I see, thank you for the run down.
Angels of Death are serial killers who can hold down a job, I struggle to think of one where there wasn't signs in their private life/childhood in hindsight. Have I missed any wild stories about her by friends/family?
I don't know if they are wild stories, but there is some munchausen type traces of family dysfunction with Lucy and her mother. Her mother was and still possibly is a hypochondriac. And she influenced little Lucy to be hyper focused on her health as well during childhood...keeping notes upon her own health in elementary school. And her mother took her to doctors often as she was growing up.
When Lucy was a nurse, she spoke to her mother a few times a day and spoke about her patients and discussed their cases. We saw texts between them during the trial where she was discussing many of the babies collapses.
Lucy never had a boyfriend. She had many friends socially, but twice a year she vacationed with her parents---twice a year, every year. She even complained that she felt smothered by them, but she still was very bonded with them, perhaps unusually so?
Many of her texts with friends and co-workers, shown in court, showed the manipulative, gaslighting side to Lucy. She was two-faced towards co-workers, saying one thing to some, then the opposite to others. Saying 'nice' things to one co-worker, like "hope you feel better soon HoN" and then to another co-worker she berates the 'sick' friend saying she's not really sick, she's just lazy.
We saw dozens of those kinds of texts and messages at trial. So she was not 'NICE Lucy" like some mistakenly thought. She was shady, petty, manipulative and downright mean.
The more you learn during the trial, the more shocking her behaviour became. She is creating these 'collapses' and injuries and then she is smiling at the parents and offering to bathe and dress their deceased babies, out of 'kindness' towards the grieving parents....
I never can make what feels like a solid decision on this trial. So much of it is based on taking the word of experts on the significance and cause of various medical findings. But now there are other significant experts heavily disputing the findings.
There were other types of evidence besides just the medical experts. It is hard when you ate not a medical expert and you have to decide which expert is correct.
The evidence that really hit home for me was when Lucy got caught a few times, falsifying her medical logs, in order to create false narratives to cover her tracks. It was complicated but if you followed along for 7 months, you saw several OBVIOUS examples of her writing in false information. Sometimes she put herself in other nurseries instead of the nursery she was actually in, when a baby collapsed. But when the prosecution took ALL of the other staff notes, and all of the data from treatment machines, and pharmacy records, and witness testimony, there were times when SHE GOT BUSTED.
They proved a few times that she WAS actually in the nursery 3 or 4 minutes before a baby had an unexplained collapse----and was giving them a shot or a treatment--as shown by other staff members notes and clinic data-----but HER NOTES would say she was in a different place.
Why would her notes about Baby E be so different from other's notes, testimonies and recollections?
Baby E's mother testified that she heard her baby screaming in pain, and she walked into the nursery and saw blood coming from his mouth and was dripping down his face and chin.
Letby denied that ever happened, even though the mother ran to her room and called her husband immediately, and cried and was very upset. Both the parents testified at the trial to this happening. The mom had a 9 pm feed scheduled and came with her breast milk. LETBY DENIED ALL OF THAT. Said the parents were both mistaken. There was no crying or bleeding baby at 9 pm according to Letby. The parents were wrong, Letby was right ?
At the trial the parents had verified phone records showing she did call her husband at 9:15, like they both testified.
Lucy's medical notes said that 9 pm FEED was OMITTED under orders by the doctor. She wrote that on her medical log.
But the doctor refuted Lucy's claim. He said he never cancelled that feeding and his records corroborated that.
Lucy had told Baby E's mom that she had called a doctor about the baby bleeding from the mouth. The Mom called her husband and told him that too. But at trial LUCY DENIED SAYING THAT. She denied that the baby was bleeding at 9 pm. Again, mom must have been mistaken.
Lucy never called a doctor about cancelling a feed or about a baby bleeding from his mouth. It was not until 9:30 that she sent a note to the doctor to say the baby vomited and there were specks of blood.
A couple of hours later Baby E DIED. He bled out internally.and lost 1/4 of his total blood.
So Lucy tried to tell the jury that the parents, who watched their baby die, and the mother who walked into the nursery and saw her child screaming and bleeding from his mouth---Lucy tried to convince the jury that those parents were mistaken about expressing the milk, coming to a 9 pm scheduled feed, seeing a screaming bleeding baby, who died hours later.
And Lucy was correct, even though the doctor refuted her claims and the phone records refuted her claims, and both parents testified to what they saw and experienced.
Still, if the initial parsing down of the 80+ potential deaths was done by someone who knew Letby was the suspect and may have edited final list to remove a baby she could not have killed. That to me would really impact my confidence a case built on cumulative and circumstantial evidence. It would be like trusting data from a research study built on a fundamentally bias sample.
Does anyone know if that is true/accurate? I cannot remember where I heard it.
I think that is a mistaken assumption, not a fact. There were some babies that died that were not attributed to Lucy. Babies do die sometimes.
