Not only did Lucy Letby kill and badly hurt babies…

[determinedtomakethiswork]

She also prepared the memory boxes for parents of the dead children. Can you imagine having a memory box with photos and footprints of your dead child which had been taken by his or her merger?

That goes way beyond the murder. I just don't know how the families are coping.

I'm sorry but your post is complete nonsense. All made up to push a specific agenda.

It's very, very worrying how many different usernames have popped up lately pushing or hinting at the Lucy Letby Truther conspiracy theory.

People on the ward had concerns that Letby was hurting and killing babies, and were concerned about her strange and intrusive behaviour towards the grieving parents.

The death rate started to soar, and some of these were stable babies.

Letby's own behaviour caused people to suspect that she was the murdered. For some of them, there's medical proof they were intentionally poisoned (something even Letby herself testified to in court, and both the medical evidence and Letby's testimony proved the specific details can't physically have happened without intentional poisoning). Other babies had horrendous physical damage. Only Letby was around for all those babies.

There really is no doubt at all that she's guilty, she left confession notes for God's sake!

I've been researching the Letby Truther Movement, and it is led by two individuals who seem very unwell and biased. Richard Gill has no medical background and has made some horrific comments about the babies and their families (like saying it was no big deal because the babies would have died anyway). Gill cannot legally enter the UK (he lives in Holland) because he's been told he'll be arrested for contempt of court if he does, due to his illegal actions over this case.

The woman who set up the "Science on Trial" Lucy Letby fansite (which multiple usernames keep pushing here on Mumsnet) has a long history of harassment and trolling, has been banned by many True Crime forums for repeated harassment and sock puppeting over her obsession with Letby conspiracy theories, and was declared mentally incompetent by a court - her court records are online and very very revealing. Both she and Gill are very good at writing extremely long posts that weaponise medical jargon to try to blind people with science, but without saying anything of real value. And both of them do the "maybe there's been a miscarriage of justice just playing devil's advocate" hinty thing, rather than going full Alex Jones.

There is no capacity for any miscarriage of justice here. There's medical evidence, and she left confession notes. If she wasn't a pretty middle class white girl no one would even be questioning her guilt.

And I think race does play a part in it, because these kinds of conspiracy theories are strongly associated with the right wing (eg Sandy Hook Truther Movement) and they always, without exception, focus on inventing conspiracy theories claiming white people have been scapegoated and framed for serious crimes. I looked at a Daily Mail article about Lucy Letby and all the top comments were defending her and pushing conspiracy theories that she'd been framed. Would Daily Mail commentators be defending her so hard if she wasn't white British and middle clas? Look at Alex Jones, he weaponsed racial hate to create a conspiracy theory that the Sandy Hook massacre was faked and the grieving parents all paid actors, and that was all wrapped up in American right wing racial political ideologies around terrorism and race.

Obviously this is different, and Britain is very different from America, but I see a lot of similarities between the Letby Truther Movement and the far right conspiracy theories - the fact the Letby Truther movement is only really taking hold on sites and forums known to be right wing is pretty significant.

The female doctor investigating the case said that the first thing she saw on the baby’s X-ray was the air bubbles in the vessels leading to the heart - which undoubtedly caused a heart attack - hence the poor baby screaming with pain as it slowly died.
WHY wasn’t this seen by radiologists at the time - did they never do a post mortem and/or X-ray. Didn’t they take X-rays???

I honestly wish I had no doubts about her being guilty but I do . There is so much being found from that hospital , trainees doing experimental testing , junior doctors performing procedures without supervision , the baby death rate didn’t slow down even before she was removed .
I trilou hope I’m wrong but I fear in time we might find it’s nit all it’s seems to be

The neonatal death rate was through the roof in 2015/16 - in one month it was double the number it had been in the whole of the previous year. It reverted back to a couple a year when she was removed.

The thing that made me suspect her as the stalking of families on Facebook.

A couple of years is a long time . Statistics actually show deaths increased after she was removed

The grey lines are Countess of Chester.

The PERI natal death rate is not the same as the NEOnatal death rate.
As a NICU mum I cannot tell you how annoying I have found all these half naked conspiracy theories.

My son was in a Level 1 NICU for almost 7-8 weeks having been in ICU before. Not a single baby died in that period. Level 1 NICU babies don’t die routinely- they are of course fragile because of their prematurity but there is a reason they are in a Level 1 unit. They have been deemed suitable for that unit because they are not that critically ill (even if like my son they were extremely critical at birth). I remember the day we were stepped down to Level 1 I was so nervous and the consultant telling me, ‘this is a victory, he’s doing well and we are proud of him.’ When you are in Level 1 home is near, the end of what was a many months’ long road is also near. This is why my heart breaks for those parents.

I know @MangshorJhol. So frustrating. The evidence given by those poor parents is absolutely heartbreaking.

I just want to emphasise that COC is the GREY bar. This is showing the OPPOSITE of what the poster intends.

There's loads of research done on homegrown terrorists.

Their motive only comes about after they've integrated into the terrorist organisation and have started to think that way.

Most homegrown terrorists were actually normal people with no serious mental illness or psychopathy, they tend to be a bit lost and want to be part of something and then they go down that path and very much adopt the us versus them mentality.

And Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy and every other serial killer out there, there are so many documentaries/books/podcasts/forums discussing their motivations even to this very day.

For murderers who are just accused of one killing if the murder was a bit out of ordinary it will gain a lot of attention, Casey Anthony for one....Graham Dwyer in Ireland gained huge fascination with wtf was going on in his twisted brains.
People still obsess over Chris Watts killing his family.

You'd have to be living under a bush to not know that people don't get obsessed with trying to understand the 'whys' about stuff like this.

Awkward!

Who on earth went to the trouble of typing a comment on that graph that it is evidence that the death rate increased at Countess of Chester after Letby was removed, when unless you're colour blind it's easy to see that it actually demonstrates a big fall there?

Exactly. For some reason there's an extraordinary amount of different usernames popping up on various different forums and websites pushing the agenda that Lucy Letby is innocent and a victim of a miscarriage of justice, and the main tool of this conspiracy theory is badly misusing scientific jargon to try to blind people with science (and unfortunately or perhaps fortunately, failing to do so).

If people genuinely believe that she's innocent then fair enough (though, the fact some people are going full on Alex Jones about it is really worrying), but why tell lies and invent stuff that's so easily disproven? Are people really that desperate to defend a serial killer?

The Countess of Chester was a level 2 Local neonatal unit (LNU) until June 2016 then changed to a lower Level 1 Special care baby unit (SCBU, SCU or low dependency). (Level 3 Is the Neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for babies with the highest needs.)

Surely bots can churn out this stuff by the million - lies about this case, lies about Trump, lies about Biden - it’s disruptive and anti-society. So why not do it( if you’re into conspiracy theories, an a…hole, bored teen, Russian spy bot, just for fun to see the outrage ).
Please ignore as a response is what they are looking for.

It’s not just awkward, it’s really insulting by making the assumption that we’re all stupid and incapable of understanding a simple bar chart.

But didn't she make over 2000 Facebook search between 2015-2016 and looked at over 200 families who had been at the hospital?

I think she did it but I don't think I'd be putting high value on that evidence

Just out of interest, was there a huge level of interest into why Joanna Dennehy committed the murders? I believe she had a 'normal' upbringing, but looking at the photo of her with the knife, she looks quite frankly terrifying, someone you'd avoid in the street. I don't remember there being this level of intruige about her.

Probably because she killed men. There’s something offensive at a very visceral level about a woman who kills tiny babies or children. This is more comparable to Hindley or Allitt. There wasn’t the abuse of trust issue or the widespread damage that Letby has caused the parents of her victims and her former colleagues in Dennehy’s case.

And from what I read, she wasn't exactly subtle about the way she did it. She attacked one bloke in broad daylight but apparently stipulated no women. I'm sure a psychologist had said her behaviour implied abuse at an earlier age and that men react fairly quickly to abuse, but women take longer to get there. It was on the BBC news website.

I was assuming @Cucucucu didn't read the graph properly and would be embarrassed when they realised their mistake. If they deliberately tried to misled people then yes, you're right, that's really insulting.

The text - not included in above photo - underneath does acknowledge the ONS data is for Chester and Cheshire West, not just the hospital. However, he offers no source data to back up his claim the the Countess of Chester hospital accounted for an average of 80% of Chester and Cheshire West from 2015-2020.

This data from a FOI request shows shows 17 neonatal deaths at Countess of Chester between 2015-2016 (another table shows it was 15 deaths between June 2015-June 2016). As people say big increase.

Joanna Dennehy was very open about what she did and why she did it: she is hard and wanted everyone to know it. She had spent her whole life looking and acting tough. Her entire life's goal was to be as intimidating as possible. She said she wanted to see if she was as cold as she thought she was. She plead guilty. There is no mystery.

Whereas Lucy Letby wanted everyone to believe she was kind, sweet, innocent, and gentle, and portrayed herself as such. She had an outwardly successful and conventional life. Her trial was very complex and hard to follow, and the day-to-day proceedings poorly reported on, leading to the incorrect belief that there wasn't much evidence against her, or that it was all circumstantial. Her crimes were unimaginably twisted and have layer upon layer of depraved sadism about them. I actually think her motive is not a mystery because similar serial killers have spoken out, but people are debating endlessly about what drove her to painfully, brutally kill tiny babies, and orchestrate the grief of their parents.