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

[JosieJo]

Except they aren’t in the NHS- but well
done for creating a false narrative on the forum.

They are created by the unit and altered and deleted daily...it would not be possible to print them off in retrospect

 

[JosieJo]

They are created by the unit and altered and deleted daily...it would not be possible to print them off in retrospect

I'm also always amazed at why people come up with "reasons" for things that perfectly capable defendants don't. If she had collected them for her grievance or defence etc she would have said so

 

[Sweeper2000]

I dont understand the fuss about the garden being dug up. Its a trivial matter unless one is trying to paint the whole investigation as drastically ott. Which it wasn't. You would leave no stone unturned if babies are dying in ways that defy normal explanation.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I'm also always amazed at why people come up with "reasons" for things that perfectly capable defendants don't. If she had collected them for her grievance or defence etc she would have said so

Yep I think this individuals dishonesty can be noted soundly. Here's an article that points out her inconsistencies when it comes to her police interviews and I think I remember people noting them during the trial which is commendable sleuthing imo. Not to mention the air embolism issue which was one of the first and then the handovers. Many more besides.

Lucy Letby's texts to friends after baby died while she was on duty

A new Netflix documentary shows text messages the former nurse sent to colleagues after a baby died while she was working at Countess of Chester Hospital

www.examinerlive.co.uk

 

[Sweeper2000]

I might have just thought of one thing that doesn't make sense and may be suggestive of her bs. In that first clip we all saw of her saying "we all noticed as a team there was an increase" or something like that. Wouldn't that make very certain things more memorable? You wouldn't really forget them would you? As noted before its also a dispersionary way of saying it, " we noticed as a team but me specifically I don't remember much". It's weird the secondaries ie the team are a lesser part to her pov. I know she also said she remembered some but I think that's what's called "breadcrumbing" its where you don't put forth a straight out denial in totality but present as remembering enough to present as having a plausible account of things.

On a different but equally important subject I am wondering why the coch after acceptance that something was indeed wrong that took far far too long didn't get her account of these events whilst her memory was supposedly "fresh". One can only wonder what she would have said and she couldn't deny remembering it then. Might not be within the guidelines ie legal but it would be interesting.

 

[mummyshark]

<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.

Can you explain how you know the oxygen would have been removed "very frequently"? My daughter was ventilated, then on CPAP, then Vapotherm (nasal prongs). I sat next to her incubator for 14 hours every day and the only time they removed her from oxygen was to medically wean her off of it for a set and planned period of time. I never saw them remove the nasal prongs to clean them. In fact, she had a piece of thick tape on each cheek to hold the Vapotherm in place. An NG tube can remain in situ for 4 days before being replaced, that was also never removed to be cleaned. This is, of course, only my first hand experience. Could you provide your evidence to the contrary?

 

[katydid23]

I think some people would be able to have some sympathy for them, if they had behaved better. It must be terrible to have a baby that grows up to commit a terrible crimes, however the way they tried to bully and manipulate the hospital investigation and some of the tales of her mum's behaviour at the trial puts people off them.

There was an article about them in the daily mail this weekend.

In some ways, she was coddled and pampered so much, I think it gave her an over amped sense of entitlement. According to her folks, Lucy could do no wrong. If anyone questioned her, parents were quick to respond with threats of lawsuits, etc.

 

[katydid23]

To be fair, it would seem that there were far more people who thought she was utterly lovely than those who thought she was really odd and weird.

Personally, I don't think she fits the profile of a female serial killer; sure, she seemed to have no dating history, but she was clearly extremely social and seemed to have a wide circle of friends. She certainly wasn't the typical wall-flower type by any description.

A point I made at the very start of this (well, 2020, when she was actually charged) was that all of her photos that we had at the time were taken by other people who were clearly friends in social situations such as pubs and suchlike. And these were very likely photos which were snatched from her friends social media profiles such as Facebook. People don't generally post pictures of people they dislike.

Having said all that, female serial killers are extremely rare and there doesn't seem to be much similarity between them, tbh.

This is why I find her so fascinating; she had literally everything anyone her age could ever want. Every door was open to her, she was educated, articulate, had a good and financially stable family background, good work ethic, was in a secure job, and was decidedly easy on the eye. Odds are that her plan was to marry a doctor (I think she even wrote that in her diary at some point) and I'm sure she could have done that without too much trouble.

Here's the thing though. If a human being, was mentally and emotionally able to to torture and assault numerous innocent newborn babies, secretly and repeatedly, all while pretending everything was normal, life was good----what kind of human are they?

I think that means they have no compassion, no feelings, no conscience, no humanity, no shame, no love, no shred of decency---they would have to be total sociopaths, psychopaths, totally heartless and cruel.

So in my mind, she does fit the mood of a female serial killer. Truly one of the worst humans of all time, imo.

Newborn babies are the most vulnerable, most innocent beings in the human kingdom. Only the biggest most vile COWARDS would kill random newborns for a thrill.

 

[katydid23]

I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, it clearly exists, it was put into a Mother’s Day card.

I’m saying that, if what is being suggested here is true, that Letby deliberately deprived a baby of oxygen for a non-clinical reason, then this is material evidence of wrongdoing. But yet, it’s nowhere to be seen in the case against her, and despite the police having now investigated it, it’s not enough to persuade the CPS.

They had babies that died and babies that survived but with extensive injuries. There were 27 serious incidents of violence.

So this other incident, of her taking a picture for non-clinical reasons was not going to be a top priority.

But it is an important example to show how she was with the babies. IMO

 

[katydid23]

It’s just nonsense- I’m still waiting to hear why they needed to examine the back garden- something normally reserved for serial killers who have buried bodies in their backyard.

Well, they did have reason to believe she was a serial killer.

They didn't know if there were other victims besides her tiny vulnerable patients though. How would they know if she had killed others and buried them in the garden or not? You don't know unless you look, right?

 

[Sweeper2000]

Just a guess from me but her taking those breathing tubes away and then replacing them doesn't necessarily show an intent to harm but it might show a willingness to risk harm or even an indifference to it. Harm in situations like that a nurse would know the consequences of, up to and including death Lucy letby couldn't say she didn't know that was a potential only that maybe in truth she was indifferent to the potential consequences but liked the reactions from the parents seeing the photos as an extremely grim potential gain from the accused action.