UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #35

[iamshadow21]

From your quote/post :
"She adds room 1 is where most of the medications are kept, for use for the whole unit".

Is this one of the reasons LL always wanted to be in Room 1?

Room 1 had the sickest babies.

We know her disdain for caring for healthier babies, doing 'nothing but feeds'.

She wanted to be where the action was. And if necessary, create it, to generate the excitement she craved .

MOO

 

[JosieJo]

She is not doing herself any favours bad mouthing Dr Jayaram.

 

[JosieJo]

If anyone present today would love to know
Are her parents present today
Is her demeanor any different when answering questions.
Any "odd" mannerisms this time

Thanks

 

[marynnu]

I have never felt this was a strong case and expect either a hung jury or not guilty verdict. However, from what is happening right now if anything is going to condemn Lucy Letby it's going to be Lucy Letby.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I have never felt this was a strong case and expect either a hung jury or not guilty verdict. However, from what is happening right now if anything is going to condemn Lucy Letby it's going to be Lucy Letby.

I agree.

I'd love to have a copy of the CPS's reasons for retrying this as I can't see anything at all which is different from first time around. Possibly the question as to when the sedation took place but even with that we're into whether it was sedation, paralysis, etc so the water is muddied even further.

So, why this one and not all the others the jury couldn't reach a verdict on? It's all rather strange, in my view.

She actually seems to be doing a better job of defending herself than first time round, I think.

 

[CS2C]

If anyone present today would love to know
Are her parents present today
Is her demeanor any different when answering questions.
Any "odd" mannerisms this time

Thanks

No, they haven't been present at all during the trial. Janet Cox is there though.

 

[DinerMite]

I agree.

I'd love to have a copy of the CPS's reasons for retrying this as I can't see anything at all which is different from first time around. Possibly the question as to when the sedation took place but even with that we're into whether it was sedation, paralysis, etc so the water is muddied even further.

So, why this one and not all the others the jury couldn't reach a verdict on? It's all rather strange, in my view.

She actually seems to be doing a better job of defending herself than first time round, I think.

They have clarified and presented the timeline in a much easier fashion for the jury. In the previous it was put to the jury that LL only had a couple of minutes to tend to her baby, dislodge the tube and whatever else she did alongside Jayram which is unrealistic. Whereas now we have a fixed period of 3:30 - 3:40AM where LL is placed directly in the room unattended. That's why they are retrying it imo.

 

[Honeybirdette]

I think looking at the case on its own, which the jury have to do (without the knowledge of previous “similar” patterns, events surrounding babies collapsing as soon as someone leaves etc)
I don’t believe there’s enough evidence to convict.
If I was on the jury in her previous trial though I would have found her guilty of this because how realistic is it to assume this is just an innocent coincidence?
It’s not likely when taken in context to everything else we knew from her original trial.
The jury doesn’t know everything else and only know about baby k.

Im not sure I could honestly, hand on my heart say, if I was on the jury here i would be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Honeybirdette]

No, they haven't been present at all during the trial. Janet Cox is there though.

Are u there today?

 

[DinerMite]

I think looking at the case on its own, which the jury have to do (without the knowledge of previous “similar” patterns, events surrounding babies collapsing as soon as someone leaves etc)
I don’t believe there’s enough evidence to convict.
If I was on the jury in her previous trial though I would have found her guilty of this because how realistic is it to assume this is just an innocent coincidence?
It’s not likely when taken in context to everything else we knew from her original trial.
The jury doesn’t know everything else and only know about baby k.

Im not sure I could honestly, hand on my heart say, if I was on the jury here i would be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury are aware she is a convicted serial killer and harmed babies before and after K, they are allowed to consider this.

For me personally it's basically a case of who is more reliable: Doctor Jayram who caught her in the act OR the convicted killer who doesnt remember anything and confirms someone harmed the children...just not her. I know where I'd place my bets imo..

 

[marynnu]

I think looking at the case on its own, which the jury have to do (without the knowledge of previous “similar” patterns, events surrounding babies collapsing as soon as someone leaves etc)
I don’t believe there’s enough evidence to convict.
If I was on the jury in her previous trial though I would have found her guilty of this because how realistic is it to assume this is just an innocent coincidence?
It’s not likely when taken in context to everything else we knew from her original trial.
The jury doesn’t know everything else and only know about baby k.

Im not sure I could honestly, hand on my heart say, if I was on the jury here i would be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

Given what we know about the first trial, I wouldn't have convicted her then either to be honest.

 

[Dotta]

I think all this effort and money should be channelled into improving safety and conditions of existing hospitals in the area.

To somehow prevent another possible LL lurking in the wards.
To minimise danger for patients, especially those most vulnerable.

I wonder what improvements have been made in this particular hospital.

JMO

 

[Honeybirdette]

The jury are aware she is a convicted serial killer and harmed babies before and after K, they are allowed to consider this.

For me personally it's basically a case of who is more reliable: Doctor Jayram who caught her in the act OR the convicted killer who doesnt remember anything and confirms someone harmed the children...just not her. I know where I'd place my bets imo..

They are but she’s maintained she’s innocent of these crimes too in the witness box, and we know wrongful convictions do exist.
They aren’t aware of the magnitude of evidence that got her convicted in the first trial and are only aware of the relatively weak evidence of baby k’s case.
I am with you btw, I believe Ravi jayaram but I’m hugely biased because I followed the first trial (which I doubt this jury did)

 

[marynnu]

Anyone else remember this from the first trial?

'The court is shown a nursing note written between 12.51am and 1.07am by Caroline Oakley for that child.

The note includes 'Longline pressures increasing and then occluding ? positional. Site appears satisfactory. Cares attended to by SN [senior nurse] Letby."

'At 0015 longline pressures observed to have dropped...longline snapped from cannula hub ?? cause.'

Letby denies she had anything to do with the longline snapping'.

 

[Marantz4250b]

They have clarified and presented the timeline in a much easier fashion for the jury. In the previous it was put to the jury that LL only had a couple of minutes to tend to her baby, dislodge the tube and whatever else she did alongside Jayram which is unrealistic. Whereas now we have a fixed period of 3:30 - 3:40AM where LL is placed directly in the room unattended. That's why they are retrying it imo.

I'm not seeing how a few extra minutes is sufficient reason to retry something like this, though. I mean dislodging a tube must take mere seconds so it's surely basically irrelevant how long she had to do it?

 

[JosieJo]

Anyone else remember this from the first trial?

'The court is shown a nursing note written between 12.51am and 1.07am by Caroline Oakley for that child.

The note includes 'Longline pressures increasing and then occluding ? positional. Site appears satisfactory. Cares attended to by SN [senior nurse] Letby."

'At 0015 longline pressures observed to have dropped...longline snapped from cannula hub ?? cause.'

Letby denies she had anything to do with the longline snapping'.

I dont remember it

 

[DinerMite]

I'm not seeing how a few extra minutes is sufficient reason to retry something like this, though. I mean dislodging a tube must take mere seconds so it's surely basically irrelevant how long she had to do it?

The original timeline had Lucy dislodging the tube, waiting for the baby to desat, disabling the alarm, Jayram walking in and performing resuscitation, the baby stabilising and then being given morphine (which takes time to cool down). That's not realistic in the few minutes the Jury were presented with previously.

This time we have approx 10 minutes where LL is alone with the baby unattended. Those few minutes certainly do count.

They've polished up their presentation basically. The original jury could only ever be a 'no verdict' because

1) There wasn't enough time in the original time frame for LL to do what is alleged

BUT

2) The tube was dislodged still so something happened. Hence the no verdict.

Now the CPS have established the timeline effectively we can see a clear window of opportunity for a convicted killer and a dislodged tube.

Edit: apologies if I'm not being clear, typing this on my lunch break

 

[Honeybirdette]

Anyone else remember this from the first trial?

'The court is shown a nursing note written between 12.51am and 1.07am by Caroline Oakley for that child.

The note includes 'Longline pressures increasing and then occluding ? positional. Site appears satisfactory. Cares attended to by SN [senior nurse] Letby."

'At 0015 longline pressures observed to have dropped...longline snapped from cannula hub ?? cause.'

Letby denies she had anything to do with the longline snapping'.

I don’t remember it either. I wonder why the prosecution aren’t suggesting she snapped it? I mean Do they often snap? How common is it?

 

[marynnu]

I don’t remember it either. I wonder why the prosecution aren’t suggesting she snapped it? I mean Do they often snap? How common is it?

I need to clarify, someone has pointed out that this line was for the other baby in the room. My mistake!
I've looked after hundreds of lines (literally), never seen one snap. I imagine it's not impossible though.

 

[Parker Knoll]

I have never previously heard that the line had snapped either.
Sounds like I am in the minority on whether I would convict or not if I was on the jury.
Jmo