Lucy Letby guilty - part 2

[twoandcooplease]

Thread 1 Lucy Letby guilty www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/4875009-lucy-letby-guilty

Just in case anyone wants to keep the conversation going

Im pretty sure not all three triplets died

2 died but she attacked the third as well, s she definitely intended to kill all three

I find it just unbelievable that when she was put on administration duties it was regarding PATIENT SAFETY

Yes, I noticed that myself ... it's almost as if the managers were taking the piss

Can you explain what you mean, you don't think that she didn't intended to kill the babies ?
She knew full well that doing those things would cause death,
not only because of her medical training but because she watched multiple babies die after tampering with them and she still continued to do it
which leads me to believe that causing death was her main goal
she even went back and killed/ tried to kill some of the babies that survived

She seemed to enjoy the whole process of the baby dying,
she enjoyed everyone being heartbroken by the death,
she enjoyed the parents pain, and all the tragedy
she liked putting the memory boxes together and pretending to comfort the parents
she liked getting sympathy from her colleagues
multiple people described her smiling and being giddy during these moments , where most people were sad and exhausted by it, Lucy was cheery and energised .

I haven't seen anyone else mention this but my opinion is that she was trying to recreate how doctors and nurses are portrayed on tv shows,
In medical tv dramas, every minute there is an emergency, there is lots of drama
like house, greys anatomy
even her supposed affair with the married doctor ties into this theory

maybe she never had an accurate idea of what working in a hospital was actually like and so she found herself disappointed
I think she actually made this clear a few times, that she wanted to be where the action was, and so she created it

Whatever her motivation was
she was willing to sacrifice the lives of these infants for it
she didn't care if they died, she didn't care that she was causing them excruciating pain, I think she saw the babies as nothing more than props

I remember hearing different accounts, some from the mothers and nurses
describing the distinct squeal/cry that the babies made when Lucy was attacking them, and they would run into the room and see that evil witch standing over them pretending to help them
which proves that she was sadistic, she stood there and intentionally caused them pain , she is an actual monster

she wasn't just mechanically injecting air and insulin into them,
there where times she caused traumatic injuries, like child N,
she forcefully thrusted a nasogastric tube down his throat

I posted this in another post but this is my take on what happened. This is my opinion based on following the trial live for the past 10 months.

Obviously we will never know her true motives. But the prosecution hinted that she liked the drama and sympathy, and she felt disrespected when less experienced nurses got placed in nursery 1 instead of her.

Perhaps one day, a baby in her charge died purely by chance and she liked the sympathy she received. She wanted to be with the sick babies where she had more of a chance to receive that attention and sympathy or act the hero. But nothing happened. So she decided to make it happen herself.

Maybe she didn’t intend to kill or cause long term harm at first. She perhaps made a baby desat and intended to revive them but it all went wrong. And then she realises that she doesn’t actually feel fear or guilt about it. Or the attention & sympathy she receives outweighs the guilt she might feel. Or she gets a buzz from it that becomes addictive.

And then she starts to get the huff because less senior nurses get her prized room 1 shift. So when they go out on their break she sabotages their charges. The designated nurse comes back to find their baby ill and desaturating, and they panic. But low and behold, cool and collected Nurse Letby comes in from no where to save the day and shows everyone how it’s done. Sometimes she ‘saves’ the baby and is a hero, sometimes her efforts are in vain and her colleagues console her saying she’s an amazing, dedicated nurse who tried her best. All eyes are on her.

Then she has her doctor love on the side. She hasn’t seen him for week due to being on holiday. She asks if he’s on the unit on her return but he isn’t, he’s on clinic. But he’s the ‘on call’ doctor. She knows if she makes a baby desat he will come running to the unit to assist and they will save the baby together or else they will comfort each other if they are unsuccessful. Regardless, she still gets to see him and get his attention and sympathy.

During one attempt it was noted that she received a needle stick injury and had to go to A&E. She proper milked it when she messaged her doctor love and made a big deal about fainting and being overly feminine/damsel in distress

@truthhurts23 I agree with you that she loved the drama and creating a critically ill baby 100% that is what I am saying. My stance is that she wanted to be the one who helped save them, and as she knew what caused their collapse she could be instrumental in that, therefore the hero worship and be seen to "be good in a crisis" which many of her medical colleagues had thought of her at the start, including some of the consultants. So I think initially she did not set out to murder, like I said in my post she didn't stop when they did start dying. But yes she loved the role she played after they died too, like I said liked to be seen to support less experienced colleagues with neonatal death. Like a lot of serial killers, they get bolder and bolder as they get a taste for it. And their confidence grows as they are they are getting away with more. The more aggressive acts came later.

I am in no way defending her and her actions. Even if none of the babies had died and she has done this, it's attempted murder. Her actions would be as bad and serious.

The defense will almost certainly have done psychiatric assessments on her to determine if she was fit to stand trial and/or had capacity to understand what she'd done ie whether she was sane. They aren't obliged to disclose the results to the prosecution.

But I imagine that if anything like autism had come up, they may have tried to use it in her defense. Personally I don't think she is from what I've seen and I find it rather distasteful that posters are following the trend of using neurodiversity to explain any kind of behaviors-murder in this case! We may hear psychiatric assessments as part of the sentencing but she seems completely sane tI me.

The one thing that has struck me is that it almost seems like she wanted to be caught, having repeated attempts at the same children who were otherwise stable, escalating behaviour, not seeking to move jobs to avoid suspicion....I don't think we'll ever know what was in her head.

My question is why one bad apple doesn't rot the barrel in nursing when it seems to in other professions?

As a former CID detective seeing the comments here over the years on policing

I'm very interested in the comparison or lack of .

All of that assumes there was separate evidence that they were having an affair. If there wasn't, then there is no justification for saying he liked under oath.

An awful lot of medical professionals have relationships with each other, it doesn't automatically mean their medical judgment is clouded.

Lied under oath, not liked.

Huh?!? It completely contradicts multiple witnesses who testified (and gave interviews to the Panorama documentary) that she stood by and did nothing when babies coded and just watched on as they deteriorated and died. Also, I have no medical background whatsoever but even I know that injecting a baby with air and insulin will result in almost certain death.

They may not have had a physical affair but their text messages suggested an emotional affair and she told colleagues she had a crush on him.

It doesn’t matter. It’s a complete red herring.

I think this is a really interesting question that deserves its own thread.

The more I read the less convinced I am that she's guilty. I'd really love to know what the jury saw/heard that the public aren't privy to.

I was replying to previous posts and it was put to her by the prosecution that she committed these murders to get extra attention and help from this married registrar whom she had a sort of affair with

@XelaM maybe it makes more sense to me as I am a nurse. The insulin that was given to the babies as an example. These were prem babies, they need their blood glucose levels checked regularly and in ITU/ HDU as one example this would be done via blood gas. So the hypoglycaemia would be detected quickly and therefore treated. But they didn't respond to the treatment. Now obviously this would baffle most clinicians and clinically they should respond to treatment, But they didn't. So the crisis would continue, why aren't they responding to treatment. A perfect creation of a drama!

That makes me wonder what you're reading. Not the same things that I'm reading.

I think policing is seen more as an homogenous lump whereas nursing is one of the professions that make up a wider NHS (not saying this is the correct way to view it as of course lots of different but vital roles in the police and many different sections). I think rationally most people don't hate all police or whatever, but rightly question some of the processes and the culture which has allowed abhorrent and dangerous attitudes, actions and behaviour to flourish. Same happens with the NHS, in this case plenty are horrified by the concerns of the doctors not being taken seriously and are vocal about wanting change.

Witnesses aren't necessarily subpoenaed, there is no need if they're willing to give evidence. You don't lightly subpoena an unwilling witness, because although you can force them to come to court you can't force them to say what you want them to say.

Part of me wonders this too. She didn’t sound the alarm in a few of the cases, she was walked in on or calmly not doing anything except wasting time.

thats at odds with the “seeking attention” element. I think she liked playing god. I think she is deeply arrogant and cannot accept she is ever wrong. I think she enjoyed the sympathy and closeness after the deaths. But the attention of being the one to save, why give absolute death sentences. By the end the aggression was such that there was little to no heroic saving to be done.

she wanted to be brave soldier Lucy. Fucking vampire.

As this happened after she had been taken off the ward, obviously she wasn't getting on with the shift on a busy unit. Working in an office like that she probably would have had quite regular dealings with senior management.

We have witness summonses, which have the same effect.

She can’t be charged with infanticide as it is only applicable if the assailant is the biological mother.

This seems like a question for another thread and borderline disrespectful really. People have been discussing Beverly Allit, Harold Shipman and also the management culture within the NHS. I do think there are bad apples in both professions and issues in common (turning a blind eye, closing ranks) but IMO there's a key difference in the level of normalised dehumanisation and misogyny within the police - possibly the nature of the job and seeing the worst people are capable of, but I do think there's a percentage of police who are there for the wrong reasons and, most worryingly, not filtered out but seemingly fit in rather too well with the culture. I can't think of anything equivalent that would be so normalised within a caregiving, medical setting.