Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wasn't this from LL's police interview? It will be recorded and transcribed.We don't know if she really said that. In the Husel case, police and family members of the deceased lied about what Husel said. The defense proved they were lying.
12:52pm
In police interview, Letby said he could remember Child E and he was "stable" at the time of the handover, with nothing of concern "before the large bile aspirate".
She said she and another member of staff had disposed of the aspirate and the advice was to omit the feed.
She said Child E's abdomen was becoming fuller and there was a purple discolouration, so had asked a doctor to review Child E.
She said she had got blood from the NG tube.
She was asked about the 10pm note and said if there had been any blood prior to the 9pm feed, "she would have noted it".
She said it was after 9pm that the SHO had reviewed Child E but could not reall if it was face-to-face or over the phone.
She said she could remember the mum leaving after 'the 10pm visit'.
In a June 2019 interview, she was pressed over a conversation with the SHO.
She said she had no independent memory of it.
Shesaid she could not remember the mum coming into the room at 9pm with milk, nor Child E being upset, with blood coming from the mouth.
She said she would not have told the mum to go back upstairs.
"We have a stark contrast between what the mum says and what Lucy Letby says," Mr Johnson tells the court.
"You know he was due to be fed...breastmilk. You know, we say, that is why [the mum] was there.
"This has been wiped out of the records, by Lucy Letby, because she knows the consequences of [the mum] being right about this."
12:54pm
In a November 2020 interview, Letby is asked why she had sent a text referring to Child E had queried whether he had Down Syndrome.
She said she could not remember whether there had ever been any mention of Downs in the medical notes.
The prosecution say Lucy Letby "took an unusual interest" in the family of Child E. She did social media searches on the parents two days after Child E’s death, and on August 23, September 14, October 5, November 5, December 7, and even on December 25.
The prosecution say there were further searches in January 2016.
12:55pm
The court is now adjourning for the lunch break.
It will resume later this afternoon, discussing the circumstances surrounding the collapse of Child F - Child E's twin brother.
The prosecution allege this was an attempted murder by insulin poisoning.
Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders
THE trial of former Countess of Chester Hospital nurse Lucy Letby, who is accused of multiple baby murders, is due to finalise its jury and hear…www.chesterstandard.co.uk
I’ll be interested as the case progresses to see peoples opinions on whether the babies were actually murdered or not. Regardless of the feeling on LL.
In public sector jobs in the UK it's reaaaaaaaaaally hard to sack someone. You need a lot of proof of wrongdoing, unions get involved and you're stuck with them on suspension (sometimes fully paid suspension) until actual wrong doing is found. Which can take years.What I'm really interested in is finding out what her coworkers thought of her. We might not find that out? Guess it depends on if they're going to be witnesses whose testimony is public? But for me I feel like just personally I really want to know what they really felt about her, if they trusted her, if they always actually thought she was a bit weird or shifty or whatever. Or if they were utterly shocked.
Similarly I want to know if there were suspicions about her from really early why wasn't she just sacked? It boggles the mind to me they just apparently changed her shift and watched it happen again?
Yikes. Even when they suspect murder? Shouldn't they then have least suspended her on full pay - surely a salary is a small price to pay for multiple babies lives - and not let her stay on the ward? Even as a paper pusher which I believe they did at one point. I don't know, it feels a little like failure of duty of care, unless there were people on staff who were in her corner and defending her to whoever makes those decisions - something I'd really be interested in finding out.In public sector jobs in the UK it's reaaaaaaaaaally hard to sack someone. You need a lot of proof of wrongdoing, unions get involved and you're stuck with them on suspension (sometimes fully paid suspension) until actual wrong doing is found. Which can take years.
The running theme in all this, and I think why there has been lots and lots of talk as to her not being guilty, is that literally everything in the pubic domain is from people who have said that she's totally lovely, very caring and have been, as you say, utterly shocked at her being implicated in this. Her photos show her as being pretty normal and sociable which tend to support the things we've heard about her.What I'm really interested in is finding out what her coworkers thought of her. We might not find that out? Guess it depends on if they're going to be witnesses whose testimony is public? But for me I feel like just personally I really want to know what they really felt about her, if they trusted her, if they always actually thought she was a bit weird or shifty or whatever. Or if they were utterly shocked.
Similarly I want to know if there were suspicions about her from really early why wasn't she just sacked? It boggles the mind to me they just apparently changed her shift and watched it happen again?
That looks really, really strange!
Yes, very good points and similar has been going through my mind, especially as regards your penultimate paragraph.It does.....and that we know is exactly the feeling Nick Johnson KC wants to engender.
Playing devils advocate again.....LL is a young, maybe naive, single (at the time?), slightly awkward woman. I suspect children's nursing was a passion in her life, something she loved doing, maybe to the point of obsession.
Some jobs/careers are like that.....often the ones that are action packed and have moments of pure adrenaline. The adrenaline is addictive, physiologically. When you are not at work, you may crave to be at work to get your fix.
Cue Facebook, You Tube etc. The next best thing when you can't be at work for the fix is to be reminded of work. Maybe by viewing the familes FB accounts, LL was doing just that. Maybe she was going through a grieving process for those children that she didn't harm or have any intent to harm. Maybe she IS a cold, callous killer.
My point is that there is more than one possible reason for her FB activity. Maybe she wasn't able to articulate it or didn't say because she knew it looked obsessive and creepy, not realising quite how this would all play out.
One last thing. I believe LL may have been an only child. I wonder if she lost a sibling in childhood and what the circumstances were?
All just my very non-expert opinion
Yes, exactly. She had the option at police interview to speak the truth or at least provide some responses/context, to help herself. People here are suggesting it may have equipment failure, errors, a cover up etc - but it doesn't seem like LL gave LE anything to work with. Being evasive and lying at interview isn't going to help anyone. Avoiding trial is normally the goal.
I doubt that that was the case. The way it was presented to the court gives the impression that she was asked as to why she was searching for specific people.Speaking in general terms here regarding 'can't remember'. Is it possible this is due to the manner in which questions were posed? For example 'what were you doing on the evening of February 19th 2015' would evoke 'can't remember' in most people.
Or is it another way of saying 'no comment'? Would a solicitor / barrister advise a person to respond 'can't remember'? Could it imply a person has some quite serious issue such as dissociating or blacking out (that may or may not be a severe mental health problem or a substance use problem)?
Also, when a person is accused of a heinous crime such as this one, do they get quite heavily medicated whilst either on remand in prison or at home in the community? Some psychiatric medications can render a person barely able to function or interact but may well be needed.
I can't begin to imagine what state of mind an innocent person would come to arrive at if accused of this horror.
I'm not clear on when she stopped working on the ward in a clinical capacity completely. We know she did an admin role for a bit (in 2016) and then it seems she was suspended at some point before or after police investigation? The time when they moved her from night shift to day shift, I don't know if that was intentional or just part of her normal shift plan. If it was intentional because they had doubts about malice, I agree it was irresponsible to not move her out completely.Yikes. Even when they suspect murder? Shouldn't they then have least suspended her on full pay - surely a salary is a small price to pay for multiple babies lives - and not let her stay on the ward? Even as a paper pusher which I believe they did at one point. I don't know, it feels a little like failure of duty of care, unless there were people on staff who were in her corner and defending her to whoever makes those decisions - something I'd really be interested in finding out.