence of LL really odd. I have no idea if she's guilty or innocent at this point, but you seem to have made your mind up long ago. No matter what is said you seem to twist it to show that she is innocent - most obviously in your argument as to why she would want to leave and then why she would want to stay.
I can understand that, in light of the number of deaths and near deaths, someone would want to see her as guilty and would pick up on the evidence that supports that. Babies died. There is no making sense of that, but I can understand wanting someone to be responsible. The alternative is too scary (I'm a mum of 3 premature babies), but I can't understand what motivates someone to want to find someone innocent of such a heinous crime, before all evidence has been heard, unless they have some connection or vested interest.
I'd personally very much want her to be innocent, if it meant that all these deaths were natural causes and not murder! The evidence is sadly making that an impossible conclusion to reach in all cases (I'm not so sure that Baby H could not have been natural causes from what we've heard so far, but others are clearly not so), but early on I felt it perfectly reasonable to hope for it not to have been that.
It's so unusual for someone in a caregiving profession to do such evil things, while the evidence is adding up, I'm still struggling to fully believe, so I can relate to those who are more vigorously defending her - some of the points being made may well be valid too, so it's worth discussing; chances are not everything raised is actually malevolent in nature, although guilt would certainly change the context of many things.
I guess my brain can't fully reconcile it all yet, it makes so little sense to me, I hope after the trial more will come out to explain her mindset - if she's guilty, obviously. If not, then well, a whole lot more investigation needs doing, as sadly at least some of these babies were killed in my opinion, be it by her or A.N. Other.
We don't know that. She had not been accused in the official, legal sense but none of us know what was being said or implied by rumour about her. Such talk may have been rife for all we know.
You’re right, we don’t actually know, but there’s no evidence that she knew anyone was accusing her of murder at that point. Yet plenty of people are still happy to accept that the note was simply words written in anguish and nothing more. Which is fine.
I’m more sceptical. So until I hear evidence that suggests she had a reason to know she was being accused of murder, I will continue to find it suspicious that she wrote ‘I killed them on purpose…’ before she was even arrested. MOO.
We don't know that. She had not been accused in the official, legal sense but none of us know what was being said or implied by rumour about her. Such talk may have been rife for all we know.
Exactly, we don't know. Without evidence of anyone accusing her of killing or deliberately harming babies, before the police had even arrested and interviewed her, there is no basis at all for assuming it or giving her the benefit of that doubt, or for suggesting senior staff would be so indiscreet over a serious police matter.
The terms "slander, discrimination and victimisation" are more in line with her barrister's assertion that she was going through a grievance procedure for something like unfairness, rather than accusation of criminal acts. IMO
I am sorry to hear of anyone’s troubles and I understand I do. Anger is often the emotion we use to overcome the obstacles we face in life and awareness of injustice is key in that awareness. I am educated in quite a comprehensive way of how these things work.
in my experience and through what I have read “psychological projection“ is actually the most normal result of denial or a refusal to accept the obvious and subconsciously accepted truth. Something I haven’t discounted from this case but Atm I have discounted that there is good or even slight evidence to suggest it Or that LL has the personality inclined towards it.
she did indeed write the word ”hate” in that note in big and bold lettering even compared to other writing in the note. That’s the only example of particularly strong and negative emotion the prosecution have Which is indicative. Considering the context and obvious emotion of that note I don’t consider it out of proportion to the situation. She also put it on paper suggestive of but not proof of a lack of violent tendencies , projection and anger Both of which are IMO indicative of a egotistical individual. What she didn’t do according to the evidence is project that feeling onto others either in insult (an example of dehumanisation or devaluation) or by other means of non violent behavior both of which are indicators of negative emotion Like shame or envy Both of which relate IMO to the ego and projection.
indeed the fact of a level headed approach to being insulted or the recipient of negative comments in any regard as shown by a lack of in evidence presented acutely direct confrontation between her and the makers of these bitchy comments is indicative of a well controlled individual or someone not prone to projection which is the result of excessive emotion And or egotistical thinking, a prerequisite for a manipulative or selfish individual, IMO.
her outward persona and consistency across time thereof is indicative of in my opinion an individual lacking a “two faced nature” which going by the dictionary definition Definition of TWO-FACED
means insincere Which again we have seemingly no evidence of Suggesting honesty As a personality trait.
when writing that note she would presumably be well aware of just how severe the potential result in the negative would be. As shown by her awareness of the police being involved Present in the note. She doesn’t seem to show an awareness of slight in the note which going by the verb or noun usage of the word would be a egotistical reception of the word. Suggestive IMO.
in her diary I wouldn’t necessarily expect blatant evidence of anything conclusively proof of guilt but I would expect at least something approaching a directive towards her personality which isn’t offered by the evidence as gathered by the investigative agency whom are presumably experienced and professional in obtaining such information And tasked with obtaining info useful to the prosecution. the dearth of it as offered by the prosecution is conspicuous, IMO.
it would also be in line with what is reasonable to expect from someone who is capable of hiding that degree of information seemingly so successfully even without precedential Experience to hide information useful to personally orientated negative evaluation and consequent result that the prosecution wouldn’t find that post it note and be able to present it as evidence. Jmo.
The statement regarding what she does in reflection of her memory of the potentially traumatic events is in line with what seems to be consistently indicative and more or less faultless evidence of the Lack of a deceitful character in LL. the evidence thereof would IMO be the seeming lack of awareness of potential negative consequence, if guilty and IMO.
in all honesty at the start I thought it very unlikely that LL was actually guilty and that conclusion was based on looking at the evidence as offered by the prosecution at that point. The evidence presented at that time included no eye witness testimony that LL had been seen doing anything with the strongest evidence offered being the post it note which over time has been much debated almost in every Collective reflection of it, IMO. Eventually not being at all like the initial reception of it ie not being taken by everyone as evidence of guilt, IMO.
her situation by the time of child H would seem to give an indication that she knew the unusual sequence of events between 2014 and 2016 and so wouldn’t when writing that note necessarily be aware of the nature Of potential accusations, IMO. Again at this point I would point to her seeming obliviousness to the potentials of the situation. as evident in her recent personal coms for example
“Ms Letby said: "It's all just so rubbish lately and always seems to happen at night when less people.”
Nurse Lucy Letby is accused of attempting to murder the premature baby girl on two occasions.
www.bbc.co.uk
I don’t actually stand in any position to the potential verdict of this trial at this point in time and I am certainly not twisting anything. Just pointing out my opinion and observations. If one were to ask me about my opinion I would say I am still going through all the potential courses of the sequence of events as presented by the evidence.
What I find the most bizarre and strangest thing about that note, more than anything else; if she loved and lived for her job, built her life around it etc, dedicated herself to helping and saving poorly/ tiny premature babies and hoped she did her best for them and their families; is the lack of any kind of reference to them in what she writes.
The same with her text exchange, it’s very disconnected from empathy.
Yes, I think I would, as an innocent suspect, probably say something like " I can't believe my coworkers could think I'd do such a horrendous things to these babies. I love them all dearly and it is so awful and disturbing the way the suffered. "
I'd probably also say I was going to 'clear my name because the truth will come out. '
I took her statements as more like ' they have no evidence against me ' as opposed to the truth will clear my name.
I am sorry to hear of anyone’s troubles and I understand I do. Anger is often the emotion we use to overcome the obstacles we face in life and awareness of injustice is key in that awareness. I am educated in quite a comprehensive way of how these things work.
in my experience and through what I have read “psychological projection“ is actually the most normal result of denial or a refusal to accept the obvious and subconsciously accepted truth. Something I haven’t discounted from this case but Atm I have discounted that there is good or even slight evidence to suggest it Or that LL has the personality inclined towards it.
she did indeed write the word ”hate” in that note in big and bold lettering even compared to other writing in the note. That’s the only example of particularly strong and negative emotion the prosecution have Which is indicative. Considering the context and obvious emotion of that note I don’t consider it out of proportion to the situation. She also put it on paper suggestive of but not proof of a lack of violent tendencies , projection and anger Both of which are IMO indicative of a egotistical individual. What she didn’t do according to the evidence is project that feeling onto others either in insult (an example of dehumanisation or devaluation) or by other means of non violent behavior both of which are indicators of negative emotion Like shame or envy Both of which relate IMO to the ego and projection.
indeed the fact of a level headed approach to being insulted or the recipient of negative comments in any regard as shown by a lack of in evidence presented acutely direct confrontation between her and the makers of these bitchy comments is indicative of a well controlled individual or someone not prone to projection which is the result of excessive emotion And or egotistical thinking, a prerequisite for a manipulative or selfish individual, IMO.
her outward persona and consistency across time thereof is indicative of in my opinion an individual lacking a “two faced nature” which going by the dictionary definition Definition of TWO-FACED
means insincere Which again we have seemingly no evidence of Suggesting honesty As a personality trait.
I am not sure we can assume that she has no hatred, or violent tendencies, just because she 'seems' to be well controlled and calm in the wake of a storm. All we have seen is some texts and some interviews with her, in which she appeared to be taking these tragedies in stride.
She calls the babies deaths 'fated' -----
wrote in a message: ‘But then sometimes I think how is it such sick babies get through and others die so suddenly and unexpectedly. Guess it’s how it is meant to be.
‘I think there is an element of fate involved. There is a reason for everything.’
So she seems kind of detached, and maybe that's how you have to deal with such tragedies involving babies. But I don't see it as proof that she is not possibly violent and hateful because, IMO, the circumstantial evidence being put forth by the investigators could allegedly prove otherwise.
And if she is guilty of any of these charges then her calm and collected texts would be an act, to cover her extreme emotional turbulence, hidden below the surface.
when writing that note she would presumably be well aware of just how severe the potential result in the negative would be. As shown by her awareness of the police being involved Present in the note. She doesn’t seem to show an awareness of slight in the note which going by the verb or noun usage of the word would be a egotistical reception of the word. Suggestive IMO.
in her diary I wouldn’t necessarily expect blatant evidence of anything conclusively proof of guilt but I would expect at least something approaching a directive towards her personality which isn’t offered by the evidence as gathered by the investigative agency whom are presumably experienced and professional in obtaining such information And tasked with obtaining info useful to the prosecution. the dearth of it as offered by the prosecution is conspicuous, IMO.
We have no idea what is in her diary. It has not been said if her diary was even allowed into evidence. If she did not write anything verifiable, one or both sides may have asked to have it withheld from the jury.
it would also be in line with what is reasonable to expect from someone who is capable of hiding that degree of information seemingly so successfully even without precedential Experience to hide information useful to personally orientated negative evaluation and consequent result that the prosecution wouldn’t find that post it note and be able to present it as evidence. Jmo.
The statement regarding what she does in reflection of her memory of the potentially traumatic events is in line with what seems to be consistently indicative and more or less faultless evidence of the Lack of a deceitful character in LL. the evidence thereof would IMO be the seeming lack of awareness of potential negative consequence, if guilty and IMO.
"...what seems to be consistently indicative and more or less faultless evidence of the Lack of a deceitful character in LL."
I do not agree there is faultless evidence of her not being deceitful. We have seen a few things which seem dishonest, imo.
Some of her medical notes and interview statements seem dishonest, imo.
For one important example, I believe the mother of child E was telling the total truth about the last hours of her child's life. And if so, LL was not telling the total truth.
Giving evidence, she said: "I could hear my son crying. I walked over to the incubator to see he had blood coming out of his mouth.
"I was panicking. I felt like there was something wrong."
The mother said Child E's crying "was a sound that shouldn't have come from a tiny baby".
"I can't explain what that sound was, it was horrendous," she added.
The mother asked Ms Letby, who is said to have been standing at a work station on the unit, what was wrong.
The nurse is said to have told her that Child E's feeding tube had rubbed his throat and caused the bleeding.
Ms Letby told her to go back to the ward, the court heard.
"She said the registrar was on his way and if there was a problem, someone would ring up to the post-natal ward," she said.
Upon returning to the postnatal ward, the mother called her husband to inform him as she felt "there was something very wrong".
Later, in police interviews, LL called that testimony into question, saying she didnt tell the mother to leave and saying the mum was incorrect about the time she visited. It was 10 not 9, and LL's notes put it at 10.
But there was verified phone call at 9:11pm, where Mum called her husband to tell him about the troubling incident. So I do believe that mum was correct, which puts LL's honesty in question. JMO
in all honesty at the start I thought it very unlikely that LL was actually guilty and that conclusion was based on looking at the evidence as offered by the prosecution at that point. The evidence presented at that time included no eye witness testimony that LL had been seen doing anything with the strongest evidence offered being the post it note which over time has been much debated almost in every Collective reflection of it, IMO. Eventually not being at all like the initial reception of it ie not being taken by everyone as evidence of guilt, IMO.
There is a little eye witness testimony, which puts the defendant right there at the moment, or just before, many of the unexpected collapses.
The mum of baby E is one example.[ mum describes walking into baby's room to see LL standing by, doing nothing to help her screaming, bleeding child] And there were a few others, where she was found alone with a child who was in collapse mode.
her situation by the time of child H would seem to give an indication that she knew the unusual sequence of events between 2014 and 2016 and so wouldn’t when writing that note necessarily be aware of the nature Of potential accusations, IMO. Again at this point I would point to her seeming obliviousness to the potentials of the situation. as evident in her recent personal coms for example
“Ms Letby said: "It's all just so rubbish lately and always seems to happen at night when less people.”
"Again at this point I would point to her seeming obliviousness to the potentials of the situation. as evident in her recent personal coms for example"
I don't see her as oblivious to the situation concerning the seriousness. Here is just one example of colleagues pointing it out:
In one, Ms Letby told a colleague she felt "numb" the morning after Child E died.
In response, her colleague said Ms Letby seemed to be "having some very bad luck", to which she answered: "Not a lot I can do really, he had a massive haemorrhage, could have happened to any baby
another example of a college questioning :
Letby also discussed the twins’ care with a colleague, according to the BBC.
Her colleague told her there was “something odd about that night and the other three that went so suddenly”, to which Letby asked “what do you mean? Odd that we lost three and in different circumstances?”
She later told the same colleague that Child C “was tiny, obviously compromised in utero. [Child D] septic. It's [Child A] I can't get my head round.”
I don’t actually stand in any position to the potential verdict of this trial at this point in time and I am certainly not twisting anything. Just pointing out my opinion and observations. If one were to ask me about my opinion I would say I am still going through all the potential courses of the sequence of events as presented by the evidence.
I know I've mentioned it before - and I am doing so again because it's just so utterly unbelievable - but the time to "bring in the police" was when they had such dire suspicions that she was harming patients that they actually changed her shifts to study whether the trail of carnage followed her!
It is not in doubt that this actually happened as it was in the prosecution's opening speeches. If she is guilty and this truly did happen then someone needs to go to jail for it, quite frankly!
So, even when that trail of destruction did allegedly follow her it still took them months to take her off patient-facing duties and a year or so to call the police in!
I think the problem is that you cannot 'bring in the police' in a very complex medical situation, ending in a series of unexplained deaths. The police would have no educated opinion about whether it was an intentional act or not. The hospital had no absolute proof at that time--- Only suspicions.
If they tried to have the police handle it too early it would probably have been dropped because lack of evidence. Then what? The killer could have moved on to another area and continued, perhaps using better devised techniques.
It is devastating because there were more deaths and injuries because she was not caught in time. I do think she should have been taken off the floor all together instead of just switching shifts though. Or at the very least, immediately after the first collapse during her day shift change.
This is what strikes me too. Those poor little babies, what they have gone through, tiny little infants and how much pain they must have been in doesn’t bare thinking about. And yet there is almost no mention making reference to these kinds of thoughts from her.
IMO she seems somewhat quite detached emotionally (if she loved and lived for her job as much as is described) and instead she seems to just bounce from one message to another (even on shift) with very little reference to how much distress these babies must have gone through. For something so harrowing she appears almost “empty” in terms of emotion in her text exchanges imo.
This is a really good point. She seems indifferent to the suffering of the babies and the parents in her messages and more concerned about how she's perceived and the potential impact on her career. As though SHE is the victim, not the babies or parents.
From what we've heard of her behaviour on the ward and from the messages she sent, the image I've formed of her is as someone robotic, unfeeling and self serving. JMO of course.
This is a really good point. She seems indifferent to the suffering of the babies and the parents in her messages and more concerned about how she's perceived and the potential impact on her career. As though SHE is the victim, not the babies or parents.
From what we've heard of her behaviour on the ward and from the messages she sent, the image I've formed of her is as someone robotic, unfeeling and self serving. JMO of course.
The thing that I find the hardest to get my head around is that in texts after Baby A's death she was aware of the parents' suffering as she texted how Baby A's dad was on the floor crying saying "please don't take my baby away" when she had to take Baby A to the mortuary and that the parents were "beside themselves" over worries that they would lose the other twin too. And then knowing that, she allegedly tried to kill Baby B, the other twin too!
If guilty, IMO that's not somebody who is oblivious or indifferent to other people's pain or suffering. On the contrary, IMO it sounds more like somebody who relishes seeing other people's pain and suffering, and deliberately set out to create more of it.
As I say, I can understand people wanting to believe that she's guilty before all evidence has been heard, because it's natural to want to blame someone or something for the awful things that happened on this unit during this time.
I think the problem is that you cannot 'bring in the police' in a very complex medical situation, ending in a series of unexplained deaths. The police would have no educated opinion about whether it was an intentional act or not. The hospital had no absolute proof at that time--- Only suspicions.
If they tried to have the police handle it too early it would probably have been dropped because lack of evidence. Then what? The killer could have moved on to another area and continued, perhaps using better devised techniques.
It is devastating because there were more deaths and injuries because she was not caught in time. I do think she should have been taken off the floor all together instead of just switching shifts though. Or at the very least, immediately after the first collapse during her day shift change.
There are other things you can do that don't involve the police though, if you have consultants with a genuine suspicion that babies are being harmed, whether through negligence or pre-meditated acts. They are in a hospital, they have a responsibility to safeguard the patients they are looking after. There is no doubt at all that at this point LL should have been either removed from patient facing duties or not been able to work alone. Even if innocent in the end, patient safety should have vastly overridden the potential for a HR lawsuit.
Sadly I doubt we'll ever hear what was happening behind the scenes at this point in time, unless after the trial a public inquiry is conducted.
I guess my brain can't fully reconcile it all yet, it makes so little sense to me, I hope after the trial more will come out to explain her mindset - if she's guilty, obviously. If not, then well, a whole lot more investigation needs doing, as sadly at least some of these babies were killed in my opinion, be it by her or A.N. Other.
Yes if guilty, I'd like to know more about whether anything significant was happening in her life around June 2015 or whether June was the anniversary of something from her past. Or whether there were incidents from her childhood where pets passed away unexpectedly. Or maybe I'm just reaching, in an attempt to try to understand how anybody could get to the point where they allegedly hurt and kill tiny babies. If guilty, maybe there is no clear reason why she started doing it. If guilty, maybe she just did it one day, found she enjoyed it and then couldn't stop.
And yes, if she's not guilty then as the prosecution and medical experts have put forward strong evidence that babies were deliberately harmed or killed, then presumably the investigation would need to continue.
Later, in police interviews, LL called that testimony into question, saying she didnt tell the mother to leave and saying the mum was incorrect about the time she visited. It was 10 not 9, and LL's notes put it at 10.
But there was verified phone call at 9:11pm, where Mum called her husband to tell him about the troubling incident. So I do believe that mum was correct, which puts LL's honesty in question. JMO
www.chesterstandard.co.uk
