UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #20

[esther43]

Since everyone is talking about shredders thought I might get in on it. I want to kowthe condition this shredder fellow was fond In as if it’s brand spanking ll might be telling the truth. Others may be correct as well that it stopped working and this was the way the police knew it was bank statements in them. We also have to remember the handover sheets were dated from way before the new house so if she did have a habit of putting them in the folder she may well have continued in a highly unthinking way to store them there without really paying attention. Many handover notes were found in numerous bags which suggests they laid there and then were put in the folder as a bundle After a few months or so. I believe that folder was in the box next to the shredder so was stored with the rest of her work papers. I would be surprised if the police didn’t have the relevant info on this.

just say for instance that ll used that shredder only once and bought it for the house move, I think it’s reasonable to assume one would forget about it as it would become a piece of static and unnoticeable junk.

If buying a new shredder 'for the house move' would that not be the perfect time to to shred handover notes?

 

[Parker Knoll]

One would think so !

 

[Sweeper2000]

If buying a new shredder 'for the house move' would that not be the perfect time to to shred handover notes?

would be if one noticed it and them. Three months in the new place I would assume isn’t quite long enough to get round to something seen as the height of triviallitt. Probably still sorting stuff out, didn’t she say she still had stuff in Hereford?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Since everyone is talking about shredders thought I might get in on it. I want to kowthe condition this shredder fellow was fond In as if it’s brand spanking ll might be telling the truth. Others may be correct as well that it stopped working and this was the way the police knew it was bank statements in them. We also have to remember the handover sheets were dated from way before the new house so if she did have a habit of putting them in the folder she may well have continued in a highly unthinking way to store them there without really paying attention. Many handover notes were found in numerous bags which suggests they laid there and then were put in the folder as a bundle After a few months or so. I believe that folder was in the box next to the shredder so was stored with the rest of her work papers. I would be surprised if the police didn’t have the relevant info on this.

just say for instance that ll used that shredder only once and bought it for the house move, I think it’s reasonable to assume one would forget about it as it would become a piece of static and unnoticeable junk.

I can only speak from personal experience.

So, why do people buy shredders? Do they think; I'm an adult now, "striking out on my own", "fleeing the nest", etc, etc, so I'll do all the responsible things, one of which is getting a shredder so I can be a proper adult and shred all my important stuff as soon as I get them?

Or do they, as in my case (and likely 99% of evey other human's cases) move into their new home and then 18 months later realise they have an absolute mountain of sensitive personal info, go out and purchase a fifteen quid shredder and plan an evening of destroying 300 pieces of paper only to find that their shiny new cheap af shredder stops working after a few minutes? They then chuck it (because 15 quid is less than the price of a round of drinks) or intend to but just hoy it in a room they never go into! I should really post a out of the room that my shredder had been languishing in the past 18 months!

It's stopped working because it's pre-set to to do that is my guess. And yeah, respect to Tortoise who has posted facts that make this discussion essentially redundant, but hell, what's the point in life without a bit of pointless discussion? I'm sure that sooner or later (probably later, tbf) the status of a shredder will be critical to a major crime so at least it will be referencable here!

 

[Marantz4250b]

No
Yes, that's odd, pointing towards the fact they had 'no purpose'. The fact they had no purpose is the very reason that ideally, they should have ended up in the shredder like bank statements imo.

But...to be the contrairian here; if they had "no purpose" why bother shredding them?

 

[Tortoise]

It seems such an odd thing to lie about when you see that she's also clearly implying (saying, in fact) that even if she did have a shredder, it would not have occurred to her to use it to dispose of the handover sheets since they 'had no purpose' and she 'did not think of them' as something she needed to get rid of -

From your link


Why deny having a shredder when she didn't use not having one as a reason for not disposing of the handovers?

Confusing throught process there. Or maybe it's just me with the confused thought process.

But she's said that on the stand, not in her police interviews.

She had to come up with something after it being revealed that she did have one.

Here's what she had already said to police

She said she "didn't know how to dispose of them" and no-one else had seen them.

She said she did not have a shredder and those sheets were at home 'inadvertently'.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, April 27

 

[Sweeper2000]

I can only speak from personal experience.

So, why do people buy shredders? Do they think; I'm an adult now, "striking out on my own", "fleeing the nest", etc, etc, so I'll do all the responsible things, one of which is getting a shredder so I can be a proper adult and shred all my important stuff as soon as I get them?

Or do they, as in my case (and likely 99% of evey other human's cases) move into their new home and then 18 months later realise they have an absolute mountain of sensitive personal info, go out and purchase a fifteen quid shredder and plan an evening of destroying 300 pieces of paper only to find that their shiny new cheap af shredder stops working after a few minutes? They then chuck it (because 15 quid is less than the price of a round of drinks) or intend to but just hoy it in a room they never go into! I should really post a out of the room that my shredder had been languishing in the past 18 months!

It's stopped working because it's pre-set to to do that is my guess. And yeah, respect to Tortoise who has posted facts that make this discussion essentially redundant, but hell, what's the point in life without a bit of pointless discussion? I'm sure that sooner or later (probably later, tbf) the status of a shredder will be critical to a major crime so at least it will be referencable here!

Yeh the new place I’m staying in not only does it have the perching chair, but the kitchen is full of letters unsorted, it’s also full of photos and cards of all types, it’s a typical house. Much the same as the last one I was in which had all that stuff minus the perching chair. Isn’t not sorting paperwork more or less the done thing? I can take some pics if people want to see, two rooms full of paperwork and letters, altogether probably weighs ten kilo. Ten kilos of paper is a serious serious amount.

 

[Anxala]

But she's said that on the stand, not in her police interviews.

She had to come up with something after it being revealed that she did have one.

Here's what she had already said to police

She said she "didn't know how to dispose of them" and no-one else had seen them.

She said she did not have a shredder and those sheets were at home 'inadvertently'.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, April 27

Thanks for that, Tortoise. I missed that along the way. That certainly throws a different light on things...

 

[esther43]

But...to be the contrairian here; if they had "no purpose" why bother shredding them?

Well because of data protection. You are not allowed to have confidential documents at home. You are not allowed to share a laptop or computer with someone in your home either, if it has confidential data on. LL would, without doubt know that it is against the rules so why not shred these sheets or take them to the confidential waste? 257 is an immense number and it's not like LL was an untidy or disorganised person. She even thought to buy a shredder.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Well because of data protection. You are not allowed to have confidential documents at home. You are not allowed to share a laptop or computer with someone in your home either, if it has confidential data on. LL would, without doubt know that it is against the rules so why not shred these sheets or take them to the confidential waste? 257 is an immense number and it's not like LL was an untidy or disorganised person. She even thought to buy a shredder.

Because she did not associate them with enough importance? Once they are in the folder it would be extremely easy to forget about them. Fire and forget handover sheets

 

[esther43]

would be if one noticed it and them. Three months in the new place I would assume isn’t quite long enough to get round to something seen as the height of triviallitt. Probably still sorting stuff out, didn’t she say she still had stuff in Hereford?

The fact she had 257 of them is not trivial. A few in her pocket maybe but not this number. To say she didn't know how to dispose of them is ludicrous. This is covered in Trust induction as is the importance of data protection.
Also the NHS take it very seriously <modsnip - no link>

 

[esther43]

But...to be the contrairian here; if they had "no purpose" why bother shredding them?

Because it would be meaningful to shred them because this would ensure compliance with hospital regulations. In the same way you wouldn't want people at the recycling centre going through your bank statements.

 

[Dotta]

Because it would be meaningful to shred them because this would ensure compliance with hospital regulations. In the same way you wouldn't want people at the recycling centre going through your bank statements.

She obviously had her reasons to keep these documents.

Maybe she planned to get rid of them?
Hence the shredder.

But I doubt we will ever know.

By the way, when at school I always tear documents with my hands haha
We have a shredder in teachers' room, but it wails so desperately and loudly as if in agony.
It gets on my nerves and ears!

JMO

 

[Anxala]

But...to be the contrairian here; if they had "no purpose" why bother shredding them?

But, at the same time, why say one thing in the police interview and then something I feel is quite contrary and a little bit unsettling to that on the stand?

Her stance in the police interview was that she was fully aware that they were confidential (implied by her 'no one else has seen them'), that they should not be in her possession, but that she just didn't know how to dispose of them. Her stance on the stand is pretty much a denial of all that: she's downgraded them to something so insignificant that they didn't even enter her thoughts as something she needed to dispose of.

Guilty or not guilty, shredder or no shredder, there's an inconsistency here that does warrant attention.

 

[Tortoise]

I think this lie about not having a shredder has the potential to be quite problematic for her.

I do not believe it was an oversight, since she had just got it. That would be even more reason not to have forgotten she had it.

The jury are going to be paying attention to assess whether she is credible and truthful in all areas of her evidence, IMO.

It might seem insignificant as regards the allegations, but character is significant. If she creates a new lie to cover up an earlier lie, it's a deeper problem. When to trust her and not to trust her?

It would have been better to have said 'I lied to police because I was embarrassed to have kept all that paperwork at home'.

It's not gonna earn her points with the jury IMO

 

[Dotta]

I think this lie about not having a shredder has the potential to be quite problematic for her.

I do not believe it was an oversight, since she had just got it. That would be even more reason not to have forgotten she had it.

The jury are going to be paying attention to assess whether she is credible and truthful in all areas of her evidence, IMO.

It might seem insignificant as regards the allegations, but character is significant. If she creates a new lie to cover up an earlier lie, it's a deeper problem. When to trust her and not to trust her?

It would have been better to say 'I lied to police because I was embarrassed to have kept all that paperwork at home'.

It's not gonna earn her points with the jury IMO

Exactly.
Some ridiculed the discussion of a shredder forgetting it is a symbol of a LIE.

JMO

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

BUT I think I would of said I had a shredder but it was broken.
That’s just me.

If in relation to a crime, I was asked how many phones I have, I would answer, honestly, one.

Because I only use one phone day to day. The inference would be that it would be key to the investigation that my one working phone was mentioned.

The fact is that I have in my posession, a number of other phones, which are either broken or obsolete. Several I haven't seen or touched in years, gathering dust in drawers or in boxes, which come to think of it, may or may not have been disposed of at some point in the past.

If on the other hand, when asked how many phones I have, I said, "well I dont know, it could be three it could be seven" this would come across as not only unhelpful but potentially avoiding a simple question. Does that make sense?

 

[Dotta]

If in relation to a crime, I was asked how many phones I have, I would answer, honestly, one.

Because I only use one phone day to day. The inference would be that it would be key to the investigation that my one working phone was mentioned.

The fact is that I have in my posession, a number of other phones, which are either broken or obsolete. Several I haven't seen or touched in years, gathering dust in drawers or in boxes, which come to think of it, may or may not have been disposed of at some point in the past.

If on the other hand, when asked how many phones I have, I said, "well I dont know, it could be three it could be seven" this would come across as not only unhelpful but potentially avoiding a simple question. Does that make sense?

But you could answer exactly what you wrote in this post.
It all makes sense to me - but Im not Police

PS
Older phones bring lots of money when sold.
I don't know exactly why, but you can have small fortune in your drawers

JMO

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

Listening to a reading of the transcript of the first day of questioning by the defence, there is something in particular Ms Letby said, during her answers, regards her 'not good enough note', that I feel could undermine her case.

When asked by her own defence to explain why she had written "I am evil. I did this." Ms Letby answered:
"I felt at the time if I had done something wrong and I didnt know I'd done that, I must be such an awful evil person, if I'd made mistakes and not known."

This just makes no sense.
Her reaction, that she must be an awful, evil person - purely for the possibility of having made a mistake, accidentally, is so completely at odds with how we might picture anyone might honestly react in her position.
Her answers surrounding this particular part of the note just do not stack up, and are going to be a real bone of contention during cross examination.

JMO


Source - Daily Mail: Episode 31 Lucy Letby Trial Podcast

 

[Sweeper2000]

The fact she had 257 of them is not trivial. A few in her pocket maybe but not this number. To say she didn't know how to dispose of them is ludicrous. This is covered in Trust induction as is the importance of data protection.
Also the NHS take it very seriously <modsnip>

Do you think one of the reasons so much emphasis is put on the documents because the nhs are aware they might be sued if that data gets in the wrong hands? Ie if no one else sees it aside from staff it’s not a problem?

do you also think one of the reasons for such strict rules about handling documents is because it is found that it’s such a normal occurrence for staff to take it home? I reckon it is. It’s a rule made to fix the issue that is people so Often take It home? It’s just in the nature of people to take it home hence the rule or in other words the strictness of the rule And the. Rule. Itself simply exists because it’s a chronic problem. This problem is different from actively looking for records that they. Shouldn’t have been. the example you mentioned may. Be a problem because it had the potential to affect the lawful proceedings? Or maybe it was because that information may well have been used to affect the terrorists family. Etc.

as I said 257 is allot of papers, however if she did just put them in her bag and. They gathered there and then a bundle was put into the folder that changes things IMO. It goes from putting single sheets into a folder every day which 100% would mean a problem to putting a bundle of sheets in the. Folder for example once every month or 12 times a year. The evidence is that. They found multiple sheets in each bag which supports my stance on them.

she knew how to dispose of them at work but once. They reached home that’s a different ball game.

I do think my stance on the “lie” is reasonable. She hadn’t even properly moved in to the Newhouse yet. Much more important things to be doing than shredding paper I am. Sure, maybe it was due but not completed as she had Avery busy schedule. If she did buy the shredder close to. The house move she may not have used it enough to have a memory log of it.

jmo

one thing about the handover notes IV not seen mentioned. The bag with 31 approx handover sheets had 17 relating to babs in the charges. How is it that 17 papers assuming from different times across a year all end up in the same bag? I don’t think we have been told the dates on them but if ten are from 2015 and seven from 2016 they were not collected in the same. Month.