Lucy Letby - new thread (part 2)

[anonymousamy]

A thread for anyone who was on the last one and wanted to continue the discussion.

What I cannot wrap my head around is Letby’s seemingly completely normal upbringing. Usually serial killers have displayed some kind of markers by the time they start killing, but AFAIK she literally had none. 100% believe she is guilty BTW - just cannot begin to understand it.

Lucy Letby was raised with this constant narrative about her difficult birth.

You don't know that. It was mentioned by one of her friends, that's all. Her friend didn't say it was a constant narrative.

The 21st birthday photo and announcement in the paper are from ‘Thomas and Matthew’ aka Tom and Matt from one of the post-it note laments. They’re allegedly older cousins. I have always found this very strange.

And for any “doubters”, a series of baby deaths in a neonatal unit is entirely unheard of. Even amongst the sickest of babies in a short staffed / poorly managed unit. One per year would be possible, three would be a lot. Four babies died within 2 months, and were well out of the early risk phase.

According to an FOI to the hospital there were 21 perinatal deaths in 2015 and 10 in 2016 (and 15 in 2017). Of those 31, 17 were neo-natal deaths, Letby was charged with 8, and prosecuted for 7.

The grifter is Dewi Evans, who retired from clinical practice in 2009, but contacted Cheshire police to offer his services, despite having no neonatal or forensic experience and pocketed a tidy sum.

Either LL is lying, she's mad or telling the truth. As there is no evidence of the first two points previously this is why her parents and others believe she is innocent.

This is just my personal opinion. And I know that the jury have access to more information, and it is ultimately their opinion that matters.

I thought she was guilty, until I looked into it a bit more, and I began to have a small bit of doubt.

Some of her colleagues apparently said that they believe that she was blamed for a category of errors and failures that were already happening on the ward.

No one ever saw her do anything

It seems to me , and I know i havent seen everything, that there is very little physical evidence. The one concrete piece I have seen is that there were high levels of insulin in one babys blood. And they were able to tell that it had been given to the baby and not produced naturally in the baby. But again , nothing to absolutelty prove that she gave it.

It's a tough one . Im sure the jury had access to more info.

But didn't they say that three deaths happened in the year before she started?

What's also something really important to consider (especially those who don't believe her guilt) is that a prem baby will often survive despite being really ill. Especially if they survive the first 24-48 hours.

Consultants can tell very quickly which babies will make term and which won't. It's not an exact science and some will take a turn for the worse. For example contract meningitis and not survive because they are too weak.

But a very Orem baby who has survived for 10-11 weeks without any problems won't generally collapse suddenly.

That's what caused alarm bells. Because it was happening so often. Once they'd had 3 deaths over a month which was the usual annual number of deaths they started to question why. It wasn't immediately that they assumed all was guilty. At that time it was only by discussions from consultants about what could be happening because they wanted to improve things that it happened to come up that LL was present at each sudden collapse and death.

I'm not sure where the idea of 31 other deaths came from? There was something posted online that showed usually 1-3 neonatal deaths a year. 2015 and 2016 there was 7/8 per year.

The ward was then re categorised and now only looks after later pre term babies but they've recorded 1 death in 7 years.

Do you not realise that peri-natal and neo-natal are two completely different things?

@Mooshamoo am interested in your thoughts on Harold Shipman, do you think he was guilty?

She based her chosen career on it. Most of us don't really think about our births. Or even our children's births. It becomes irrelevant.

I think that whilst it isn't conclusive evidence it does give some sort of indication about her parents. Together with other ways that they've behaved.

. It's not based on anything at all.
Lucy said herself that her parents were smothering her and she was sick of it,
that’s a form of control

i would not be uprooting my whole life, for my child who murdered infants, especially not at that age
that’s the sort of coddling that partly created this monster in the first place

There were 17 neo-natal deaths in 15 and 16. Sadly some of those will have died very shortly after birth (a friend's baby had a condition that was incompatible with life that had not been picked up on) and not been in NICU, on Panaroma they shown a clip of causes of death, there were two deaths shown that were incompatible with life but they had survived initially. Those deaths could be ruled out as 'natural' occurrences.

@OhComeOnFFS

"Blood tests showed that some died from insulin poisoning - maybe there's no outwardly physical sign?"

Letby was not charged with any death that resulted from insulin poisoning. In both of the convictions for insulin poisoning (Child F and Child L) the children survived.

And continued to happen after she was arrested until the unit was effectively closed down (or downgraded and prevented from caring for very sick babies).

It’s glaringly obvious from that freedom of information request alone that this is a deeply unsafe conviction.

The fact that so few people are interested in what is possibly the worst miscarriage of justice in British legal history in their desperation to identify with the families of the babies so they can pretend it is all about them chills me to the bone. If this is what we’ve become, it could happen to any of us.

Are they older? I read they were younger...I thought the birthday announcement was strange as being just from them, wouldn't it include their parents too

It’s glaringly obvious from that freedom of information request alone that this is a deeply unsafe conviction.

It's glaringly obvious that people are talking nonsense.

I agree with this, honestly I’ve seen loads of threads on mumsnet over the years parents claiming their children’s brains are not fully developed until the age of 25, parents who attend doctors appointments with their adult children, write their job applications, do everything for them, helicopter parents, it’s not at all uncommon for parents to treat their adult offspring as if they were 12 years old not 25, I’m pretty sure most of these adult children don’t end up becoming child serial killers.

Apparently LL's mum sent her a birthday card signing off as LL's cats. It said 'Happy birthday mummy". That's a bit weird.

Not really.

I wouldn't do it but from a smothery type Mum - not so surprising.

I think her parents are going through a lot, this projection, with nothing to support it that her parents are the problem, I don’t think is right or fair.

you maybe right, you might not be, and I think they are likely going through a lot of pain and turmoil, without folks now suggesting they are the issue.

and even if they do have unhealthy attachments, plenty do, doesn’t turn their children into serial killers. Plenty of folks have shit parents.

There are tons of threads on here where people say they prefer their cats and dogs to any human. I doubt if a card from an animal would strike those people as odd.

Yep I received birthday cards and presents from my lovely dog!

You are right, I used peri-natal wrongly to describe stillbirths+neonatal deaths.

Strictly speaking perinatal mortality is deaths from 22 weeks gestation until 7 days after birth. Using this corrected criteria, there were 24 perinatal deaths in 2015 and 10 perinatal deaths in 2016, giving a total of 34 perinatal deaths rather than 31.

Can anyone link the podcast please?