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

[lisasimpson2010]

The nurses literally testified to making boxes with photos of the babies to take to the post natal ward, I guess were referring them all to the ICO and police then, for their “crimes”.

If you cannot see how these people’s opinions of Letby have been influenced retrospectively, I can’t help you.

Temporarily removing nasal oxygen for cares or handling is completely normal. Why is that anything that is clinically ordinary becomes evil as soon as it’s Letby doing it?

Absolute witch hunt.

What you are saying is simply flat out untrue, and you have failed to provide one single link for any of the wild claims that you're stating as fact.

It is absolutely not normal in any way. You've also posted "so what" about things that would get you disciplinary action in any UK hospital.


She removed his oxygen without permission, without the medical staff knowing she'd done it, and without telling anyone. She very obviously did not remove him from oxygen for cleaning since she only invented the "cleaning" excuse after the fact, when she was confronted. She removed him from oxygen for the sole purpose of taking illicit photos, which is extremely weird and against the law.

The fact the parents found it weird and disturbing is the only thing that matters.

No wonder so many people who knew LL reported that they found her to be deeply strange or excessively angry and hostile. She fits the profile of a female serial killer exactly.

 

[Anxala]

The Letbyists are out in force with their theories and support, today.

One Letbyist has released a video of herself singing a "Lucy Letby Ditty". Listen if you dare...
Lucy Letby Ditty

Meanwhile, another mad Letbyist is claiming her mugshot was "altered" to remove emotions from her face...
"Was Lucy Letby's Mugshot Altered?"

Re the ditty, I just listened. Yes, my sacrifice to you all so I can report back in an informed manner.

In the long tradition of powerful protest songs about injustice bringing about impactful change, I kind of feel this one, sadly, may not make the required grade.

But still, I'm going to give her 1/100 for heartfelt effort.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Just my two pennies but i feel actual pain for the parents that thought positively of letby. I couldnt dream of a bigger betrayal and the sheer degree of harm that that total flip of perspective would cause. Its one of teh worst things about this.

I bet they are the most lovely, non judgemental people as well.

 

[WaneLyrical]

She removed his oxygen without permission, without the medical staff knowing she'd done it, and without telling anyone. She very obviously did not remove him from oxygen for cleaning since she only invented the "cleaning" excuse after the fact, when she was confronted. She removed him from oxygen for the sole purpose of taking illicit photos, which is extremely weird and against the law.

<modsnip:unnecessary>

If this baby was born the day after Ravi’s supernatural experience, that means they were born on 18 Feb. Mother’s Day would have been 6 March, so about half way through the baby’s stay. The baby wasn’t ventilated, because the parents specifically speak of a “mask”. If this is not an intubated baby, as it very clearly isn’t, then removal of the oxygen delivery by the nurses will be happening very frequently.

And if there was anything in it, I’m sure Dewi Evans would have been all over it.

 

[lisasimpson2010]

Can you provide one single citation for even one single claim that you've stated as fact?

There is no circumstance taking photos of an infant patient without permission as a "mother's day present" is acceptable or normal, much less removing oxygen purely to facilitate a photoshoot. It's deeply abnormal behaviour.

I am uncomfortable with any poster being dismissive towards parents who actually knew Letby personally.


The baby didn't die so no crime was committed. So obviously the prosecution wouldn't mention it, since they had to focus on the actual cases where babies died. That's what prosecution does, prosecute crimes. But there is evidence that is at the least suggestive that Letby intended to murder that baby in the future, and of course the parents' account build up a character study of Letby as a person who others found strange, and it builds up a pattern of behaviour of Letby engaging in deeply inappropriate behaviour.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I dont understand how those handovers were not stated to be organised by date tbh at trial. We went over that at length during the original trial. That detail changes everything really. It was suspect enough but that extra detail more or less frames it.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Can you provide one single citation for even one single claim that you've stated as fact?

There is no circumstance taking photos of an infant patient without permission as a "mother's day present" is acceptable or normal, much less removing oxygen purely to facilitate a photoshoot. It's deeply abnormal behaviour.

I am uncomfortable with any poster being dismissive towards parents who actually knew Letby personally.


The baby didn't die so no crime was committed. So obviously the prosecution wouldn't mention it, since they had to focus on the actual cases where babies died. That's what prosecution does, prosecute crimes. But there is evidence that is at the least suggestive that Letby intended to murder that baby in the future, and of course the parents' account build up a character study of Letby as a person who others found strange, and it builds up a pattern of behaviour of Letby engaging in deeply inappropriate behaviour.

If you are challenging me to provide you with evidence that the nurses on this unit took photographs of babies to give to parents, then it’s clear you have not followed this case. It’s been evidenced multiple times within the trial itself and in the thirlwall inquiry.

What specifically are you looking for citations on?

Babies don’t have to die for a crime to be committed. Lots of babies in this case didn’t die. Letby’s serving a whole life order for dislodging a tube without any evidence. So I would have thought photographic evidence of her having removed tubes would be material.

 

[Jules2021]

Parents say Letby sent them pic of their baby with chilling detail

The mum said Letby once sent her a handmade Mother's Day card with a photo she had taken of him in an incubator. This concerned them as he needed 24-hour oxygen

www.walesonline.co.uk

Notably, this infant was the surviving child of a pair of twins, which we know Letby predated on by preference. The other twin had died as a result of preeclampsia.

MOO

I remember this story, didn't realise mum was actually originally having twins though. Wow. And three incidents where he had something happen to him just whilst she was on shift! How anyone can suggest it was just the drains or poor hospital management is beyond me. And what nurse gets angry when another nurse is looking after their "favourite"?!

Her defenders gonna ignore all this though, they've decided she's a victim and nothing will change that in their minds imo.

 

[lisasimpson2010]

If you are challenging me to provide you with evidence that the nurses on this unit took photographs of babies to give to parents, then it’s clear you have not followed this case. It’s been evidenced multiple times within the trial itself and in the thirlwall inquiry.

What specifically are you looking for citations on?

Babies don’t have to die for a crime to be committed. Lots of babies in this case didn’t die. Letby’s serving a whole life order for dislodging a tube without any evidence. So I would have thought photographic evidence of her having removed tubes would be material.

The claim that she removed the oxygen not to take photos, but to perform cleaning.

The claim that not a single person had a bad word to say about her.

 

[WaneLyrical]

The claim that she removed the oxygen not to take photos, but to perform cleaning.

The claim that not a single person had a bad word to say about her.

A CPAP mask will be removed very regularly to perform cleaning and skin care, feeding, general assessments etc. This was literally Letby’s JOB. Obviously it will be replaced quickly, but taking a quick photo isn’t going to put the baby in danger.

And in terms of her reputation, the press have dug up absolutely nothing. Outside of work, I think we’ve had the ex of her friend say she was a “bit odd” at times, and a girl from school said she was into gossip.

 

[WaneLyrical]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/07/letby-police-ignored-other-baby-deaths-on-unit/

So much for the narrative of a perfectly-functioning unit once Letby was removed.

This entire tragic case is nothing but an exercise in confirmation bias.

Some extracts from the article:

A report by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health noted “sudden mottling” as one of the “similarities” doctors had noticed in the cases they associated with Letby.

After the nurse’s arrest, one father wrote to police, concerned after he had read reports about the “unexplained sudden mottling” observed on some of the babies she was suspected of harming.

The father noted that his son’s doctors had also “picked up on unexplained mottling of his skin, his entire body”. But his son had been treated in the neonatal unit in September 2017 – more than a year after Letby had stopped working there.

In response to the father’s email, a family liaison officer with Cheshire Constabulary reassured him “it doesn’t appear that our enquiry is linked” to his son’s time at the Countess, because “our enquiry end date in [sic] July 2016”.



Another set of parents contacted the investigation with concerns that their son’s care “was medically mismanaged potentially as a deliberate act”.

The parents wanted to know whether the “major life-threatening issues” with their son’s airway, which they had originally understood to be the result of medics mistakenly “using the wrong diameter equipment”, were in fact the result of “deliberate actions and with malicious intent”.

The same family liaison officer told the parents that their son “will not be included in our enquiry” since he had been treated at the Countess after July 2016. “I would like to assure you that we believe that this is our end date,” the officer wrote.



One of the emails that made its way to police following Letby’s 2018 arrest came from a mother whose newborn son died at 13 days old, after what she described as multiple failings in his care at the Countess.

The baby boy had been born in late December 2016, nearly six months after Letby’s banishment from the neonatal unit. Doctors misdiagnosed him with a bowel condition, leading to an unnecessary surgery at a different hospital, and had failed to pick up on a viral infection that caused his liver to fail, according to the mother.

When her son died, the consultant at the hospital that operated on him told her that the surgery he did not need, for a condition he did not have, contributed to his death.

“I just would like a little bit of advice on how to go about looking into the care my baby and I received,” the mother wrote in her email to police. “I have all notes from his stay and I am shocked at some things I had read.

“I believe there were failings in my care, and I would like these to be addressed.”

The Telegraph has verified the details provided in the mother’s email about her son, and understands that Cheshire Constabulary did not demonstrate an interest in investigating the circumstances surrounding his care.

Grim.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Wane with all due respect i have to raise issue with you saying the parents are wrong to have looked at letby differently now after the trial, i think its quite inappropriate actually. Not only that but to think photographic evidence of that baby without the tube is the only way you would acknowledge that it had happened is again not correct. These babies were harmed and murdered and we didnt see any pics of any babies at all so why expect any pics of them? This even goes without saying the parents are completely within their rights to not release them publicly, and right to.

 

[May72031]

Meanwhile, over at the awful LucyLetbyTrials Reddit... We have had "escape goats", but now we also have "espace goats"!!!

 

[Beans]

I would very much like to understand her motives for doing what she did, and I appreciate that this is less important than understanding the how, but it was fascinating to learn about the ways in which she would almost wallow or indulge herself in the aftermath of the babies' deaths. Ruminating and fixating on the tragedy of it all. Maybe that's all the motive necessary for some types of personality - and specifically some types of disordered personality.

I hadn't seen any of the interviews with her or really had a chance to see her demeanour in action until I watched the Netflix doc and saw the difference between the articulate professional actively demonstrating her competence and skills, and the quieter "I don't remember" persona. Contrast that articulate professional with the girlish / tween age vibe she seemed to prefer at home and it's really quite jarring.

Maybe once the drama has died down, she'll look for new ways to get attention and maybe that'll come in the form of a tell all interview where she explains what she did and why. I doubt it, but you can only hope.

 

[Beans]

Meanwhile, over at the awful LucyLetbyTrials Reddit... We have had "escape goats", but now we also have "espace goats"!!!
View attachment 642549

A Renault Espace Goat?

Last week Bryan Kohberger was the escape goat, this week it's Lucy Letby. There's a lot of these goats around.

 

[rvlvr]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/07/letby-police-ignored-other-baby-deaths-on-unit/

So much for the narrative of a perfectly-functioning unit once Letby was removed.

This entire tragic case is nothing but an exercise in confirmation bias.

Some extracts from the article:

A report by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health noted “sudden mottling” as one of the “similarities” doctors had noticed in the cases they associated with Letby.

After the nurse’s arrest, one father wrote to police, concerned after he had read reports about the “unexplained sudden mottling” observed on some of the babies she was suspected of harming.

The father noted that his son’s doctors had also “picked up on unexplained mottling of his skin, his entire body”. But his son had been treated in the neonatal unit in September 2017 – more than a year after Letby had stopped working there.

In response to the father’s email, a family liaison officer with Cheshire Constabulary reassured him “it doesn’t appear that our enquiry is linked” to his son’s time at the Countess, because “our enquiry end date in [sic] July 2016”.



Another set of parents contacted the investigation with concerns that their son’s care “was medically mismanaged potentially as a deliberate act”.

The parents wanted to know whether the “major life-threatening issues” with their son’s airway, which they had originally understood to be the result of medics mistakenly “using the wrong diameter equipment”, were in fact the result of “deliberate actions and with malicious intent”.

The same family liaison officer told the parents that their son “will not be included in our enquiry” since he had been treated at the Countess after July 2016. “I would like to assure you that we believe that this is our end date,” the officer wrote.



One of the emails that made its way to police following Letby’s 2018 arrest came from a mother whose newborn son died at 13 days old, after what she described as multiple failings in his care at the Countess.

The baby boy had been born in late December 2016, nearly six months after Letby’s banishment from the neonatal unit. Doctors misdiagnosed him with a bowel condition, leading to an unnecessary surgery at a different hospital, and had failed to pick up on a viral infection that caused his liver to fail, according to the mother.

When her son died, the consultant at the hospital that operated on him told her that the surgery he did not need, for a condition he did not have, contributed to his death.

“I just would like a little bit of advice on how to go about looking into the care my baby and I received,” the mother wrote in her email to police. “I have all notes from his stay and I am shocked at some things I had read.

“I believe there were failings in my care, and I would like these to be addressed.”

The Telegraph has verified the details provided in the mother’s email about her son, and understands that Cheshire Constabulary did not demonstrate an interest in investigating the circumstances surrounding his care.

Grim.

This can’t be right? The unit began functioning normally again once Letby had been removed from it? That’s the line the diehards stick to, isn’t it?

Of course, the retort will be, ‘babies still died because babies do die, but these deaths won’t have been suspicious!’, which leads nicely back to my only previous contribution to this thread:

What constitutes a suspicious death?
Who decides if a death is suspicious?
How is this decided?

These points have never been properly addressed anywhere, not on here, nor in a court of law, because officially we just don’t know.

But these leaked emails go some way to answering those questions. Letby wasn’t there = not suspicious.

Doctors misdiagnosed him with a bowel condition, leading to an unnecessary surgery at a different hospital, and had failed to pick up on a viral infection that caused his liver to fail, according to the mother.

This definitely wasn’t an utterly dysfunctional unit chock full of staff who clearly didn’t know their backside from their elbow.

What an utter farce this all is.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Wane with all due respect i have to raise issue with you saying the parents are wrong to have looked at letby differently now after the trial, i think its quite inappropriate actually. Not only that but to think photographic evidence of that baby without the tube is the only way you would acknowledge that it had happened is again not correct. These babies were harmed and murdered and we didnt see any pics of any babies at all so why expect any pics of them? This even goes without saying the parents are completely within their rights to not release them publicly, and right to.

I don’t want to see the photograph, I’m not saying they should release a photo to the public, I’m not sure why you’ve interpreted my comment that way. I’m saying this would be photographic evidence of a tube removal by Letby.

 

[WaneLyrical]

This can’t be right? The unit began functioning normally again once Letby had been removed from it? That’s the line the diehards stick to, isn’t it?

Of course, the retort will be, ‘babies still died because babies do die, but these deaths won’t have been suspicious!’, which leads nicely back to my only previous contribution to this thread:

What constitutes a suspicious death?
Who decides if a death is suspicious?
How is this decided?

These points have never been properly addressed anywhere, not on here, nor in a court of law, because officially we just don’t know.

But these leaked emails go some way to answering those questions. Letby wasn’t there = not suspicious.



This definitely wasn’t an utterly dysfunctional unit chock full of staff who clearly didn’t know their backside from their elbow.

What an utter farce this all is.

Yes you’re absolutely right this is the root issue. “She was the only one there for suspicious events” is not even remotely the same as “we’ve cobbled together all the things we think look suspicious when she was there”.

Which also brings me back to one of the points I’ve been making since the original trial. How can an xray be presented under oath as suspicious, but suddenly becomes non-suspicious without question when it is discovered that Letby wasn’t there.

The entire trial was a farce. lt’s absolutely baffling to me that it’s not completely obvious for everyone to see at this point.

I don’t know what was going on in the paediatric ward, but what we know here is 13 deaths on the NNU, 10 deaths in the delivery ward next door. 23 deaths. A massive spike. And it just happens to be that 7 of them were sophisticated murders leaving no trace, which often required the murderer to see into the future. It’s an absolute tragedy and none of these babies have got justice here.

 

[lisasimpson2010]

A CPAP mask will be removed very regularly to perform cleaning and skin care, feeding, general assessments etc. This was literally Letby’s JOB. Obviously it will be replaced quickly, but taking a quick photo isn’t going to put the baby in danger.

And in terms of her reputation, the press have dug up absolutely nothing. Outside of work, I think we’ve had the ex of her friend say she was a “bit odd” at times, and a girl from school said she was into gossip.

She didn't remove the breathing equipment for cleaning, she removed it for a photoshoot, which is illegal. Period. It's also deeply, deeply creepy.

Your last sentence is simply a flat out lie with no sources. Multiple people who knew her described her as aggressive, hostile, or odd.

She absolutely perfectly fits the profile of a female serial killer - someone who cannot connect with others, with no dating history, who has a history of inappropriate behaviour, and commits murders via a caring role.

The three separate people who walked in on her standing over a baby in distress (two of whom experienced her anger). There's no justification for that.

 

[WaneLyrical]

She didn't remove the breathing equipment for cleaning, she removed it for a photoshoot, which is illegal. Period. It's also deeply, deeply creepy.

Your last sentence is simply a flat out lie with no sources. Multiple people who knew her described her as aggressive, hostile, or odd.

She absolutely perfectly fits the profile of a female serial killer - someone who cannot connect with others, with no dating history, who has a history of inappropriate behaviour, and commits murders via a caring role.

The three separate people who walked in on her standing over a baby in distress (two of whom experienced her anger). There's no justification for that.

On what basis are you asserting she removed breathing equipment for the sole purpose of a “photoshoot”? The article doesn’t even suggest this.

You do realise the nurses in this ward were specifically tasked to undertake ‘memory-making’ for the parents? It was part of their job. It included taking photographs, making ‘treasure boxes’ containing said photos, equipment, pieces of fabric with the baby’s scent on it..

In fact, one of the events where Letby was asserted to have been “standing over a baby in distress” was during a time that she was covering for another nurse who was taking a treasure box to the parents of that baby.

CPAP equipment gets changed. That’s just a fact.

So why wouldn’t a nurse, on an occasion where the baby is without its oxygen delivery, take a photo of the baby for the parents? Because such photos would be in very short supply for a baby in the NNU, and very precious to a parent.

What exactly is suspicious about it?