GUILTY UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #38

[May72031]

I was part of the whole forum conversation throughout the trial, I haven’t just jumped on the bandwagon, I just have a different outlook.

Your different outlook just appears to be a general fascination about staffing levels. But this is an ongoing issue/subject in hospitals all over the country, and I dare say, the world.

It has little to do with Letby murdering babies.

 

[iamshadow21]

Here is the difference.

The God's complex would fit many serial killers.

The doctors - and I have several older generations to observe, and the nurses are the same in this regard, I assume - are often driven by "the Savior complex". It is different.

Why judge and destroy with "Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin", which would be the God's complex, when you can get all the veneration of the public after "Lazarus, come forth"?

Now, there is a lot of pride in it, and brilliant surgeons, anesthesiologist or ICU specialists often have it. The better the specialist, the more the savior. You can hear them saying, "nowadays, we could have saved him", or such. And, such specialists are not always easy to deal with. However, they do take their work home.

About the God's complex and serial killers. This group has zero empathy to either their victims or themselves. Homicide may easily end in suicide, too. While people in the medical profession might be difficult, egotistical, complex, and then some, but they do feel empathy for their patients and they feel the same for themselves. Two different types of mentality.

So Lucy working in NICU, I don't see why the heck should she play the God if she could play the Savior? "We wouldn't have managed without you, Lucy. You saved him." Much more satisfying, IMHO.

It depends entirely on what you find satisfying.

Letby's giddy, intrusive, and over involved behaviour after a death shows how much she enjoyed a high from killing, and from being directly involved with post mortem rituals and post mortem handling of the body. It drew a lot of attention to her from both grieving parents and staff. She was reprimanded for it by management.

That tells me that it wasn't just about saving babies and playing the hero. It was about control over life and death and the rush of power she felt dictating a baby's fate. That is a god complex.

MOO

 

[Charlot123]

It depends entirely on what you find satisfying.

Letby's giddy, intrusive, and over involved behaviour after a death shows how much she enjoyed a high from killing, and from being directly involved with post mortem rituals and post mortem handling of the body. It drew a lot of attention to her from both grieving parents and staff. She was reprimanded for it by management.

That tells me that it wasn't just about saving babies and playing the hero. It was about control over life and death and the rush of power she felt dictating a baby's fate. That is a god complex.

MOO

Well, then, we arrive at the question, did she have many friends? At school, in college, at work? Not everyone knows how to start a random conversation unless it is about some pre-set topic. But, she feels lonely and perhaps wants communication, so here comes the conversation about either her own time at work (Dr. Choc) or what happened at work, kids died. Maybe she was not in such relationships with the other nurses that she’d text them suddenly about a movie she saw, or a book she read.

Or maybe it is what I posted, these are doctors and nurses who take their job home? And she had many shifts.

I just see that her unit, and all that happened in it, became her life.

 

[Sweeper2000]

It depends entirely on what you find satisfying.

Letby's giddy, intrusive, and over involved behaviour after a death shows how much she enjoyed a high from killing, and from being directly involved with post mortem rituals and post mortem handling of the body. It drew a lot of attention to her from both grieving parents and staff. She was reprimanded for it by management.

That tells me that it wasn't just about saving babies and playing the hero. It was about control over life and death and the rush of power she felt dictating a baby's fate. That is a god complex.

MOO

was actually one of the examples in evidence that pushed me towards thinki6ng she was G. It was a sharp contrast to her ordinarily unexcited demeanour. if there was nothing in this situation that was unusual then why was her behaviour so unusual not just colectively but personally as well.

 

[tricia]

Dear Websleuths members and guests,

Can you try to imagine not knowing for years what happened to your loved one? The person you love dearly just vanished. It is hard to wrap your head around that thought, I know.

You can help families with missing loved ones get the answers they deserve by becoming a monthly subscriber to DNASolves.com

By becoming a monthly subscriber to DNASolves.com, you not only help families of the missing but also help keep those truly awful advertisements off of Websleuths.

CLICK HERE TO MAKE A MONTHLY DONATION TO DNASOLVES

Your monthly donation helps solve the mystery of the unidentified. Many of the cases in the image below were solved with the help of DNASolves subscribers, and your help is desperately needed.
If you have any questions, please
CLICK HERE!

Thank you,
Tricia

 

[Sillybilly]

Hey folks, please don't report simple misinformation to the moderators. They do not have time to know all the specifics of every single case that we have on WS. It is not a violation of the terms of service to get information wrong, and it is something that members can work out through discussion on the thread

If you wish to refute information that another member has provided, respectfully state why you disagree with it and possibly provide a link to support your own opinion. Again it is not a violation of our terms of service.

 

[katydid23]

I was part of the whole forum conversation throughout the trial, I haven’t just jumped on the bandwagon, I just have a different outlook.

I have a lot of respect for your many decades of work dedicated to child protection. That is admirable and I thank you for your service. It takes dedication and heart. So I know how much you care about protecting children from harm.

But I guess what frustrates me is it feels like some are seemingly dismissive of one of the most dangerous, malicious situations to ever darken the halls of a clinic nursery. Please, just imagine for a moment, that the charges concerning the 27 incidents of violence against newborn infants were true and she's GUILTY as charged.

Just imagine what it took-- the time, resources, energy and effort it took for so many agencies, officers, attorneys and medical workers, doctors, jurors to come to a reasoned decision.

If they are correct in their deliberations, the defendant and now convicted felon is one of the most violent, heartless serial killers ever to haunt a hospital.

Many of us, who spent every day following the evidence and the testimony and the law in this trial believe she was rightfully convicted. And so it seems dismissive the way some people just discount and deny everything, all of the evidence, that we saw that supports her conviction. It is frustrating to hear people point to things that were already looked at and dealt with during the trial and shown to be non-factors in the specific deaths and injuries of these victims.

We can point to individual incidents, one at a time and find a detail, a flaw, a question mark with each one, and we can do that over and over and make it seem like the entire case is 'in question.'

However when you look at the entire case, the big picture, the overall pattern, the many 'coincidences' and suspicious circumstances, the truth is revealed. It becomes very clear that there was one common denominator. And that one common denominator, when investigated, began lying, falsifying records and medical logs, telling mistruths and revealing her secrets.

I'm sure, in your long career, you came across teachers, coaches, babysitters or parents, who were accused of abuse of some kind. And at first you could not believe it---they seemed so nice and normal and helpful. Surely the accusations had to be wrong, a misunderstanding?

But as you investigated deeper, things began to fall into place. The 'alibi' didn't quite work, the explanations fell flat. And eventually they were caught in spite of their 'innocent' demeanour.

I hope that you can maybe try and look at this case in a new way for a minute and see if any of that can ring true. Is there any room for that possibility? Even just for long enough to understand why many of us are arguing so passionately about it?

 

[WaneLyrical]

There wasn’t a single thing in my post about Baby E that was not factual or wasn’t reported at trial. There was no misinformation.

I took all of the times from the reporting posted in the chester standard and would have happily amended any error if it was pointed out, which it wasn’t.

It’s so confusing to me why people who don’t want to talk about the case prevent other people from talking or writing about it.

 

[katydid23]

Here is the difference.

The God's complex would fit many serial killers.

The doctors - and I have several older generations to observe, and the nurses are the same in this regard, I assume - are often driven by "the Savior complex". It is different.

Why judge and destroy with "Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin", which would be the God's complex, when you can get all the veneration of the public after "Lazarus, come forth"?

Now, there is a lot of pride in it, and brilliant surgeons, anesthesiologist or ICU specialists often have it. The better the specialist, the more the savior. You can hear them saying, "nowadays, we could have saved him", or such. And, such specialists are not always easy to deal with. However, they do take their work home.

About the God's complex and serial killers. This group has zero empathy to either their victims or themselves. Homicide may easily end in suicide, too. While people in the medical profession might be difficult, egotistical, complex, and then some, but they do feel empathy for their patients and they feel the same for themselves. Two different types of mentality.

So Lucy working in NICU, I don't see why the heck should she play the God if she could play the Savior? "We wouldn't have managed without you, Lucy. You saved him." Much more satisfying, IMHO.

So Lucy working in NICU, I don't see why the heck should she play the God if she could play the Savior? "We wouldn't have managed without you, Lucy. You saved him." Much more satisfying, IMHO.

She played both. She played saviour each time she hit the EMERGENCY alarm and helped in the resuscitation attempts. She received much praise from her superiors, co-workers and the families in doing so. Often she was the first to sound the alarm and she was praised for being so quick to see the collapse beginning.

And yet she also played God. Have you read her messages to co-workers about the babies 'she lost' on her shifts?

Click below and look for her thoughts about Baby D:

The text messages Lucy Letby sent as she murdered babies

Messages on Letby's phone show her trying to win sympathy or deflect blame after murdering babies.

www.bbc.com

June 22, 2015

Letby: We lost Baby D
Colleague: What!!!! But she was improving. What happened.
Colleague: Wanna chat? I can't believe you were on again. You having such a tough time
The conversation continues later:

Letby:...On a day to day basis it's an incredible job with so many positives...but then sometimes

I think, how do such sick babies get through and others just die so suddenly and so unexpectedly?

Guess it's how it's meant to be.

I think there is an element of fate involved. There is a reason for everything.


CHECK OUT HER MESSAGES TO CO-WORKERS. IT'S WORTH A READ.

 

[katydid23]

There wasn’t a single thing in my post about Baby E that was not factual or wasn’t reported at trial. There was no misinformation.

I took all of the times from the reporting posted in the chester standard and would have happily amended any error if it was pointed out, which it wasn’t.

It’s so confusing to me why people who don’t want to talk about the case prevent other people from talking or writing about it.

I don't see anyone preventing anyone from writing about it. Others are just discussing your 'conclusions' and disagreeing with some of them. And using facts from the trial in support of our contentions.

You stated that the mum of Baby E was mistaken about her 9 pm visit to the nursery with her breast milk. I DISAGREE wholeheartedly and explained why. The hospital had a SCHEDULED feed for 9 pm, the mother expressed her milk at 8;30 pm, and after LL sent the mum back to her room she immediately called her husband.

You said the mother called Dad about 9:50. THAT WAS INCORRECT. It was at 9:11 and there were VERIFIED phone records admitted into evidence as proof.

You said it was impossible for a midwife to have called Baby E's parents and asked them to come to the nursery by 10:52. . Again, I disagreed and showed you factual evidence to support the parent's testimony. The baby began saturating by 10:40 and the consultant made his report and began an action plan. So a call to the parents was protocol.

There were three desaturations leading to collapse episodes that night, Not just the one you posted about.

Both parents, the midwife and the consultant on duty and several nurses testified, and none of them corroborated Nurse Letby's timeline or her claims that the parents were mistaken or misleading.

And most important---the jury believed the parents and not Nurse Letby.


I am not posting these rebuttals in order to try and argue with you. It's not personal. I just want the people who come here to read about the case to have all of the correct facts. Not speculation about why someone thinks that the witness under oath 'might' be wrong---but the facts in evidence that supported them in the trial.

 

[Ruthbullock]

I have a lot of respect for your many decades of work dedicated to child protection. That is admirable and I thank you for your service. It takes dedication and heart.

But I guess what frustrates me is it feels like some are seemingly dismissive of one of the most dangerous, malicious situations to ever darken the halls of a clinic nursery. Please, just imagine for a moment, that the charges concerning the 27 incidents of violence against newborn infants were GUILTY as charged.

Just imagine what it took-- the time, resources, energy and effort it took for so many agencies, officers, attorneys and medical workers, doctors, jurors to come to a reasoned decision.

If they are correct in their deliberations, the defendant and now convicted felon is one of the most violent, heartless serial killer ever to haunt a hospital.

Many of us, who spent every day following the evidence and the testimony and the law in this trial believe she was rightfully convicted. And so it seems dismissive the way some people just discount and deny everything, all of the evidence, that we saw that supports her conviction. It is frustrating to hear people point to things that were already looked at and dealt with during the trial and shown to be non-factors in the specific deaths and injuries of these victims.

We can point to individual incidents, one at a time and find a detail, a flaw, a question mark with each one, and we can do that over and over and make it seem like the entire case is 'in question.'

However when you look at the entire case, the big picture, the overall pattern, the many 'coincidences' and suspicious circumstances, the truth is revealed. It becomes very clear that there was one common denominator. And that one common denominator, when investigated, began lying, falsifying records and medical logs, telling mistruths and revealing her secrets.

I'm sure, in your long career, you came across teachers, coaches, babysitters or parents, who were accused of abuse of some kind. And at first you could not believe it---they seemed so nice and normal and helpful. Surely the accusations had to be wrong, a misunderstanding?

But as you investigated deeper things began to fall into place. The 'alibi' didn't quite work, the explanations fell flat. And eventually they were caught in spite of their 'innocent' demeanour.

I hope that you can maybe try and look at this case in a new way for a minute and see if any of that can ring true. Is there any room for that possibility?

You make a very valid point, personally the stance I take has always been any suspicion should be looked into, with even the smallest gut feeling. That doesn’t make everyone guilty, but these things should never be dismissed. My thoughts have evolved- and I was very much in the camp during the trial that the managers sat in their offices failed to follow due diligence, but throughout the inquiry it has become clear that they did action things through there own policies and procedures from a management POV, but they had limited information and records to display any evidence- and at some point you need some evidence. If you could look through all the inquiry documents and count it would be easier to evidence- over and over again the doctors are asked why they did not fill in the paperwork that was part of their process, why they did not add things like the rashes to the medical notes etc etc. It was not necessary for them to wait until they had identified a suspect to correctly log things that made them pause for thought and think somethings not quite right here. They could have gone to the police, they could have all kept separately escalating their concerns- but the cracks in the evidence that people are pulling out and repeating are the basics that should have been done even if there was noone on the unit deliberately harming babies- as there was an uptick in collapses and deaths. I can understand the lack of admin time and the lack of staffing, the difficulty doing all the mundane paperwork for the doctors, and how it seems the least important aspect of their role and that being face to face with patients is more important, but that admin is an important part of auditing the unit and it wasn’t being done. Whichever way you look at it and whichever side of the fence you are on-that lack of accountability through accurate paperwork led to the truth taking far too long to be discovered and acted on by management. There is a lot of “in hindsight I realise I should have done that” responses from doctors and consultants in the inquiry and the questions are often as simple as was that not your role to complete that bit of paperwork, submit that form, put that rash in the medical notes?

 

[WaneLyrical]

I don't see anyone preventing anyone from writing about it. Others are just discussing your 'conclusions' and disagreeing with some of them. And using facts from the trial in support of our contentions.

You stated that the mum of Baby E was mistaken about her 9 pm visit to the nursery with her breast milk. I DISAGREE wholeheartedly and explained why. The hospital had a SCHEDULED feed for 9 pm, the mother expressed her milk at 8;30 pm, and after LL sent the mum back to her room she immediately called her husband.

You said the mother called Dad about 9:50. THAT WAS INCORRECT. It was at 9:11 and there were VERIFIED phone records admitted into evidence as proof.

You said it was impossible for a midwife to have called Baby E's parents and asked them to come to the nursery by 10:52. . Again, I disagreed and showed you factual evidence to support the parent's testimony. The baby began saturating by 10:40 and the consultant made his report and began an action plan. So a call to the parents was protocol.

There were three desaturations leading to collapse episodes that night, Not just the one you posted about.

Both parents, the midwife and the consultant on duty and several nurses testified, and none of them corroborated Nurse Letby's timeline or her claims that the parents were mistaken or misleading.

And most important---the jury believed the parents and not Nurse Letby.


I am not posting these rebuttals in order to try and argue with you. It's not personal. I just want the people who come here to read about the case to have all of the correct facts. Not speculation about why someone thinks that the witness under oath 'might' be wrong---but the facts in evidence that supported them in the trial.

Katy I wrote 22:50 instead of 22:52 just to keep things simple from a timeline perspective. That’s 10:52pm. We can’t check now because the post has been removed as containing misinformation. The point I was trying to make is all the other hospital notes, as well as the time the mum got to the NNU (which I hope we can all agree did not take anywhere near an hour, she was desperate to get there asap obviously), support that the dad was actually called at 23:52 (I wrote 23:50 again to keep things simple), which was right before the mum headed to the NNU.

I was talking about the second call. And that if it was indeed out whether that had implications on the timing of that first call.

I’m not interested in arguing with anyone. I was looking for some explanation that I hadn’t considered, or something that helps it make sense, perhaps if something came out thirlwall that I wasn’t aware of.

 

[katydid23]

You make a very valid point, personally the stance I take has always been any suspicion should be looked into, with even the smallest gut feeling. That doesn’t make everyone guilty, but these things should never be dismissed. My thoughts have evolved- and I was very much in the camp during the trial that the managers sat in their offices failed to follow due diligence, but throughout the inquiry it has become clear that they did action things through there own policies and procedures from a management POV, but they had limited information and records to display any evidence- and at some point you need some evidence. If you could look through all the inquiry documents and count it would be easier to evidence- over and over again the doctors are asked why they did not fill in the paperwork that was part of their process, why they did not add things like the rashes to the medical notes etc etc. It was not necessary for them to wait until they had identified a suspect to correctly log things that made them pause for thought and think somethings not quite right here. They could have gone to the police, they could have all kept separately escalating their concerns- but the cracks in the evidence that people are pulling out and repeating are the basics that should have been done even if there was noone on the unit deliberately harming babies- as there was an uptick in collapses and deaths. I can understand the lack of admin time and the lack of staffing, the difficulty doing all the mundane paperwork for the doctors, and how it seems the least important aspect of their role and that being face to face with patients is more important, but that admin is an important part of auditing the unit and it wasn’t being done. Whichever way you look at it and whichever side of the fence you are on-that lack of accountability through accurate paperwork led to the truth taking far too long to be discovered and acted on by management. There is a lot of “in hindsight I realise I should have done that” responses from doctors and consultants in the inquiry and the questions are often as simple as was that not your role to complete that bit of paperwork, submit that form, put that rash in the medical notes?

Yes, the above is all true. MANY mistakes were made, especially in hindsight.

It's a big problem that they didn't call police or make formal accusations earlier, as it may have saved so much grief.

But I think the main problem was that Nurse Letby was cunning and evil. She was under the radar for a long time. And even when the senior doctors became suspicious there was no evidence. You can't go to the police and say you think a nurse 'might' be forcing air into a newborn's lines.

They tried doing it the way the administration wants it to be done but that was a big dead end. The Union reps pushed back successfully each time.

You know how bureaucracy is. Look at how Child Protection Services works. Surely you met with much frustration trying to get help in some cases. I worked in the school system and our social workers were so continuously frustrated with all the hoops needed to jump through and still many families could just skate and move to new district or home school to evade scrutiny.

No one could have imagined the type of cold hearted callous brutality that this person brought to the nursery. It was unimaginable so every one was looking for unknown viruses or epidemics or toxins, anything but accepting that a smiling sweet nurse was killing the babies.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Katy I wrote 22:50 instead of 22:52 just to keep things simple from a timeline perspective. That’s 10:52pm. We can’t check now because the post has been removed as containing misinformation. The point I was trying to make is all the other hospital notes, as well as the time the mum got to the NNU (which I hope we can all agree did not take anywhere near an hour, she was desperate to get there asap obviously), support that the dad was actually called at 23:52 (I wrote 23:50 again to keep things simple), which was right before the mum headed to the NNU.

I was talking about the second call. And that if it was indeed out whether that had implications on the timing of that first call.

I’m not interested in arguing with anyone. I was looking for some explanation that I hadn’t considered, or something that helps it make sense, perhaps if something came out thirlwall that I wasn’t aware of.

The phone calls and times on the records keep coming into my head as well- then someone shared a whole load of testimony from the papers and I accept that it must all be correct and accurate as it was debated at trial- but there is something I can’t put my finger on with the timings, it always feels like the timeline doesn’t quite work when you use the parents testimony of the phone calls (and I’m not saying they are incorrect or lying) alongside other witness statements- it’s like there is some missing information or something that doesn’t quite add up that I have never been able to pinpoint, even when I accept changing an incorrect time on the medical notes. In fact last time we pulled it apart on here it got to giving about 20 minutes grace on various peoples quoted timings to make the timeline credible- which is probably where it niggles a bit as in the trial so much focus was put on using the phone calls as an accurate time, yet then so many other things on top of the notes had to be tweaked slightly to fit.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Just looking at the Datix reports for Child E and mums testimony there are 2 areas that don’t tally properly- one is dates and the other is times.
I will post about timings first
Mum states first bleed was before 9.00 when she arrived and subsequently phoned dad.
Two hours later so around 11.00 baby deteriorated she talks about 2 periods of 15 minutes watching from outside the window and midway through someone suggests baby is christened, and they agreed resuscitation attempted were stopped
There is also mention by mum that resuscitation lasted 45 minutes so she knew they were doing their best.

But those timings from mum take us at a push to 12:15, but more likely 11.45, it sounds more like mum came down, took about 15 minutes for dad to arrive and they were sat outside for 30 minutes or so, knowing they attempted resuscitation for 45 minutes.

It doesn’t match up to the Datix (which has its own errors on with dates, but not due to LL- the date error was by Chloe Delbarre, all other dates were correct) which states a bleed at 9.40, then again at 11, deteriorates at 11.40, intubated 11.45. Consultant Dr ZA arrived 12.25, baby deteriorated again at 12.36 and time of death was 1:40. Baby was resuscitated for 45 minutes, 30 minutes in baby recovered temporarily with a weak heart rate, and then parents asked them to stop.

LL didn’t complete the DATIX she reported it and it was completed by Debbie Peacock- who will have used LL’s notes and a conversation to complete the report

Dr ZA raised in the inquest when discussing this case with the police she realised how detailed and over informative LL’ notes were for this baby and that raised her suspicions- which seems odd for one person to state the notes detailed everything and then to find the timings were actually incorrect, as how much margin for error is there if you write too much information down.

Dr ZA also completed a referral form and again time of death is 1.40-so working backwards, something doesn’t add up and it may well be we are just missing something in the middle- but it’s more likely the mums original 9.00 bleed and phone call were out by an hour due to BST, and it was at 9.40-10.00. Rather than everything else is out by an hour, including the time of death.

I don’t even know if that raises any doubt on the actual conviction, I’m not sure it does- but it does highlight what a mess some of these arguments were when we aren’t having to focus within a trial and have the time to write notes and pick it apart a little

 

[May72031]

I don’t even know if that raises any doubt on the actual conviction.

Correct. It doesn't.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Susan Brooke’s the midwife used mums phone to speak to dad and request he comes to the hospital- mum states the phone records show 10.52, but the midwife states it was midnight- so 11.52 approx. What @WaneLyrical is saying is if this phone records show one is an hour out, so is the previous one and it was never around 9.00, but actually 10.00 and the notes were correct.

 

[Ruthbullock]

DBM

 

[Ruthbullock]

Correct. It doesn't.

Do you care to elaborate? Your statement adds nothing, but if you want to share why you believe it makes no difference the timings, people are more than happy to discuss and consider your points and perhaps you may convince people that you are correct.

 

[Ruthbullock]

You said the mother called Dad about 9:50. THAT WAS INCORRECT. It was at 9:11 and there were VERIFIED phone records admitted into evidence as proof.

You said it was impossible for a midwife to have called Baby E's parents and asked them to come to the nursery by 10:52. . Again, I disagreed and showed you factual evidence to support the parent's testimony. The baby began saturating by 10:40 and the consultant made his report and began an action plan. So a call to the parents was protocol.

The midwife stated it was around midnight that she requested dad attend on mums phone and she was notified by the NNU at 11.30- so if mum (that feels unfair, but we are for court proceedings) is reliant on phone records for the timings- then the first phone call must also be an hour out and 10, not 9.00

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, July 4 - judge's summing up

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

www.chesterstandard.co.uk