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.

She was charged with attempted murder for those two. She agreed that both had received deliberately administered doses of insulin but it wasn’t her who administered them.

I believe some people are born without their brains being wired up to a conscience or any sense of morality. The connection is simply absent. I believe Letby murdered the first baby just out of curiousity and because she could. Then discovered that she really liked the ensuing attention and drama, so did it again and again.

If you could actually see inside of Letby I think there would just be an empty void that just happens to wear a human face.

The scenarios are different because ahe wasn't the only person there.

Whereas in the scenario that you mentioned, I would be the only person there.

That could be indicative of guilt but could also be within the bounds of random variation, which is why we need both defence and prosecution lawyers with an excellent grasp of probability and statistics for cases like this. Unfortunately this seems to have been lacking in this trial which might mean an appeal is likely.
It’s such a pity this side of things wasn’t solidly dealt with in the trial because no matter the outcome and no matter the truth behind it it’s going to prolong the pain for the babies’ parents.

After LL was moved away from the ward, 7 months went by with a lull in deaths, after which the number of deaths rose to high numbers than when LL was on the ward

I thought the rashes were linked to the air embolism cases ?

Complete rubbish, sorry. There has only been one death on the ward in the entire time since Letby was removed.

I mean if her presence on these shifts was the only evidence then perhaps, but it wasn't, it wasn't even a core part of the prosecutions evidence so im not sure why people keep going on about statistics as if the trial was based around oooh she was in for all of these deaths and collapses so must have been her. It wasn't. The thing prolonging the pain for the parents are those harping on about a retrial and for some reason purposefully ignoring the vast amounts of evidence beyond her shift pattern.

They were. And oddly none of the consultant paediatricians had ever seen those rashes before.

We are not saying "no one saw her do it" on its own. That's part of it.

Yes, no one sees most murderers so their crimes. However there is usually strong DNA to link the killer to the crime.

Nobody saw Lucy Letby do it.
There is also no DNA evidence to link her to the deaths.
There is no evidence of any kind to link her to the deaths, other than the fact that she was present at every death.
There were no physical marks bruising or any physical assault evidence.

There just wasn't a lot of evidence. She was convicted solely on the fact that the deaths were seen to be unlikely, and that she was present. That was the only evidence.

That's enough to be convicted.

I'm not saying it's the wrong verdict. I'm just saying normally there is DNA evidence or something a bit more concrete.

What was the other evidence? I've read a lot of stuff and I genuinely haven't seen any other evidence. Maybe you have read something from the trial that I haven't seen?

Sorry I was referring to cases where they said the babies had liver damage and it would have been a trauma like an impact or car crash would produce yet no marks at all only internal damage ?

I actually did think there would need to be further evidence in a case like the one you give as an example. I thought there would need to be something forensic. If the wife was found strangled under a bridge I would imagine there would be more than an investigation than just assuming the husband did it because people say he's been beating her for years. If you are right, isn't there a very real danger that the real perpetrator is someone unknown to the police and they would still be free to murder other women?

@Cailleachian

You’re who narrative collapses when you watch the Operation Hummingbird videos. The starting point for the police investigation was not that there was foul play. Dewi Evans is a registered expert for police work nationally. Chester police contacted him to review the medical evidence. He was being paid to review the notes- not to find foul play. He would have been paid the same either way.

You seem to know almost nothing about how the case was prepared or any of the evidence or any medical knowledge. Your points are making you sound not at all credible.

Either Chester police, the consultants, other nurses and all right experts have lied on purpose to frame her (why the fuck would they). Or she did it and has been covering her tracks by manipulating people, falsifying medical notes and directly lying about events.

The first one is such a massive stretch. It is not that there is one smoking gun but hundreds of arrows that point to LL and NONE that lead away or point to everyone else.

Hard to accept but there it is.

100% this. I was so sure that she wouldn't be found guilty as there was clearly no real evidence beyond the circumstantial and huge amounts of reasonable doubt. Terrifying.

A husband charged with murdering his wife is in no way comparable with the LL case. There would be more than 'circumstantial ' evidence in a case like that .

You're not writing the full story. Maybe you don't know it.

There was only one death on the ward after she was moved, because the hospital stopped accepting premature babies. I'm not sure of exact dates . I will have to check . But the hospital stopped taking in premature babies. That is why

She was found guilty on 13 charges beyond reasonable doubt. Yes most of the evidence is circumstantial but there is more than enough to convict, including confession notes, trophies and lack of unexplained collapses when she's not there.

I know someone who went to court for a lot of the trial who basically said the tipping point was her demeanour and her way of answering questions just screamed emotionless and guilty. She was shown to have lied more than once on the stand. The lady is unhinged. God knows why she did it, we will never know but honestly I despair at people still thinking it's a huge mistake.

@Mooshamoo

What’s the full story then?

Why were there comparatively few deaths before 2015? There were twice as many in one month as in the whole of the previous year.

Yes there was plenty. Maybe give the podcast a go or there are sites which have collated the reporting which includes the evidence in court and the police explaining how they approached this case. So yes if you haven't seen any except for someone harping on about the stats (who clearly has their own agenda) then I am sure I have read lots that you haven't.

This case should send shivers down the spine of any nurse working in an understaffed hospital with poor hygiene (so pretty much all of them!)

I'm a nurse and I don't think this at all. If concerns had been escalated about me I would happily remove myself from my ward and follow the due procedure as I'd have nothing to hide (and would still be recieveing full pay). She was quick to raise concerns about the performance of other staff for minor things yet didn't report any of these unexpected collapses or didn't agree that it was concerning?

But it seems not, some folks don’t know this and think if you are not seen doing it, then you get away with it. You can murder anyone you wish as long as you do it when no one is watching.

Perhaps LL thought the same 🫣😉

Most of us feel desperately sorry for the tiny victims and their parents and can't bear to imagine if it was our own children.

My sense, and it is no more than my best guess, is that in Letby's world it wasn't about the babies or their parents at all. It was about Letby and her identity as a perfect nurse.

An only child, born to parents with an age gap between mother and father who spent time on a neonatal unit as a baby. A poorly baby who became a saviour to other poorly babies. A nurse who always wanted to be with the sickest babies. This wasn't for the benefit of the babies. It was to shore up saint Letby's identity. A nurse who always did extra shifts. Again, I don't believe this wasn't to benefit the unit, but because Letby needed to be needed and probably enjoyed positive feedback from managers too, thus feeding the - it - can't - be - Lucy - narrative.

A nurse who apparently thought poorly of less experienced colleagues, even though as a neonatal course holder teaching and developing other staff would be part of her job.

I'm willing to bet those outside healthcare know people like this. Those whose sense of self requires them to takeover. Good staff who become problem staff. Knowledgeable staff who become idiosyncratic bullies. The difference is most of them don't have the ability to murder tiny babies.

I believe she is a murderer but that her primary motive was to be seen as the best nurse. I think in her world, the baby deaths were collateral damage - meaningless objects if you like. It's all about Lucy.

Her testimony was full of contradictions on agreed evidence and even on testimony she had already given. When they called her bluff on the arrest footage she even admitted she had been lying when they said they'd show it. It's also very bizarre how the defence only called a plumber when they even said themselves in the opening statement that this case would largely rest on the medical aspects, of which they offered nothing.

That's why I started listening after hearing it mentioned on here.

Because I wanted the detail and reports of what was said in court because this case is so unusual as is evidenced here people have so many differing opinions it's often hard to sort the fact from fiction of peoples statements.

I went from being wholly unsure she was guilty to believing she is guilty after hearing the evidence.