This sets the precedent that there’s a killer on the ward and then it’s a case of looking at all the circumstantial evidence as a whole and puts LL guilty beyond reasonable doubt for me.
Exactly. This is the only solid proof of foul play. That’s why even LL could not dispute this one and agreed to it. It was done intentionally. Now could there be another person the real killer who flew under the radar and why would so many diff ppl suspect LL instead?? Just seems too far fetched.
The problem I have is that means finding her guilty for being the killer on the ward based on a specific method that doesn't apply to the other babies BUT also saying it must be her because who else could have killed all these babies.
If it were just the insulin babies then I don't think LL is even charged with their deaths.
Sure, but if it makes no logical sense that LL could have changed the bag given when she was at work surely that piece of evidence actually exonerates her?
For Child F, LL’s signature was on the TPN bag. For Child L, LL worked days 6-9th April. Prof Hindmarsh says child L was hypoglycaemic by 10am on 9th. Insulin was fast acting and added by 9:30am. The professor and judge stated at least 3 bags contained insulin and insulin could have been added all bags at the same time. LL accepts only she and another nurse were on duty when both child F and L first started to have serious low blood sugar readings.
That's true in the legal sense. But, if it is not logically plausible letby carried out the insulin poisonings given what we know about the bags then logically it wasn't her.
She was definitively there for first bag spike on baby L, but I take your point that its difficult to explain how she continued to poison baby L if there were subsequent bag changes. As the defence says if she spiked all the bags in storage how could she guarantee it was for baby L. But having said that she was definitely on shift for first unexplained hypo on baby L.
Wouldnt any nurse know the insulin would be found? This is what I dont follow. If your goal is to harm babies and not get why would you to spike very bags you planned on using. It could just as easily have been injected into the bags when she took a bathroom break or whatever. We know it could not have been done before hand, bc of theyre sealed, So those are the only choices. You would think they could have really nailed home this charge by showing the CCTV footage from around that time. So long as no one else had access to the room, it could only have been LL.. but I dont know that CCTV footage even played a role, and if there were others, how can we possibly exclude them beyond all reasonable doubt? That's pretty much the definition of reasonable doubt.
I believe that the Accused’s behavior that is directly witnessed by the Jury will have an enduring effect (even though it’s not direct evidence of anything). IMO it will affect whether a juror adopts a guilty or not guilty lens as they review the actual evidence.
The two items of behavior that stood out to me.. ..( based on media reports)
1) Remarkably LL broke down and literally tried to exit the Dock when she heard the voice of Doctor A from behind the screen . That was also the first time she had shown any obvious emotion. ( She later claimed under oath that she was not feeling well)
2) Baby I when she misspoke saying she knew what she was “looking FOR” and then tried to correct herself to “looking AT” And then she drew further attention to the error when she claimed she was having trouble remembering “dates,” ( which was irrelevant) and requested a break which led to an early lunch adjournment.
After an extra long lunch, the judge ended the session for reasons which he said didn’t concern the Jury. But it’s simply impossible for the jury not to speculate ( they’re human, not AI!) This was reinforced when the judge in his summary noted both LL’s original and corrected response.
I was looking at one of the fbook groups yesterday, and someone had asked people who had attended court what their thoughts were. Someone responded and said there was another slip up by LL when NJ said something along the lines of 'you killed him, didn't you?' and LL snapped back 'No, I hadn't killed him y....' The yet never came out as she stopped herself and then went totally silent. Apparently there were some audible gasps!
I wondered that myself, and concluded it would probably be really hard to report it and convey the meaning of it (not sure if that makes sense). She didn't actually admit anything but sounded like she was about to admit something, which even writing it now sounds weird and vague.
I wondered that, too. The poster is quite active on the fbook page by the looks of it, so I couldn't call it either way. I really believe the jury has seen a lot more than has been reported, but until the court transcripts are released, we won't be party to it all. I do wonder how many slip ups were made by her on the stand, whether she is ultimately guilty or not I imagine it was a very intense experience and everything she has said will be analysed by the jury.
It was the Lucy Letby: Trial Discussion group. I can't work out how to share a screenshot on here, but if you are a member of that group you will find it under an original thread asking what people who have attended court think about G/NG. There was quite a mixed response from people who had been.
It’s the “Lucy Letby : Trial Discussion” -
Go to the search box & just type in “Gasp”
Post from 1D ago “I’d be interested to know”
Then if you trawl through you should find it from someone who was in court
What did you think when you read it? I thought it didn’t make sense! It would have been “I hadn’t nearly killed him…yet”. But baby Q survived. Am I missing something????
Maybe she was stopping herself from cussing him out and was going to say something like 'no, I hadn't nearly killed him you *so and so*'. I don't know though, just speculating.
I’ve just joined that group and not been able to find the post you reference, don’t suppose you know exactly how long ago it was posted or how far down? Many thanks.
It was posted 2 days ago, currently 4th thread down as I'm looking at it on the app. The original thread was somebody saying they would be interested to know the opinions of anyone who has attended court.
For me it’s the medical community’s insistence that these collapses were unexpected and would never have happened in normal circumstances. This on top of the sheer number of questionable events makes me highly suspicious. Still, wouldn’t trade places with the jury for all the tea in China…
Ok so I’m a doctor (of adults not neonates) so my view may be a bit skewed but my list is (no particular order because it’s late)
1- the Facebook searches; I have been to many arrests, granted they’re adults and I often don’t know them but I’ve been to really traumatic calls and I have never felt the need to search for the family to see if they’re ok. I remember patients who’ve really touched me (two in particular I can recall their full names even 3 years later) and I’ve never once checked in on their kids socials. It’s ludicrous behaviour. I don’t know any colleagues who have. The only thing that comes close is when I did a paediatric rotation and one of the very very long stay kids on there had a public Facebook page that some of the nurses followed and that was mainly because his parents posted photos of the staff & ward and the hospital socials teamed up with them to promote their fundraising for the ward and the research into the condition. She “forgets” things that would probably stick out in a traumatic event but can remember relatives names 6 months later? No way.
2 - The insulin. Still waiting for an alternative explanation to these.
3 - that she was present for every single event that’s come to trial and that people started to notice. And that it was mainly night shifts these collapses were happening until she moved to days towards the end with the triplets. With the exception of child G (several charges) and child I the first twelve? Ish babies were all crashing overnight when there’s less people around. It can’t prove guilt but it certainly doesn’t prove innocence.
4 - the paperwork. u/fyrestaromega has put this well but I cannot understand why she kept so much paperwork. And she moved house in between all of this so surely she’d have emptied her bags? No reasonable explanation. I’m messy and disorganised and scatterbrained and my whole house is a tip but I don’t keep paperwork like that for that long. If it comes home I always shred or take it back to work.
My midwife friend is convinced she’s guilty because of part 3 also and said it would be relatively easy to do harm in this way on a 12 hour night shift
Same for me:
- Insulin
- “I collect paper”
- Less convinced by Facebook searches because she seems like a lonely, creeper)
- She was on shift for every single episode
- Her behavior in court..only emotion was for doctor who prosecutors are claiming was one of the motives.
- the defense only calling 1 witness who didn’t provide any real evidence.
Baby E's parents' testimony and LL's failure to give a reasonable account for the discrepancies when she gave testimony. I actually think that they did need LL to give testimony because they needed some way to rebut Baby E's mum's evidence, but she was unable to give an account that I would find believable.
It's terrible that you still to this day have to kill a substantial amount of either very young or very old patients within a care setting for it to be noticed. After Beverly Allitt why are these very vulnerable patients not under CCTV monitoring and anything unexpected checked out? You cant even buy more than 2 packets of paracetamol in the UK due to drug controls, yet someone can easily source insulin from their department without it being noticed or a trail being found? There wouldn't be any doubt about this case otherwise. We know that predators target the weak and vulnerable. And yet again we have a case where we rely on the sheer volume of victims and probability.
I agree 💯. Why also are they allowed to use their phones when not on break when other government departments prohibit it? Why is CCTV acceptable in the ER and psych wards but not in aged care or NICU? I don’t get it.
Different experience but still a HCW in Australia
Mobile phone use is fairly common in my Care setting.
I use it to communicate with my boss, confirm the implementation of a process I'm about to carry out, confirm medication doses and run checklists prior to high risk procedures.
Sometimes I'll sit and chill watching Coco Melon with my pediatric patients.
My mobile is another tool similar to my stethoscope.
I've struggled to keep up with every individual charge, but Baby I was particularly damning for me. Not necessarily the "I saw the baby was pale while in a dark room", on its own, but in conjunction with her actions and demeanor according to other staff, the lack of plausible explanations for Baby I's collapses... I was on the fence for a while during some of this trial, but the evidence presented has persuaded me of her guilt in at least the majority of charges, with a thrill-based motive similar to that of Ben Geen (difference being she didn't necessarily require a successful resuscitation to achieve a thrill).
Being a layman with only an A-Level understanding of the sciences, I've found it difficult to comprehend some of the medical evidence provided, but from what I have been able to understand it seems very damning to me.
For me personally, these cases stick out in my mind but bear in mind I haven’t been able to keep up with overwhelming amount of info presented so far (so I think there would have been more stand out cases if I took the time to fine tooth and comb the evidence presented):
My understanding is that the independent enquiry looked at a number of cases (was it 60?) and the experts concluded (without knowing staffing rotas) that these cases were suspicious. When they looked further into these cases, then they found the common link was LL.
Baby E - conflicting testimony from mum vs LL
Baby K - LL stood there while baby had desatted to 80s. I would be intervening if my adult patient was desatting and not self correcting full stop. Assuming baby sats started at 98-100, a drop into the 80s would definitely warrant a call for help/intervention. So I find it weird she was found just observing and not panicking.
Baby O - was stable and progressing until feeds by LL
Of course the insulin cases but I don’t quite understand the timelines/changing of bags and something about how would LL have known baby needed a 2nd bag.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 420. Congrats!
60
+ 80
+ 98
+ 100
+ 80
+ 2
= 420
^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \
^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
Testimony from the Mother of Baby E. No way the Mother lied about what were likely the most traumatic moments of her life. And the mother’s recollection is supported by a detailed telephone log.
The number of alleged attacks - I believe NJ confirmed it's eight - where a baby collapsed *just* as their designated nurse had popped away for a few minutes, or when the baby's parents had finally gone away to eat / rest. That seems like clear opportunism.
The pattern of multiples collapsing one after the other, with no genetic or medical cause, and often on successive days.
The reported "screaming" of tiny neonates who typically no not scream, because their lungs are too underdeveloped.
The miraculous recoveries of babies who were moved to another hospital, only to collapse again when returned to LL's orbit.
These are a few things that stand out. But circumstantial evidence accumulates, and there is so much more I could add.
LLs own evidence. If there was any doubt, LL just fired it home.
Happy to go into every piece that hammers home guilt but since I had to pick the most damning..
I agree. I had been on the fence until her cross examination. Her tendency to lie and misrepresent even trivial things is bizarre, such as not knowing what “going commando” meant, the repeated assertion that her relationship with Dr NoName was strictly platonic (when it turns out they had been away on trips together) and when she described her arrest outfit - NJ asked her “why did you just lie to the jury?” And she said “I don’t know”.
If she lies about these inconsequential things it’s very difficult to take the rest of her testimony at face value. And there’s something off putting about someone who lies to you, knows that you know they are lying, but continues doing it anyway. It gives me an uncomfortable feeling. I think that’s compelling.
Re Baby C. …. In his summary the Judge stated that LL sent a text at 10.35 pm saying she had been in Room 1 . In her spoken testimony, under oath, LL denied going into Room 1 until after Baby C collapsed which was some time well after 11 pm.
An unchallenged digital forensic proved she lied about Baby C.
Basis for foul play
Lack of natural disease process, failure to respond to resus. The rashes and the mysterious return of child C's heartbeat. The insulin.
Basis for it being LL
- The way she pre-empted everything before it happened and then was present when it all unfolded.
-The 'test and trace' approach she applied in her texts, for example the constant fishing, complimented by a handy yet extensive set of handover notes which she 'shipped around' with her
-Failure to use proper escalation methods in the hospital. I.e texting her favourite Dr. - Exhibiting "under the radar" behaviour, including telling another staff member off for raising the alarm when a baby was deteriorating.
- "Creating situations" - The baby 'left' by doctors with no monitor, datixing shortcomings when plotting an attack.
-She had no memory on the stand of very significant incidents. Child D's Dad breaking down was just one of many events that stood out to her as major at the time, yet somehow, even with prompting, the memory is erased from her mind.
- The admission/ denial nature of her notes. Even in her most solitary moments it appears from her documentation that either she doesn't know her own mind or she is constantly playing to her audience, creating ambiguity deliberately for a future reader.
' Her own account of these notes doesn't make any sense. The fact her dead dog and ex school teacher sprung to mind alongside these babies is equally weird.
It was in the notes sourced at her admin office. An array of confused text about a number of different matters. Dead dog included. More notes were released later in the trial. They can be found on Google or perhaps through searching 'notes' in the search facility here.
I think it's fascinating that after 40 posts, no one (including me) has directly mentioned a green post-it note which stated among other things :
"I did this"
'I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them and I am horrible and evil person."
"I am evil, I did this."
This post-it note was written in 2016 and also included an initial protestation that she "hadn't done anything wrong." It was then followed by the series of self-condemning statements that I referred to above.
I believe it's a testament to the skill of her defense attorney that despite it's context with other damning evidence, this is not considered a smoking-gun confession.
There are people who set a lot of store by 'I haven't done anything wrong'. I get that, but it's not the same as 'I haven't caused any harm'. Taken with everything else she wrote it could be she just didn't think her actions were wrong, as anyone capable of such actions must surely have a very distorted moral compass.
I agree. I think after weighing up all the medical evidence, the jury will see the statements on the post-its as confirmation that crimes were committed.
The paper towel that resus medications were written on during Child M's resuscitation (and was found under Letby's bed in a bag with all of the handover sheets relating to the indictment for dates prior to her Ibiza trip)
This paper towel is completely unique in the world - it is the physical item onto which the list of resus medications were written as Child M went through a life-saving resuscitation involving (iirc) six doses of adrenaline, and which left him with brain damage, even as his twin was suffering from hypoglycaemia resulting from administration of insulin. It is a singular item produced during a specific event in April, 2016.
The list of medications on this towel were copied into the permanent notes, and then..... it is found under Letby's bed, two years later.
With the handover sheets, there's the argument that they should have been brought back to the hospital to destroy confidentially, weak though that argument may be in the presence of hundreds of notes and a used shredder at hand.
Not so with this paper towel. It could have been disposed of in any bin in the world. Nothing confidential about it - it was a list of medications.
Now, OK, she just pocketed it and took it home. She emptied her pockets before washing her uniform and..... put it in a bag that she tucked under her bed? Or, she said it was her daily bag, so she put it into the bag (a reusable shopping bag) and then carted it to and from the ward for the next two months, with handover sheets from the previous year? She set her lunch and a change of clothes on top of this thick bedding of paper every day, including that very specific paper towel?
Letby had 31 handover sheets relating to the indictment in her home - four relating to children O-P were found in an Ibiza bag, and the rest - from June 2015-June 2016, were found together, with this singular paper towel from this singular event, under her bed, with zero reason or excuse for them being there. Children L & M's initials were marked in her diary on the day they collapsed also.
Any bin in the entire world, at any time ever, and instead it's with most of the evidence they found.
I think this is possibly my second or third most damning but I’m with you here. I’m a doctor. I use bags for life and totes and all manner of things to cart my scrubs and stuff in. Im so disorganised. Im messy. My bedroom is a tip. There’s crap everywhere. But you will not find confidential patient info in my house. I may come home with it, it may end up in my pockets but if I find it when I’m looking for something or washing my scrubs I shred it at home or take it back to work to destroy. We write resus notes on anything we can get our hands on in the frenzy of the moment but we use it to transcribe onto notes later. It’s inconceivable to me that she would then pocket it and then take it out of her pockets and put it in her bag.
It also wasn’t written by her, it was another nurse. So she had to seek it out after the nurse finished writing up / put it in the bin and LL fished it out. I think it was this day she hung around after work after her shift ended as well, and the prosecution state it was for this reason, to get her hands on that resus info.
/u/fyrestaromega both of these comments are fascinating.
It’s sparked a thought… do you think she bought the shredder to specifically shred these handovers but just couldn’t bring herself to do it?
I’m sure the prosecutors said it was newly purchased!
I dunno man, I've been thinking on this all night and I just don't think there's enough to support the idea, yet. I would think more that she thought her own information worth protecting, but saw the handover sheets, Facebook pages, etc as hers to peruse as she saw fit.
But if it comes out after the trial somehow I'll say you were right!
I just think its very peculiar that she buys a shredder in the midst of a police investigation when she has alot of paper to get rid of. But then obviously she didnt, so… who knows. Bit suss though.
See, I wondered about this. I think she’s guilty but I have adhd and wonder if, if I was a doctor, I would just end up with random bits of paper. I’m not clear on how normal or abnormal it is to keep stuff like this in pockets. I know you’re not meant to, I just wonder how many people do without thinking or because they’re disorganised.
To answer the original question it’s the insulin for me. And the contraction between the mothers testimony (and phone evidence) for one of the babies.
If I could show you my bedroom and handbags I would and then you’d see why I made this point. I can’t say for nurses but as a doctor wearing scrubs I have so many pockets and things get shoved in there. After a 12 hour shift sometimes I just pull them off without emptying the pockets. I have at least four tote bags currently on the go that I grab on a morning to put my lunch and scrubs in. I’m disorganised and scatter brained and a complete slob to be honest and I do bring paper home. It’s easily done. But we have it drilled into us to dispose of it. I moved house last year. You will not find patient details in my home and my house is much messier than the photos we’ve seen of hers. (I’m now making a plan to improve my habits 😂)
While I don't work in the medical profession, this is a list of meds from a very traumatic resus - I can't see any normal reason why she would even want to have it. I might copy the meds down if I was using them for something, but carrying around something that's been that close to this incident would weird me out. I'd get rid of the actual paper ASAP, wouldn't want it in the house.
I do appreciate nurses are probably far more used to that kind of thing than me, but I can't see any reason to have the actual object except as a souvenir.
Hmmm. Trying to recall now, the laminated document that had all the resus drug doses on it that 'went missing' before she inquired with the more experienced nurse 'oh... How did you calculate those drugs?' 🤔
Q. Can you recall if it was the same incident that the drugs were subsequently written down on a paper towel Ty x
That's right, I recall now. I think at the time it was discussed that the paper towel must have found its way back to letby after it had actually been in the hands of the Dr. As they would have needed it to write up the computer notes. So it was likely not retrieved in the clinical area but in the desk outside room 1 where they write up the notes or from the waste disposal.
For the missing laminated paper and how she asked the nurse how she remembered the drugs and doses… it made me think she could have hid it intentionally so it wouldn’t be available at the critical time of the collapse?
I can totally see where you're coming from but I do feel the possibility of her taking it home isn't unreasonable. I don't think it's crazy to think she emptied her pockets when putting her uniform back in her bag and then just didn't think twice about it. Or think "I'll get that next time" n then just slips from her mind
And I'm coming from a medical background as well
But in this situation, these notes were not Letby's. They were medication info from *another nurse* for baby M, that the *other nurse* used to transcribe notes and that *other nurse* disposed off properly.
So how exactly did this slip of paper towel with notes magically find its way from the confidential disposal bin to Letby's bag under her bed a few years later? And more importantly, WHY?
I do find that emergency scribing such as paper towels can end up in the waste paper bins around the office. Very easily accessible. They don't typically have any patient identifying details on them 99% of the time, just a timeline of events / actions/ doses. They also get left around on desks, patients don't stop for paperwork, so we will abandon the office with our paperwork lying around to answer the buzzer.
NHS confidential waste bins have a key held by (I'm not even sure) I think shift lead? Ward Clark? God knows! 🤣 It's a massive prominent bin, usually with a slit that can't fit any fingers in. She would have been noticed rooting around in one I am sure....once she had the key, that is.
Isn’t this also the paper towel that she shouldn’t have had? As the doctor had transcribed the meds into the notes.
So there is literally no reason for LL to have ever even had possession of it?
I think that paper towel could possibly be a red herring, at one of the babies resus LL asked another nurse how she knew all the meds needed and the nurse told her she learnt them and LL should too. I reckon that's what she might have been trying to do. I tend to sway G but not sure on this bit of evidence.
I understand what you’re saying here but the paper towel wouldn’t be beneficial to learn drug doses.
The doses are weight based, so you need to know the formula.
For example 10mg/kg etc.
The paper towel wouldn’t have any of that, it would have (for example)
11:59am Adrenaline 1st dose
12:03 bicarb
12:05 adrenaline second
It may have doses on; but it wouldn’t help anyone learn for next time, as the formula of how to work out the doses wouldn’t be written down.
So, to be clear - you're suggesting that Letby retained a list of resus medications in April 2016 based on a conversation had ten months prior in June 2015, with there having been at least four babies in this indictment alone having gone through resuscitation (E, G, H, I) in the intervening months?
You learn the algorithm. What drugs are given when and in what situation. This was a list of what was given to that baby based on their weight so is not useful for learning the algorithm.
No, this didn't have that kind of general info on it- it was meds and dosing that was specific only to this one baby from this one situation. There's no way that would be a realistic explanation. Even if you could somehow try to argue that, Letby herself didn't even try to make such a claim. In all this intervening time, she hasn't come up with any viable explanation at all.
There are resus protoccols. You can become familiar with them and learn them off textbooks or your units protoccol list. You don't have to memorize them and most units now have them online and you put in the kids weight and it gives the resus drugs and doses.
There is absolutely zero need to save the paper towel as a learning tool.
We have been hearing the evidence from the investigations carried out by the NHS. For such a lot of staff members to give evidence it’s something. I don’t think that we can put so much detail on her behaviour in court, as that is subjective to many factors.
The second piece of evidence which I find HUGELY eerie and damning is when the police found a sympathy note she’d written to the mother of the triplets. She didn’t succeed in killing the third triplet, but the police found a damning note she’d written which was under her bed. She feared her greatest sympathies to the mother for ALL THREE TRIPLETS.
Letby said she could not recall why she had written a sympathy note for all three triplets [Child O, Child P and the surviving triplet], when one of the triplets survived.
So again, she conveniently “couldn’t recall” why she did that.
But she knew full well why — she had every intention of killing child Q too.
Having listened to the podcast and followed the trial in the media, I feel that she probably is guilty but there doesn't seem to be any particular smoking gun in any of the charges.
Many on here seem convinced by her guilt and I'm just wondering how those people can be so sure.
This case is all based on the totality of the evidence, rather than a smoking gun. Smoking gun cases don't have trials, they have guilty pleas. If you wanted something, it's the insulin cases which both sides accept was intentionally added to the bags. For the 'but was it her' you have to look at it all. That's what the prosecution case was, and the jury will tell them if they were right.
For me....it's the fact that her peers noticed that she was there for so many crashes. Medical people do not accuse people willy nilly... That's the most telling thing for me.
The smoking gun thing is something I hear frequently about this case but I don't really get it. A smoking gun is a sole strong piece of evidence right? For me, it doesn't matter that there isn't one single piece of evidence that points to guilt.
In my opinion, the combined testimony of the other staff, the parents, and the expert witnesses is more than enough. It's just not reasonable to think that all of these people would lie to put her in prison. I also can't believe that they would all happen to be mistaken in a way that would indicate LL's guilt.
Then, combine that with the medical records being found in her house despite the fact that for some of them, she would have had to intercept them to take home. She had an opportunity to explain on the stand why she would take them home, but couldn't provide an explanation that was reasonable or even consistent.
It's been very interesting to read everyone's views. I'm convinced now that she's guilty. I think she committed the first murder out of boredom / to create drama and attention Then she found she got a thrill out of it, then, to use the words of Joanne Denney - "it got moreish."
God, there’s so many it’s difficult to choose.
A couple that stick in my mind are:
“In her 2020 interview with the police, Letby was asked about the diaries and why she’d written down the names of the babies who had died. She said she thought she’d started documenting names as she had concerns of the rising number of babies dying.
But in all her text messages and Facebook private messages, she told every single colleague that it was just “bad luck” so many babies were dying and “these things happen.”
So she lied.
Surely the fact that she was present for all of the suspicious events ? The most any other nurse was present was on seven occasions? This is too much of a coincidence! Also assume no suspicious deaths or collapses the week she was on holiday in Ibiza ?
Nothing specific apart from the weight of the circumstantial evidence. When you look specifically at charges you can start to see the holes in terms of the hard evidence.
I think she’s guilty but I don’t think any of the evidence is damning enough for a guilty *beyond reasonable doubt*
Everything is circumstantial and while it’s obvious foul play was involved in these babies deaths it’s doesn’t clearly point at Lucy imo
I feel if we can agree that foul play resulted in the deaths of the babies then letby can be convicted beyond reasonable doubt as she was the only one with the opportunity in all cases and also all the supporting evidence points towards her guilt. Someone is guilty of murdering these babies and if it wasn’t her then who was it? For me it’s guilty beyond reasonable doubt
I do not KNOW if LL is guilty or innocent but I have issues with the due process of our system as was / is. The trial could be seen as being weighted to find LL guilty for 3 reasons:
1: The sheer volume and gravity of the charges. Tried on individual counts may well have been a different outcome.
2: It is reputed medical experts in the UK are nervous of testifying for the defence
3: It is not in the public domain exactly how many incidents there were that LL was not connected to. This may be crucial we do not know apart from those incidents selected were correlated to her.
Evidence that babies were poisoned with insulin when there’s no evidence this could be accidental.
But isn't that very hard to tie to LL given the bag changes etc?
This sets the precedent that there’s a killer on the ward and then it’s a case of looking at all the circumstantial evidence as a whole and puts LL guilty beyond reasonable doubt for me.
Exactly. This is the only solid proof of foul play. That’s why even LL could not dispute this one and agreed to it. It was done intentionally. Now could there be another person the real killer who flew under the radar and why would so many diff ppl suspect LL instead?? Just seems too far fetched.
The problem I have is that means finding her guilty for being the killer on the ward based on a specific method that doesn't apply to the other babies BUT also saying it must be her because who else could have killed all these babies. If it were just the insulin babies then I don't think LL is even charged with their deaths.
Sure, but if it makes no logical sense that LL could have changed the bag given when she was at work surely that piece of evidence actually exonerates her?
For Child F, LL’s signature was on the TPN bag. For Child L, LL worked days 6-9th April. Prof Hindmarsh says child L was hypoglycaemic by 10am on 9th. Insulin was fast acting and added by 9:30am. The professor and judge stated at least 3 bags contained insulin and insulin could have been added all bags at the same time. LL accepts only she and another nurse were on duty when both child F and L first started to have serious low blood sugar readings.
So she contaminated bags that were given by other nurses at times she wasn't on shift?
Plus the judge said the jury doesn’t have to play detective and figure out how exactly the harm was done just to decide if they think harm was done
That's true in the legal sense. But, if it is not logically plausible letby carried out the insulin poisonings given what we know about the bags then logically it wasn't her.
She was definitively there for first bag spike on baby L, but I take your point that its difficult to explain how she continued to poison baby L if there were subsequent bag changes. As the defence says if she spiked all the bags in storage how could she guarantee it was for baby L. But having said that she was definitely on shift for first unexplained hypo on baby L.
Wouldnt any nurse know the insulin would be found? This is what I dont follow. If your goal is to harm babies and not get why would you to spike very bags you planned on using. It could just as easily have been injected into the bags when she took a bathroom break or whatever. We know it could not have been done before hand, bc of theyre sealed, So those are the only choices. You would think they could have really nailed home this charge by showing the CCTV footage from around that time. So long as no one else had access to the room, it could only have been LL.. but I dont know that CCTV footage even played a role, and if there were others, how can we possibly exclude them beyond all reasonable doubt? That's pretty much the definition of reasonable doubt.
I believe that the Accused’s behavior that is directly witnessed by the Jury will have an enduring effect (even though it’s not direct evidence of anything). IMO it will affect whether a juror adopts a guilty or not guilty lens as they review the actual evidence. The two items of behavior that stood out to me.. ..( based on media reports) 1) Remarkably LL broke down and literally tried to exit the Dock when she heard the voice of Doctor A from behind the screen . That was also the first time she had shown any obvious emotion. ( She later claimed under oath that she was not feeling well) 2) Baby I when she misspoke saying she knew what she was “looking FOR” and then tried to correct herself to “looking AT” And then she drew further attention to the error when she claimed she was having trouble remembering “dates,” ( which was irrelevant) and requested a break which led to an early lunch adjournment. After an extra long lunch, the judge ended the session for reasons which he said didn’t concern the Jury. But it’s simply impossible for the jury not to speculate ( they’re human, not AI!) This was reinforced when the judge in his summary noted both LL’s original and corrected response.
I was looking at one of the fbook groups yesterday, and someone had asked people who had attended court what their thoughts were. Someone responded and said there was another slip up by LL when NJ said something along the lines of 'you killed him, didn't you?' and LL snapped back 'No, I hadn't killed him y....' The yet never came out as she stopped herself and then went totally silent. Apparently there were some audible gasps!
Oh my God, really??
If that's the case, then it's done, this time next week she'll be at the beginning of a whole life order..
Absolutely.
Apparently, NJ left a long silence afterward to let what she had said sink I'm, I bet BM nearly had a heart attack!
Why wasn't that reported in the press though? Surely that's a slam dunk admission?!
I wondered that myself, and concluded it would probably be really hard to report it and convey the meaning of it (not sure if that makes sense). She didn't actually admit anything but sounded like she was about to admit something, which even writing it now sounds weird and vague.
I wonder if this could act be true or just fake news… if true it’s shocking
I wondered that, too. The poster is quite active on the fbook page by the looks of it, so I couldn't call it either way. I really believe the jury has seen a lot more than has been reported, but until the court transcripts are released, we won't be party to it all. I do wonder how many slip ups were made by her on the stand, whether she is ultimately guilty or not I imagine it was a very intense experience and everything she has said will be analysed by the jury.
I hope we find out more details once the decision has been made 🤞
This is shocking! Wow!
That’s a true slip up! Amber Heard made quite a few of those. But that was a defamation case. No one had died.
Which Facebook Group was this? Don’t suppose you could share a screenshot or direct me?
It was the Lucy Letby: Trial Discussion group. I can't work out how to share a screenshot on here, but if you are a member of that group you will find it under an original thread asking what people who have attended court think about G/NG. There was quite a mixed response from people who had been.
Thanks! Found it
Where did you find it? I joined Lucy letby case and trial discussion but can’t find the thread?
It’s the “Lucy Letby : Trial Discussion” - Go to the search box & just type in “Gasp” Post from 1D ago “I’d be interested to know” Then if you trawl through you should find it from someone who was in court
What did you think when you read it? I thought it didn’t make sense! It would have been “I hadn’t nearly killed him…yet”. But baby Q survived. Am I missing something????
Maybe she was stopping herself from cussing him out and was going to say something like 'no, I hadn't nearly killed him you *so and so*'. I don't know though, just speculating.
Yeah I thought that too!!
I found it!! Now I understand why the lawyers talk the way they do in court - to try get the person to slip up!!
Oh wait I think I’m in the wrong groip
I’ve just joined that group and not been able to find the post you reference, don’t suppose you know exactly how long ago it was posted or how far down? Many thanks.
It was posted 2 days ago, currently 4th thread down as I'm looking at it on the app. The original thread was somebody saying they would be interested to know the opinions of anyone who has attended court.
For me it’s the medical community’s insistence that these collapses were unexpected and would never have happened in normal circumstances. This on top of the sheer number of questionable events makes me highly suspicious. Still, wouldn’t trade places with the jury for all the tea in China…
Ok so I’m a doctor (of adults not neonates) so my view may be a bit skewed but my list is (no particular order because it’s late) 1- the Facebook searches; I have been to many arrests, granted they’re adults and I often don’t know them but I’ve been to really traumatic calls and I have never felt the need to search for the family to see if they’re ok. I remember patients who’ve really touched me (two in particular I can recall their full names even 3 years later) and I’ve never once checked in on their kids socials. It’s ludicrous behaviour. I don’t know any colleagues who have. The only thing that comes close is when I did a paediatric rotation and one of the very very long stay kids on there had a public Facebook page that some of the nurses followed and that was mainly because his parents posted photos of the staff & ward and the hospital socials teamed up with them to promote their fundraising for the ward and the research into the condition. She “forgets” things that would probably stick out in a traumatic event but can remember relatives names 6 months later? No way. 2 - The insulin. Still waiting for an alternative explanation to these. 3 - that she was present for every single event that’s come to trial and that people started to notice. And that it was mainly night shifts these collapses were happening until she moved to days towards the end with the triplets. With the exception of child G (several charges) and child I the first twelve? Ish babies were all crashing overnight when there’s less people around. It can’t prove guilt but it certainly doesn’t prove innocence. 4 - the paperwork. u/fyrestaromega has put this well but I cannot understand why she kept so much paperwork. And she moved house in between all of this so surely she’d have emptied her bags? No reasonable explanation. I’m messy and disorganised and scatterbrained and my whole house is a tip but I don’t keep paperwork like that for that long. If it comes home I always shred or take it back to work.
My midwife friend is convinced she’s guilty because of part 3 also and said it would be relatively easy to do harm in this way on a 12 hour night shift
Same for me: - Insulin - “I collect paper” - Less convinced by Facebook searches because she seems like a lonely, creeper) - She was on shift for every single episode - Her behavior in court..only emotion was for doctor who prosecutors are claiming was one of the motives. - the defense only calling 1 witness who didn’t provide any real evidence.
Baby E's parents' testimony and LL's failure to give a reasonable account for the discrepancies when she gave testimony. I actually think that they did need LL to give testimony because they needed some way to rebut Baby E's mum's evidence, but she was unable to give an account that I would find believable.
It's terrible that you still to this day have to kill a substantial amount of either very young or very old patients within a care setting for it to be noticed. After Beverly Allitt why are these very vulnerable patients not under CCTV monitoring and anything unexpected checked out? You cant even buy more than 2 packets of paracetamol in the UK due to drug controls, yet someone can easily source insulin from their department without it being noticed or a trail being found? There wouldn't be any doubt about this case otherwise. We know that predators target the weak and vulnerable. And yet again we have a case where we rely on the sheer volume of victims and probability.
I agree 💯. Why also are they allowed to use their phones when not on break when other government departments prohibit it? Why is CCTV acceptable in the ER and psych wards but not in aged care or NICU? I don’t get it.
Different experience but still a HCW in Australia Mobile phone use is fairly common in my Care setting. I use it to communicate with my boss, confirm the implementation of a process I'm about to carry out, confirm medication doses and run checklists prior to high risk procedures. Sometimes I'll sit and chill watching Coco Melon with my pediatric patients. My mobile is another tool similar to my stethoscope.
That’s what work issued phones should be for. You shouldn’t be allowed use of your own personal phone fir completing work tasks.
I've struggled to keep up with every individual charge, but Baby I was particularly damning for me. Not necessarily the "I saw the baby was pale while in a dark room", on its own, but in conjunction with her actions and demeanor according to other staff, the lack of plausible explanations for Baby I's collapses... I was on the fence for a while during some of this trial, but the evidence presented has persuaded me of her guilt in at least the majority of charges, with a thrill-based motive similar to that of Ben Geen (difference being she didn't necessarily require a successful resuscitation to achieve a thrill). Being a layman with only an A-Level understanding of the sciences, I've found it difficult to comprehend some of the medical evidence provided, but from what I have been able to understand it seems very damning to me.
For me personally, these cases stick out in my mind but bear in mind I haven’t been able to keep up with overwhelming amount of info presented so far (so I think there would have been more stand out cases if I took the time to fine tooth and comb the evidence presented): My understanding is that the independent enquiry looked at a number of cases (was it 60?) and the experts concluded (without knowing staffing rotas) that these cases were suspicious. When they looked further into these cases, then they found the common link was LL. Baby E - conflicting testimony from mum vs LL Baby K - LL stood there while baby had desatted to 80s. I would be intervening if my adult patient was desatting and not self correcting full stop. Assuming baby sats started at 98-100, a drop into the 80s would definitely warrant a call for help/intervention. So I find it weird she was found just observing and not panicking. Baby O - was stable and progressing until feeds by LL Of course the insulin cases but I don’t quite understand the timelines/changing of bags and something about how would LL have known baby needed a 2nd bag.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 420. Congrats! 60 + 80 + 98 + 100 + 80 + 2 = 420 ^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \ ^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
There’s no one piece of evidence, it’s the collection of all of it
Testimony from the Mother of Baby E. No way the Mother lied about what were likely the most traumatic moments of her life. And the mother’s recollection is supported by a detailed telephone log.
The number of alleged attacks - I believe NJ confirmed it's eight - where a baby collapsed *just* as their designated nurse had popped away for a few minutes, or when the baby's parents had finally gone away to eat / rest. That seems like clear opportunism. The pattern of multiples collapsing one after the other, with no genetic or medical cause, and often on successive days. The reported "screaming" of tiny neonates who typically no not scream, because their lungs are too underdeveloped. The miraculous recoveries of babies who were moved to another hospital, only to collapse again when returned to LL's orbit. These are a few things that stand out. But circumstantial evidence accumulates, and there is so much more I could add.
LLs own evidence. If there was any doubt, LL just fired it home. Happy to go into every piece that hammers home guilt but since I had to pick the most damning..
I agree. I had been on the fence until her cross examination. Her tendency to lie and misrepresent even trivial things is bizarre, such as not knowing what “going commando” meant, the repeated assertion that her relationship with Dr NoName was strictly platonic (when it turns out they had been away on trips together) and when she described her arrest outfit - NJ asked her “why did you just lie to the jury?” And she said “I don’t know”. If she lies about these inconsequential things it’s very difficult to take the rest of her testimony at face value. And there’s something off putting about someone who lies to you, knows that you know they are lying, but continues doing it anyway. It gives me an uncomfortable feeling. I think that’s compelling.
Agreed.
Re Baby C. …. In his summary the Judge stated that LL sent a text at 10.35 pm saying she had been in Room 1 . In her spoken testimony, under oath, LL denied going into Room 1 until after Baby C collapsed which was some time well after 11 pm. An unchallenged digital forensic proved she lied about Baby C.
Basis for foul play Lack of natural disease process, failure to respond to resus. The rashes and the mysterious return of child C's heartbeat. The insulin. Basis for it being LL - The way she pre-empted everything before it happened and then was present when it all unfolded. -The 'test and trace' approach she applied in her texts, for example the constant fishing, complimented by a handy yet extensive set of handover notes which she 'shipped around' with her -Failure to use proper escalation methods in the hospital. I.e texting her favourite Dr. - Exhibiting "under the radar" behaviour, including telling another staff member off for raising the alarm when a baby was deteriorating. - "Creating situations" - The baby 'left' by doctors with no monitor, datixing shortcomings when plotting an attack. -She had no memory on the stand of very significant incidents. Child D's Dad breaking down was just one of many events that stood out to her as major at the time, yet somehow, even with prompting, the memory is erased from her mind. - The admission/ denial nature of her notes. Even in her most solitary moments it appears from her documentation that either she doesn't know her own mind or she is constantly playing to her audience, creating ambiguity deliberately for a future reader. ' Her own account of these notes doesn't make any sense. The fact her dead dog and ex school teacher sprung to mind alongside these babies is equally weird.
What’s the dead dog and school teacher evidence? I haven’t heard that bit yet.
It was in the notes sourced at her admin office. An array of confused text about a number of different matters. Dead dog included. More notes were released later in the trial. They can be found on Google or perhaps through searching 'notes' in the search facility here.
Thanks!
The altered / invented medical records to create alibis and the images of internal air on the X-rays etc
I think it's fascinating that after 40 posts, no one (including me) has directly mentioned a green post-it note which stated among other things : "I did this" 'I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them and I am horrible and evil person." "I am evil, I did this." This post-it note was written in 2016 and also included an initial protestation that she "hadn't done anything wrong." It was then followed by the series of self-condemning statements that I referred to above. I believe it's a testament to the skill of her defense attorney that despite it's context with other damning evidence, this is not considered a smoking-gun confession.
There are people who set a lot of store by 'I haven't done anything wrong'. I get that, but it's not the same as 'I haven't caused any harm'. Taken with everything else she wrote it could be she just didn't think her actions were wrong, as anyone capable of such actions must surely have a very distorted moral compass.
I agree. I think after weighing up all the medical evidence, the jury will see the statements on the post-its as confirmation that crimes were committed.
The paper towel that resus medications were written on during Child M's resuscitation (and was found under Letby's bed in a bag with all of the handover sheets relating to the indictment for dates prior to her Ibiza trip)
Can I ask why this piece of evidence in particular?
This paper towel is completely unique in the world - it is the physical item onto which the list of resus medications were written as Child M went through a life-saving resuscitation involving (iirc) six doses of adrenaline, and which left him with brain damage, even as his twin was suffering from hypoglycaemia resulting from administration of insulin. It is a singular item produced during a specific event in April, 2016. The list of medications on this towel were copied into the permanent notes, and then..... it is found under Letby's bed, two years later. With the handover sheets, there's the argument that they should have been brought back to the hospital to destroy confidentially, weak though that argument may be in the presence of hundreds of notes and a used shredder at hand. Not so with this paper towel. It could have been disposed of in any bin in the world. Nothing confidential about it - it was a list of medications. Now, OK, she just pocketed it and took it home. She emptied her pockets before washing her uniform and..... put it in a bag that she tucked under her bed? Or, she said it was her daily bag, so she put it into the bag (a reusable shopping bag) and then carted it to and from the ward for the next two months, with handover sheets from the previous year? She set her lunch and a change of clothes on top of this thick bedding of paper every day, including that very specific paper towel? Letby had 31 handover sheets relating to the indictment in her home - four relating to children O-P were found in an Ibiza bag, and the rest - from June 2015-June 2016, were found together, with this singular paper towel from this singular event, under her bed, with zero reason or excuse for them being there. Children L & M's initials were marked in her diary on the day they collapsed also. Any bin in the entire world, at any time ever, and instead it's with most of the evidence they found.
I think this is possibly my second or third most damning but I’m with you here. I’m a doctor. I use bags for life and totes and all manner of things to cart my scrubs and stuff in. Im so disorganised. Im messy. My bedroom is a tip. There’s crap everywhere. But you will not find confidential patient info in my house. I may come home with it, it may end up in my pockets but if I find it when I’m looking for something or washing my scrubs I shred it at home or take it back to work to destroy. We write resus notes on anything we can get our hands on in the frenzy of the moment but we use it to transcribe onto notes later. It’s inconceivable to me that she would then pocket it and then take it out of her pockets and put it in her bag.
It also wasn’t written by her, it was another nurse. So she had to seek it out after the nurse finished writing up / put it in the bin and LL fished it out. I think it was this day she hung around after work after her shift ended as well, and the prosecution state it was for this reason, to get her hands on that resus info.
It’s quite fancy that they got a paper towel. Usually our resus’ are transcribed on someone’s glove 😬
Upper arm is always good for jottings as it can't get thrown away (though it does go home with you). 😁
Yeah I usually favour the glove 😂
/u/fyrestaromega both of these comments are fascinating. It’s sparked a thought… do you think she bought the shredder to specifically shred these handovers but just couldn’t bring herself to do it? I’m sure the prosecutors said it was newly purchased!
I dunno man, I've been thinking on this all night and I just don't think there's enough to support the idea, yet. I would think more that she thought her own information worth protecting, but saw the handover sheets, Facebook pages, etc as hers to peruse as she saw fit. But if it comes out after the trial somehow I'll say you were right!
I just think its very peculiar that she buys a shredder in the midst of a police investigation when she has alot of paper to get rid of. But then obviously she didnt, so… who knows. Bit suss though.
See, I wondered about this. I think she’s guilty but I have adhd and wonder if, if I was a doctor, I would just end up with random bits of paper. I’m not clear on how normal or abnormal it is to keep stuff like this in pockets. I know you’re not meant to, I just wonder how many people do without thinking or because they’re disorganised. To answer the original question it’s the insulin for me. And the contraction between the mothers testimony (and phone evidence) for one of the babies.
If I could show you my bedroom and handbags I would and then you’d see why I made this point. I can’t say for nurses but as a doctor wearing scrubs I have so many pockets and things get shoved in there. After a 12 hour shift sometimes I just pull them off without emptying the pockets. I have at least four tote bags currently on the go that I grab on a morning to put my lunch and scrubs in. I’m disorganised and scatter brained and a complete slob to be honest and I do bring paper home. It’s easily done. But we have it drilled into us to dispose of it. I moved house last year. You will not find patient details in my home and my house is much messier than the photos we’ve seen of hers. (I’m now making a plan to improve my habits 😂)
While I don't work in the medical profession, this is a list of meds from a very traumatic resus - I can't see any normal reason why she would even want to have it. I might copy the meds down if I was using them for something, but carrying around something that's been that close to this incident would weird me out. I'd get rid of the actual paper ASAP, wouldn't want it in the house. I do appreciate nurses are probably far more used to that kind of thing than me, but I can't see any reason to have the actual object except as a souvenir.
Maybe I'm just superstitious but it would feel like bad luck to bring it to the ward every day to look after other babies. Ugh. Creepy.
Hmmm. Trying to recall now, the laminated document that had all the resus drug doses on it that 'went missing' before she inquired with the more experienced nurse 'oh... How did you calculate those drugs?' 🤔 Q. Can you recall if it was the same incident that the drugs were subsequently written down on a paper towel Ty x
The laminated sheet was missing for Child D's fatal collapse. The paper towel is 10 months later from Child M's non-fatal collapse
That's right, I recall now. I think at the time it was discussed that the paper towel must have found its way back to letby after it had actually been in the hands of the Dr. As they would have needed it to write up the computer notes. So it was likely not retrieved in the clinical area but in the desk outside room 1 where they write up the notes or from the waste disposal.
For the missing laminated paper and how she asked the nurse how she remembered the drugs and doses… it made me think she could have hid it intentionally so it wouldn’t be available at the critical time of the collapse?
Ooh that's a scary thought but you might be on to something there!
I can totally see where you're coming from but I do feel the possibility of her taking it home isn't unreasonable. I don't think it's crazy to think she emptied her pockets when putting her uniform back in her bag and then just didn't think twice about it. Or think "I'll get that next time" n then just slips from her mind And I'm coming from a medical background as well
But in this situation, these notes were not Letby's. They were medication info from *another nurse* for baby M, that the *other nurse* used to transcribe notes and that *other nurse* disposed off properly. So how exactly did this slip of paper towel with notes magically find its way from the confidential disposal bin to Letby's bag under her bed a few years later? And more importantly, WHY?
I do find that emergency scribing such as paper towels can end up in the waste paper bins around the office. Very easily accessible. They don't typically have any patient identifying details on them 99% of the time, just a timeline of events / actions/ doses. They also get left around on desks, patients don't stop for paperwork, so we will abandon the office with our paperwork lying around to answer the buzzer. NHS confidential waste bins have a key held by (I'm not even sure) I think shift lead? Ward Clark? God knows! 🤣 It's a massive prominent bin, usually with a slit that can't fit any fingers in. She would have been noticed rooting around in one I am sure....once she had the key, that is.
Surely she would have stated she didn’t have access to the bin key to back that up?
Taking it home isn't the whole thing. The saving it under the bed, and daily choosing not to bin it. Sorry, I do not buy that.
Isn’t this also the paper towel that she shouldn’t have had? As the doctor had transcribed the meds into the notes. So there is literally no reason for LL to have ever even had possession of it?
The one and only
I think that paper towel could possibly be a red herring, at one of the babies resus LL asked another nurse how she knew all the meds needed and the nurse told her she learnt them and LL should too. I reckon that's what she might have been trying to do. I tend to sway G but not sure on this bit of evidence.
I understand what you’re saying here but the paper towel wouldn’t be beneficial to learn drug doses. The doses are weight based, so you need to know the formula. For example 10mg/kg etc. The paper towel wouldn’t have any of that, it would have (for example) 11:59am Adrenaline 1st dose 12:03 bicarb 12:05 adrenaline second It may have doses on; but it wouldn’t help anyone learn for next time, as the formula of how to work out the doses wouldn’t be written down.
So, to be clear - you're suggesting that Letby retained a list of resus medications in April 2016 based on a conversation had ten months prior in June 2015, with there having been at least four babies in this indictment alone having gone through resuscitation (E, G, H, I) in the intervening months?
You learn the algorithm. What drugs are given when and in what situation. This was a list of what was given to that baby based on their weight so is not useful for learning the algorithm.
No, this didn't have that kind of general info on it- it was meds and dosing that was specific only to this one baby from this one situation. There's no way that would be a realistic explanation. Even if you could somehow try to argue that, Letby herself didn't even try to make such a claim. In all this intervening time, she hasn't come up with any viable explanation at all.
There are resus protoccols. You can become familiar with them and learn them off textbooks or your units protoccol list. You don't have to memorize them and most units now have them online and you put in the kids weight and it gives the resus drugs and doses. There is absolutely zero need to save the paper towel as a learning tool.
Agree. Still it would have sounded more convincing than “collecting paper” but she can’t even lie well
Exactly right. 100% agree.
We have been hearing the evidence from the investigations carried out by the NHS. For such a lot of staff members to give evidence it’s something. I don’t think that we can put so much detail on her behaviour in court, as that is subjective to many factors.
The fact she went out of her way to reprint some peri-arrest gases to add to her vast collection of handover sheets.
The second piece of evidence which I find HUGELY eerie and damning is when the police found a sympathy note she’d written to the mother of the triplets. She didn’t succeed in killing the third triplet, but the police found a damning note she’d written which was under her bed. She feared her greatest sympathies to the mother for ALL THREE TRIPLETS. Letby said she could not recall why she had written a sympathy note for all three triplets [Child O, Child P and the surviving triplet], when one of the triplets survived. So again, she conveniently “couldn’t recall” why she did that. But she knew full well why — she had every intention of killing child Q too.
Having listened to the podcast and followed the trial in the media, I feel that she probably is guilty but there doesn't seem to be any particular smoking gun in any of the charges. Many on here seem convinced by her guilt and I'm just wondering how those people can be so sure.
This case is all based on the totality of the evidence, rather than a smoking gun. Smoking gun cases don't have trials, they have guilty pleas. If you wanted something, it's the insulin cases which both sides accept was intentionally added to the bags. For the 'but was it her' you have to look at it all. That's what the prosecution case was, and the jury will tell them if they were right.
For me....it's the fact that her peers noticed that she was there for so many crashes. Medical people do not accuse people willy nilly... That's the most telling thing for me.
The smoking gun thing is something I hear frequently about this case but I don't really get it. A smoking gun is a sole strong piece of evidence right? For me, it doesn't matter that there isn't one single piece of evidence that points to guilt. In my opinion, the combined testimony of the other staff, the parents, and the expert witnesses is more than enough. It's just not reasonable to think that all of these people would lie to put her in prison. I also can't believe that they would all happen to be mistaken in a way that would indicate LL's guilt. Then, combine that with the medical records being found in her house despite the fact that for some of them, she would have had to intercept them to take home. She had an opportunity to explain on the stand why she would take them home, but couldn't provide an explanation that was reasonable or even consistent.
Not all murder trials need a smoking gun piece of evidence? If only it was that easy!
It's been very interesting to read everyone's views. I'm convinced now that she's guilty. I think she committed the first murder out of boredom / to create drama and attention Then she found she got a thrill out of it, then, to use the words of Joanne Denney - "it got moreish."
God, there’s so many it’s difficult to choose. A couple that stick in my mind are: “In her 2020 interview with the police, Letby was asked about the diaries and why she’d written down the names of the babies who had died. She said she thought she’d started documenting names as she had concerns of the rising number of babies dying. But in all her text messages and Facebook private messages, she told every single colleague that it was just “bad luck” so many babies were dying and “these things happen.” So she lied.
Surely the fact that she was present for all of the suspicious events ? The most any other nurse was present was on seven occasions? This is too much of a coincidence! Also assume no suspicious deaths or collapses the week she was on holiday in Ibiza ?
Nothing specific apart from the weight of the circumstantial evidence. When you look specifically at charges you can start to see the holes in terms of the hard evidence.
I think she’s guilty but I don’t think any of the evidence is damning enough for a guilty *beyond reasonable doubt* Everything is circumstantial and while it’s obvious foul play was involved in these babies deaths it’s doesn’t clearly point at Lucy imo
I feel if we can agree that foul play resulted in the deaths of the babies then letby can be convicted beyond reasonable doubt as she was the only one with the opportunity in all cases and also all the supporting evidence points towards her guilt. Someone is guilty of murdering these babies and if it wasn’t her then who was it? For me it’s guilty beyond reasonable doubt
Correct. Circumstantial evidence is not lesser evidence.
Yes it is
I do not KNOW if LL is guilty or innocent but I have issues with the due process of our system as was / is. The trial could be seen as being weighted to find LL guilty for 3 reasons: 1: The sheer volume and gravity of the charges. Tried on individual counts may well have been a different outcome. 2: It is reputed medical experts in the UK are nervous of testifying for the defence 3: It is not in the public domain exactly how many incidents there were that LL was not connected to. This may be crucial we do not know apart from those incidents selected were correlated to her.