UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #9

[Kemug]

I just googled "Dissociative Identity Disorder", but it seems to not be relevant here.

 

[ColourPurple]

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!

At what point would you have called in the police though? They had to rule out other natural causes first, which the independent review did and then apparently they reviewed each case again after that, before going to the police.

And at what point would you have taken her off patient facing duties? We have the benefit of hindsight now and can see all the cases presented together but they hadn't even picked up on them all being suspicious or linked to LL at the time.

www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/chester-hospital-baby-deaths-timeline-19253026

 

[Sundial]

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 ^^^ I absolutely agree. It just seems very self-orientated (imo). I have been extremely surprised at the lack of mention of these babies sufferings from her really; more so as she has been quite invested in some of them (as we might expect, if she were innocent and genuinely wanting to go above and beyond to give them the best care etc), so if she’s so invested, visiting babies off shift, built rapport and support with the parents etc, I find it quite odd that she’s not really reflected on what these tiny children have gone through even as they worryingly start to increase.
Some she is their designated nurse (for some), some of these babies are there for some while (and even return from the other hospital), yet as these numbers increase, I struggle to see how she cannot be affected or even mention anything remotely feeling about the dire, awful things these babies in HER care have gone through.

 

[ColourPurple]

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.

The independent review did make some recommendations about how the hospital should review unexpected neonatal deaths but yes they need to review how employees can report suspicions of negligence or deliberate harm too, if they haven't already done so. As we are seeing what might have been genuine concerns about LL, being dismissed as "bitchiness" (it doesn't look like anybody senior acted or investigated those concerns at the time) and Dr Jayaram has said he was told not to make a fuss when he reproted his cocnerns about LL being present during collapses and deaths. It would be interesting to know whether the "bitchiness" was just more senior nurses questioning why LL was in room 1 , or whether they actually said something more specific like "Why is she in room 1 when she was present when 4 babies in a fortnight collapsed unexpectedly and 3 of them died."

Among the 24 recommendations were the need to review each unexpected neonatal death in the relevant period, strengthen the response to neo-natal death/near-miss investigations, to appoint two additional consultants, ensure the maintenance of skills of neonatal nursing and medical staff and to create a ‘children’s champion’ on the hospital board.

Hospital probe report after death rate rise for high risk babies

Hospital ordered review into greater number of deaths than it would normally expect

www.cheshire-live.co.uk

 

[ColourPurple]

This ^^^ I absolutely agree. It just seems very self-orientated (imo). I have been extremely surprised at the lack of mention of these babies sufferings from her really; more so as she has been quite invested in some of them (as we might expect, if she were innocent and genuinely wanting to go above and beyond to give them the best care etc), so if she’s so invested, visiting babies off shift, built rapport and support with the parents etc, I find it quite odd that she’s not really reflected on what these tiny children have gone through even as they worryingly start to increase.
Some she is their designated nurse (for some), some of these babies are there for some while (and even return from the other hospital), yet as these numbers increase, I struggle to see how she cannot be affected or even mention anything remotely feeling about the dire, awful things these babies in HER care have gone through.

Reminds me of this conversation about the parents of Baby E and F

"She told Ms Jones-Key that both parents had cried and hugged her, 'saying they’d never be able to thank me enough for the love and care I gave them'.

Her colleague replied: 'It’s heart-breaking, but you have done your job to the highest standard with compassion and professionalism.'When you can’t save a baby you can try to make sure that the loss of their child is their only regret. You should feel very proud of yourself'.

Letby said: 'I just feel sad that they’re thinking of me when they’ve lost him'."

Colleagues of Lucy Letby told her she was 'terrible run of bad luck'

Jurors at Manchester Crown Court were today shown a series of text messages between the neonatal nurse and colleagues in the aftermath of five-day-old Baby E.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[squish]

Reminds me of this conversation about the parents of Baby E and F

"She told Ms Jones-Key that both parents had cried and hugged her, 'saying they’d never be able to thank me enough for the love and care I gave them'.

Her colleague replied: 'It’s heart-breaking, but you have done your job to the highest standard with compassion and professionalism.'When you can’t save a baby you can try to make sure that the loss of their child is their only regret. You should feel very proud of yourself'.

Letby said: 'I just feel sad that they’re thinking of me when they’ve lost him'."

Colleagues of Lucy Letby told her she was 'terrible run of bad luck'

Jurors at Manchester Crown Court were today shown a series of text messages between the neonatal nurse and colleagues in the aftermath of five-day-old Baby E.

www.dailymail.co.uk

She’s amazingly self-absorbed.

In her texts she doesn’t show any compassion at all for the suffering of the babies as individuals in their own right.

She just expresses sadness (feigning IMO) at the general situation, and discusses the parents’ reactions.

 

[Sundial]

Reminds me of this conversation about the parents of Baby E and F

"She told Ms Jones-Key that both parents had cried and hugged her, 'saying they’d never be able to thank me enough for the love and care I gave them'.

Her colleague replied: 'It’s heart-breaking, but you have done your job to the highest standard with compassion and professionalism.'When you can’t save a baby you can try to make sure that the loss of their child is their only regret. You should feel very proud of yourself'.

Letby said: 'I just feel sad that they’re thinking of me when they’ve lost him'."

Colleagues of Lucy Letby told her she was 'terrible run of bad luck'

Jurors at Manchester Crown Court were today shown a series of text messages between the neonatal nurse and colleagues in the aftermath of five-day-old Baby E.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Yes, thats the one.. This is the thing strangely though, the baby is the patient first and foremost; understandably.
Now granted you need and must have good rapport and support with the parents/caregiver; but the more the case progresses there’s so little in what she says which even indicates genuine feeling towards what those babies have gone through. So many have gone through.

If this were an adult as the patient, it would still be someone’s mother, uncle, sister etc.. it is of course upsetting when your patient dies even without non-suspicious reasons. If they die and care was allegedly sub-optimal as suggested in this trial, it would be even more upsetting. More so if those numbers are increasing. But would the focus be on the relatives and loved ones of the person who has died rather than that patient?

It would be of the patient, and in this case; tiny defenceless, poorly or premature little babies and there is an unusual recognition of them which I struggle to understand in what she says in her conversations imo.

 

[Sundial]

Reminds me of this conversation about the parents of Baby E and F

"She told Ms Jones-Key that both parents had cried and hugged her, 'saying they’d never be able to thank me enough for the love and care I gave them'.

Her colleague replied: 'It’s heart-breaking, but you have done your job to the highest standard with compassion and professionalism.'When you can’t save a baby you can try to make sure that the loss of their child is their only regret. You should feel very proud of yourself'.

Letby said: 'I just feel sad that they’re thinking of me when they’ve lost him'."

Colleagues of Lucy Letby told her she was 'terrible run of bad luck'

Jurors at Manchester Crown Court were today shown a series of text messages between the neonatal nurse and colleagues in the aftermath of five-day-old Baby E.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Bringing this in too highlighted from above;

both parents had cried and hugged her saying they’d never be able to thank me enough for the love and care I gave them.

I get the sense it’s more to do with the parents imo. Oddly there is more reference in her conversations regarding the parents (and her self-driven feelings) than the actual patient; those little babies themselves. It’s almost like they are void in the whole thing. It does make you wonder (aside from thinking she is innocent and loved her etc), genuinely what her relationship was actually like with her own parents. Just why does she need to trawl through these parents social media when they are grieving or already distressed? Why is that necessary? Surely it can’t be to “see how a xyz is doing” when she’s so emotionally disconnected from them whilst they have been in her care.

Strokes of affection spring to mind here imo.

She recognises that emotional turmoil and pain the parents are going through “crying on the floor”. She also recognises “both parents cried and hugged her”, “thinking of me when they have lost him”

So why does she not recognise the pain and suffering all these babies, her patients in her care, went through? It’s really unsettling imo

 

[Dotta]

She just expresses sadness (feigning IMO) at the general situation, and discusses the parents’ reactions.

Plus all sorts of crazy diagnoses.
Juggling complex medical terms.

Really, I tried my best to stop my eyes rolling

Gaslighting!

JMO

 

[Tortoise]

https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-live-a-poisoner-was-at-work-in-the-hospital-nurse-accused-of-killing-seven-
babies-goes-on-trial-12716378

The note is pretty clear-cut to me. You only get to an alternative meaning by adulterating select sentences and by ignoring the words “on purpose”.


The defence says "it does not say guilty".

1. Words LL did not write down are not evidence. Picking any word that she did not use is a straw man argument. What LL wrote is the evidence - she didn't write not guilty, or innocent, but that will not and never will be evidence either.

2. LL had not been accused of murder/attempted murder, arrested, cautioned or charged. "Guilty" is vocabulary, an available plea, for persons who have been accused by the police. She was going through a grievance procedure with the NHS, 'slander, discrimination and victimisation', were her stated concerns. You don't plead guilty to colleagues' and bosses' suspicions.

3. LL wrote "I DID THIS", twice. Three words replete with pronoun making it a reliable statement, admitting responsibility, with the same meaning as 'guilty'. Not only that but she preceded one of them with "I AM EVIL", giving the context of evil to whatever "THIS" is.

4. LL wrote "I haven't done anything wrong". The words only mean that the writer believes everything they did was justifiable. She's not writing with the consideration of what anyone else will think about that, or that it will be discovered in a house search, these are her private thoughts.

5. Good, horrible, awful and evil. “I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them & I am a horrible evil person.” “I am an awful person”: A nurse qualified in healthcare who did actually know practically how to save the lives of babies, and demonstrated she did know how to provide the taught standards of care, is obviously able to care for them. I believe the words mean she doesn’t care for them and being good enough means being caring. If the allegations against her are proven, describing herself as horrible and awful doesn’t come close to an awareness of the egregiousness and the suffering inflicted. One might use horrible and awful to describe the windy weather out, but not a hurricane. I think the words she chose show a disconnect, and she doesn’t have the capacity for assessing the impact on others. Thus, to her, good, horrible, awful and evil are merely labels identifying caring or not caring, empathy or no empathy. IMO

6. LL wrote "I'll never have children or marry I'll never know what its like to have a family". Is it reasonable to think that slander discrimination and victimisation will follow her forever and prevent her from marrying or having a family? Or is it reasonable to think that she sees a future where she will not be free to have these things? Is it reasonable to think she believes the investigation will find evidence of things she didn't do and she will be convicted by a jury as an innocent person?


"on purpose"

"I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them & I am a horrible evil person I don't deserve Mum & Dad [Tom & Matt?]"

On purpose only has one meaning - non-accidentally. Killed only has one meaning – to inflict death upon. The next line about deserving is not consistent with one who believes they have been slandered discriminated against and victimised. The note demonstrates progression in her stance, mood and thoughts, IMO.


This is my opinion and as we all know, LL denies the charges.

 

[Anxala]

It doesn't read like that to me. She doesn't say 'THEY SAY I am evil.'

Most specifically, look at the very bottom of the post it. The very bottom sentence, ALL BY ITSELF, written in CAPITAL LETTERS, with nothing in front saying 'they say; or anything like that, she wrote in all caps:

I AM EVIL I DID THIS


How does that^^^ imply that she is discussing what others were saying about her?

'I AM EVIL. I DID THIS': Post-It notes written by nurse Lucy Letby

On day four of her trial at Manchester Crown Court the jury was told that messages written by Lucy Letby, 32, were found at her home after her arrest including one that said: 'I killed them on purpose.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

She also says 'I haven't done anything wrong'. I read her 'I am evil, I did this' as her despairing conclusion as to how she feels she's being perceived by the world at large.

All our takes on that note are subjective and speculative, none has any more weight than another. I don't see the need to argue for or against an individual position since it doesn't take the case any further in any useful or practical way. LL is the only one who can tell us what both her mindset and her intention was when she wrote it and since that's unlikely to happen, our takes are pretty much moot and really not worth arguing over.

And I'm going to leave it there.

 

[Anxala]

It seems to me that nearly ALL posters here have made their minds a long time ago - even before the trial.

But it is my subjective opinion following the threads

Including yourself?

My impression of the thread at large is that, thankfully, there's a good and decent balance between those of you who see LL as guilty BARD, and those of us who're willing to put preconceptions aside in order to listen to, understand and try to objectively process the evidence against her.

The trial is barely halfway through. I'll be a fence sitter to the end.

 

[katydid23]

Including yourself?

My impression of the thread at large is that, thankfully, there's a good and decent balance between those of you who see LL as guilty BARD, and those of us who're willing to put preconceptions aside in order to listen to, understand and try to objectively process the evidence against her.

The trial is barely halfway through. I'll be a fence sitter to the end.

I have followed a lot of trials. I am usually swayed, at the beginning by the prosecution's case as they put it forth. However I always keep an open mind throughout the defense portion of the case because I am often convinced to switch sides if they have a reasonable doubt worthy presentation of their facts.

I will do the same with this case. I am leaning towards the prosecution now because they have a lot of bad facts that the defense willl have to rebut when they have their turn. We shall see if they can overcome them. None of us can know until then.

 

[Dotta]

I have followed a lot of trials. I am usually swayed, at the beginning by the prosecution's case as they put it forth. However I always keep an open mind throughout the defense portion of the case because I am often convinced to switch sides if they have a reasonable doubt worthy presentation of their facts.

I will do the same with this case. I am leaning towards the prosecution now because they have a lot of bad facts that the defense willl have to rebut when they have their turn. We shall see if they can overcome them. None of us can know until then.

What do you mean by "Defence turn"?
Don't they crossexamine witnesses simultaneously with Prosecution?

Did they announce/present their own experts at the beginning of the trial?

They say LL is innocent.

 

[katydid23]

What do you mean by "Defence turn"?
Don't they crossexamine witnesses simultaneously with Prosecution?

Did they announce/present their own experts at the beginning of the trial?

They say LL is innocent.

Maybe it is different in UK trials, but I thought the defense would have their turn to put forth their own medical experts and witnesses after the prosecution rests their case.

 

[Dotta]

Maybe it is different in UK trials, but I thought the defense would have their turn to put forth their own medical experts and witnesses after the prosecution rests their case.

I'm not from the UK.

IMO EXPERTS are OBJECTIVE -
meaning they serve both Prosecution and Defence.

But, of course, Defence in closing speech will present their version of events, trying to poke as many holes as they can in Prosecution's version.

JMO

 

[Sundial]

View attachment 396729
https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-live-a-poisoner-was-at-work-in-the-hospital-nurse-accused-of-killing-seven-
babies-goes-on-trial-12716378

The note is pretty clear-cut to me. You only get to an alternative meaning by adulterating select sentences and by ignoring the words “on purpose”.


The defence says "it does not say guilty".

1. Words LL did not write down are not evidence. Picking any word that she did not use is a straw man argument. What LL wrote is the evidence - she didn't write not guilty, or innocent, but that will not and never will be evidence either.

2. LL had not been accused of murder/attempted murder, arrested, cautioned or charged. "Guilty" is vocabulary, an available plea, for persons who have been accused by the police. She was going through a grievance procedure with the NHS, 'slander, discrimination and victimisation', were her stated concerns. You don't plead guilty to colleagues' and bosses' suspicions.

3. LL wrote "I DID THIS", twice. Three words replete with pronoun making it a reliable statement, admitting responsibility, with the same meaning as 'guilty'. Not only that but she preceded one of them with "I AM EVIL", giving the context of evil to whatever "THIS" is.

4. LL wrote "I haven't done anything wrong". The words only mean that the writer believes everything they did was justifiable. She's not writing with the consideration of what anyone else will think about that, or that it will be discovered in a house search, these are her private thoughts.

5. Good, horrible, awful and evil. “I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them & I am a horrible evil person.” “I am an awful person”: A nurse qualified in healthcare who did actually know practically how to save the lives of babies, and demonstrated she did know how to provide the taught standards of care, is obviously able to care for them. I believe the words mean she doesn’t care for them and being good enough means being caring. If the allegations against her are proven, describing herself as horrible and awful doesn’t come close to an awareness of the egregiousness and the suffering inflicted. One might use horrible and awful to describe the windy weather out, but not a hurricane. I think the words she chose show a disconnect, and she doesn’t have the capacity for assessing the impact on others. Thus, to her, good, horrible, awful and evil are merely labels identifying caring or not caring, empathy or no empathy. IMO

6. LL wrote "I'll never have children or marry I'll never know what its like to have a family". Is it reasonable to think that slander discrimination and victimisation will follow her forever and prevent her from marrying or having a family? Or is it reasonable to think that she sees a future where she will not be free to have these things? Is it reasonable to think she believes the investigation will find evidence of things she didn't do and she will be convicted by a jury as an innocent person?


"on purpose"

"I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them & I am a horrible evil person I don't deserve Mum & Dad [Tom & Matt?]"

On purpose only has one meaning - non-accidentally. Killed only has one meaning – to inflict death upon. The next line about deserving is not consistent with one who believes they have been slandered discriminated against and victimised. The note demonstrates progression in her stance, mood and thoughts, IMO.


This is my opinion and as we all know, LL denies the charges.

Interesting and very valid points.
The right side corner;

“I pay every day for that”
This really makes one wonder too imo

 

[katydid23]

I'm not from the UK.

IMO EXPERTS are OBJECTIVE -
meaning they serve both Prosecution and Defence.

But, of course, Defence in closing speech will present their version of events, trying to poke as many holes as they can in Prosecution's version.

JMO

Experts are supposed to remain objective. But in reality, many experts are 'guns for hire.' You can hire an 'expert' to say whatever your case needs to set forward to the jury, within reason.

There will surely be 'experts' who will claim that there was a possible medical explanation for these collapses, thus nullifying the criminal charges. This will be a hard case to win perhaps.

 

[Dotta]

Experts are supposed to remain objective. But in reality, many experts are 'guns for hire.' You can hire an 'expert' to say whatever your case needs to set forward to the jury, within reason.

There will surely be 'experts' who will claim that there was a possible medical explanation for these collapses, thus nullifying the criminal charges. This will be a hard case to win perhaps.

So
Why weren't they presented at the beginning?
To the Judge, Jury and families of victims?

Are they going to jump out, all of the sudden, as "rabbits from the magician's hat"???

 

[katydid23]

She also says 'I haven't done anything wrong'.

Maybe she doesn't believe she did anything wrong? If she did these alleged attacks, she must have had some compelling reason that made it make sense to her.

My friends 14 yr old twins got caught shoplifting expensive make up. One daughter promptly said to her angry parents," I didn't do anything wrong. "

Her sister chimed in ---" yes, they charge way too much and besides, their corporate insurance pays for the loss, so..."

In their minds they did nothing wrong

I read her 'I am evil, I did this' as her despairing conclusion as to how she feels she's being perceived by the world at large.

.
I read her ' I AM EVIL. I DID THIS' literally, and did not add in extraneous thoughts attributed to her. She said 'I pay for that everyday' and ' I did this on purpose'

If she meant all this to be describing what others thought of her, why not say that?

I would have a really hard time writing down these kinds of horrid confessions over and over if I was just thinking about what others thought of me. It doesn't make sense to me.

All our takes on that note are subjective and speculative, none has any more weight than another. I don't see the need to argue for or against an individual position since it doesn't take the case any further in any useful or practical way. LL is the only one who can tell us what both her mindset and her intention was when she wrote it and since that's unlikely to happen, our takes are pretty much moot and really not worth arguing over.

This note is evidence set before the court. So I think there is value in discussing our individual interpretations. I am sure the jurors will have to do the same thing. I think this note will actually end up having a big impaction the end.

And I'm going to leave it there.