Lucy Letby thread

[Words]

Starting this as don’t think we have a new one.

Ooof we're going way back now-it was either her first or second arrest. I don't remember how I heard about it but I followed it ever since. I don't know why it piqued my interest, I guess I just knew it was going to be a huge case. Back then I was convinced the police had it all wrong-and was ready to gloat about them being useless (not a police fan) and the 3 arrests seemed ridiculous. A lot of us argued for her innocence because the police didn't give much away about why they suspected her. I had to admit I was wrong but then it is innocent until proven guilty and the police were obviously holding the majority of the evidence back until the trial.

I thought no more about it until the New Yorker article came out and from there I started reading the Lucy Letby Science subreddit from time to time. I would occasionally read the main Lucy Letby subreddit but I just didn’t find anything posted there particularly convincing when compared with the evidence that made the conviction look unsafe. So much of the case against her seems so founded on personal dislike of her, and I don’t have any personal feelings towards her at all.

They lie and omit things. They have to in order to make her seem like she could be innocent.

But for you it feels like it really is about her, and I am wondering how you got to that place? Do you have a personal connection?

No. If it wasn't for all the debating about it I would've long moved on from the conviction. It just amazes me people can't see what she is. Yes I do focus on her-if she is a serial killer why on earth wouldn't you focus on her? Maybe you should and then you'd see what I see!

Except what she said isn't in any way close to being the equivalent of someone making creepy comments about kids.

@Firefly1987 What did the New Yorker article lie about or omit?

No but what people say matters doesn't it. Especially if they're under suspicion for multiple murders and they're trying to rationalise getting in the room with a victim and how they "dealt with it before"-dealt with what before? A suspicious death? Baby A was supposed to be the first one...

Dealt with a dirty nappy? That particular illness? Restarting the IIS on a web server?

Who the fuck knows? We don't have any context.

dealt with the death of a baby?
She had already experienced baby deaths at the COCH and at Liverpool.

Yes, and what she said in this instance was pretty clear. She had been present at the sudden death of a high needs ICU baby - baby A. She believed that it would help her mental state to nurse another high needs baby now, a few days later. That's a fairly common coping strategy, though it's not universal. Throwing yourself back in at the deep end is also known to counteract sub-clinical anxiety.

She explained that at Liverpool she had been caring for one baby who died, and then was assigned another dying baby in the same cot. (Liverpool was a much larger unit where several deaths a month would be normal).

In this instance, baby C had been left with a nurse who wasn't qualified to care for him. Lucy Letby's request to be assigned an intensive care baby had been refused, and she felt that the shift leader could have been more responsive when she explained what she thought she needed.

There's nothing strange or sinister about these texts

And you're not in the least bit interested to know what she meant when she was talking about how she "dealt" with a death before? Even when it makes zero sense from an innocence perspective and her friend even said she thought it was "very odd and I'd be complete opposite"?

FGS. Newsflash - different people have different ways of dealing with things.

She explained that at Liverpool she had been caring for one baby who died, and then was assigned another dying baby in the same cot. (Liverpool was a much larger unit where several deaths a month would be normal).

@Oftenaddled I think we'd all like to know if that was even true or something she made up. I think I have a pretty good idea. And what happens when the next baby dies, she needs another one and another one...I mean I think I'm sensing a pattern.

In this instance, baby C had been left with a nurse who wasn't qualified to care for him. Lucy Letby's request to be assigned an intensive care baby had been refused, and she felt that the shift leader could have been more responsive when she explained what she thought she needed.

Baby C was fine whilst with the other nurse, all these babies were fine whilst with nurses who weren't as qualified as her. Six mins after these texts that baby collapsed remember. SIX minutes! And she's in there, isn't she?

There's nothing strange or sinister about these texts

Says you. Lets face it none of us know, we're not her.

But
If there were no murders and the babies died from natural causes due to prematurity/ infection or through inadequate healthcare.... handover notes, texts, Facebook searches, shredders, saying goodbye to cats, facial expressions just don't matter.
Has nothing that you have read @Firefly1987 given you one second of doubt of her innocence?

and @Iamateadrinker But IF she's a serial killer it's WHY she was doing it.

Why she was doing what?

To clarify, I mean despite medical evidence to the contrary you are absolutely certain that murders were carried out.
If that's the case ( and of course you aren't the only one who thinks that way) how do you think they were carried out in such a way to fool the pathologists who examined the babies at the time and the medical experts after the trial who have reached a different conclusion?

Honestly, Lucy Letby appears to be simultaneously the cleverest most deceptive serial killer ever, and the thickest. 🙄

She explained her thought process behind it, and even if she didn't I don't think it's something bizarre that needs to be pathologised.

Her friend being the complete opposite and thinking it's odd doesn't mean that it is, it's just not what she would do.

Her friend had the opportunity to explain her perspective at Thirlwall. She stated that this was odd to her because it wasn't her way of doing things, but that she recognised that this didn't mean it was wrong. We all have different emotional responses and coping strategies

Absolutely no doubt in my mind. I'd put my house on her having done it. Some of these deaths were still unexplained by pathologists. And they weren't done forensically. And obviously I believe the insulin results-which basically proves she did everything else as well.

But unexplained doesn't automatically mean murdered. It is a neutral descriptor. If by saying the post mortems weren't done forensically, you mean the pathologists weren't laser focused on looking for murder, you misunderstand the purpose of a post mortem. It is to look for cause of death and potential contributory factors. If a pathologist finds something suspicious, they will report it. Sadly premature and fragile babies do sometimes just die. If every sudden infant death was regarded as murder in the absence of any explanation, the concept of SIDS wouldn't exist, and every such bereaved parent / caregiver would be banged up without a second thought.

As for the insulin - honestly not sure why I'm bothering - the test results were not to a forensic standard and further tests should have been done. No physical evidence exists to support the alleged mechanism of delivery, and the theory proposed hasn't been tested and is unproven. Plus a similar result was seen in a baby after Lucy Letby left the unit but it wasn't considered suspicious apparently. If that is your standard of proof, for all the various incidents / deaths in this case, I hope to God I never come across you on a jury as a defendant.

My DH's death was unexplained. The cause of death was listed as SUDEP. Sudden unexplained death in epilepsy patients.

No one opened a murder investigation.

I am so sorry for your loss Frequency. 💐

So sorry for your loss @Frequency ❤️

Her thought process made no sense though. Even in court she couldn't explain why seeing another dying baby in the same space helped you get over the one you just lost. All it does is mean you probably have to deal with the loss of ANOTHER baby. And no one who was innocent would want that. She almost incriminated herself with it all imo. I wish Nick Johnson had grilled her about it more.

Whther you like her, loathe her, or think that she is innocent guilty or just don't now, she is entitled to feel the way that she does.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that she is guilty.

Ignoring Letby specifically for a moment - people say random shite all the time without really thinking it through, just day to day, and probably more so in stressful situations.

99% of people would not be able to remember some random comment years later, never mind account for it. Do you agree with that? Or do you think most people would be able to?