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

[esther43]

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 (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 they stacked up.

I know, it's bizarre because her stance on the stand was obviously intended to lend itself to 'look I'm innocent, if I wasn't then why wouldn't I have just shredded them?' - This clearly shows LL is able to entertain what it might look like to a jury, having all these documents in the house.
Like you say, it can't be argued that this was her thinkin

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?

Think of it this way. If I were to buy a new shredder I might go through a little process when say browsing online for my purchase. I might think.. ' hmmm... Is it worth the money, how often would I use it, what might I use it for?'
I might think bills, bank statements and oh! Those darn handover sheets that I struggle to get to the confidential waste.
When recieving my shredder I'd probably be keen to check out my purchase and wait, the handover notes would probably be among the first papers I'd want to see shredded for the obvious reason that the notes should not be in my house.

 

[Sweeper2000]

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

Not true. This is a very sad fact, but it’s a known cause of suicide that one will hold oneself responsible even if it was just a mistake. if you were told by anyone that you were responsible for deaths and that it was through a mistake, I’m almost sure you would feel guilty or even responsible. You wouldn’t just dust the dirt off and carry on.

as an example, your carrying a pot of old engine oil down some stairs. You spill some and say to yourself I’ll clean it up after I’ve taken the pot outside. After you have done that in 30 secs you go to clean it up and you find Betty. Betty is the sweetest 85 year old woman On earth and you have met her only once. You find her on her back after having slipped on the oil with an obvious injury to her head and she is non responsive. Later after calling the ambulance you find out she is deceased. How would you honestly feel In that situation? I genuinely think any normal conscientious individual would be in utter bits about it. You might even becwise of feelings but not facts consider yourself evil.

this is a made up story but I could quote endless examples of very. Similar true stories.

ll if innocent is in that same place in that time except she’s got many Babies on hers, not just lovely old Betty.

the feeling of guilt can be Overwhelmingly powerful especially for any dutiful and conscientious individual who works extremely hard to make sure those mistakes don’t happen because they know the potential consequences of mistakes.

 

[JosieJo]

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

Yes ..the same with "ill never get married and have children" ..at the time she was only redeployed and told they were checking her competence

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

Not true. This is a very sad fact, but it’s a known cause of suicide that one will hold oneself responsible even if it was just a mistake. if you were told by anyone that you were responsible for deaths and that it was through a mistake, I’m almost sure you would feel guilty or even responsible. You wouldn’t just dust the dirt off and carry on.

as an example, your carrying a pot of old engine oil down some stairs. You spill some and say to yourself I’ll clean it up after I’ve taken the pot outside. After you have done that in 30 secs you go to clean it up and you find Betty. Betty is the sweetest 85 year old woman On earth and you have met her only once. You find her on her back after having slipped on the oil with an obvious injury to her head and she is non responsive. Later after calling the ambulance you find out she is deceased. How would you honestly feel In that situation? I genuinely think any normal conscientious individual would be in utter bits about it. You might even becwise of feelings but not facts consider yourself evil.

this is a made up story but I could quote endless examples of very. Similar true stories.

ll if innocent is in that same place in that time except she’s got many Babies on hers, not just lovely old Betty.

It's the use of the word evil that made my ears prick up.

Referring to oneself as evil is unusual, even with respect to the scenarios you are referring to.

Rarely have I ever heard anyone refer to themself as evil, and when questioned about it then proceed to brush it off as something they wrote because they thought it was a possibility they had made an honest mistake, and not realised it.
For me, no, just no. Regardless of someone's state of mind it's just far too big a reaction to be taken at face value.

Writing what Ms Letby did is one thing, but failing to satisfactorily explain why it was written doubles down on the sheer unlikelihood of it being the musings of an innocent person.

At this point, if innocent, Ms Letby is doing a bang up job of appearing to have intentionally played some part in at least one of the baby's collapses.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

It's the use of the word evil that made my ears prick up.

Referring to oneself as evil is unusual, even with respect to the scenarios you are referring to.

Rarely have I ever heard anyone refer to themself as evil, and when questioned about it then proceed to brush it off as something they wrote because they thought it was a possibility they had made an honest mistake, and not realised it.
For me, no, just no. Regardless of someone's state of mind it's just far too big a reaction to be taken at face value.

Writing what Ms Letby did is one thing, but failing to satisfactorily explain why it was written doubles down on the sheer unlikelihood of it being the musings of an innocent person.

At this point, if innocent, Ms Letby is doing a bang up job of appearing to have intentionally played some part in at least one of the baby's collapses.

JMO

You would then need to explain why this admission on the part of ll ie “the damned note“ was left hanging around in her diary?

 

[esther43]

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.

05616, member: 311532"]
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?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is one of the reasons that the NHS wouldn't want confidential waste at home. It would be a major risk to the hospital. Particularly if confidential info leaked into the media. There are policies around that too.

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?

Yes, it would be very easy for staff to do this, hence why they are advised of disciplinary procedures.

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.

No. It is not just the NHS that has this protocol it stretches across all forms of social care both statutory and non statutory.

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.

The terms for confidentiality and the circumstances in which this can be breeched is well legislated for and applies across multiple organisations.

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

For me the fact there were 257 changes things but I get we all have different thresholds.

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

A ball game that has three reasonable options 1.Shred them or tear them up
2.Take them back to work and dispose of them.
3. Keep them and procrastinate over the fact they should not be in your home.

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.

I disagree. It's quite clear that the shredder had its own room with the laundry. It wasn't reported as broken. In fact judging by the company it kept, the laundry drier, I have every reason to suspect the printer was high functioning!

 

[Parker Knoll]

It’s could be a simple question of Occam’s razor here. She had a shredder ( working or not ) but she also had documents that she absolutely shouldn’t of had.
Why didn’t she shred them ?
Because she wanted to keep them.
My opinion only.

 

[Sweeper2000]

05616, member: 311532"]
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?

Yes, that is one of the reasons that the NHS wouldn't want confidential waste at home. It would be a major risk to the hospital. Particularly if confidential info leaked into the media. There are policies around that too.


Yes, it would be very easy for staff to do this, hence why they are advised of disciplinary procedures.
No. It is not just the NHS that has this protocol it stretches across all forms of social care both statutory and non statutory.

The terms for confidentiality and the circumstances in which this can be breeched is well legislated for and applies across multiple organisations.
For me the fact there were 257 changes things but I get we all have different thresholds.

A ball game that has three reasonable options 1.Shred them or tear them up
2.Take them back to work and dispose of them.
3. Keep them and procrastinate over the fact they should not be in your home.

I disagree. It's quite clear that the shredder had its own room with the laundry. It wasn't reported as broken. In fact judging by the company it kept, the laundry drier, I have every reason to suspect the printer was high functioning!
[/QUOTE]

im confident the shredder works Im just not confident it’s such a memorable thing, same as remembering the handover sheets or paying them allot of attention.

your third point assumes these handover sheets were of significance, what evidence points to it?

this also applies to occams razor, ie she never paid them much attention to realise they really should be shredded it’s an easier and simpler answer than she’s so attached to them she didn’t dispose of.

 

[esther43]

Yes, that is one of the reasons that the NHS wouldn't want confidential waste at home. It would be a major risk to the hospital. Particularly if confidential info leaked into the media. There are policies around that too.


Yes, it would be very easy for staff to do this, hence why they are advised of disciplinary procedures.
No. It is not just the NHS that has this protocol it stretches across all forms of social care both statutory and non statutory.

The terms for confidentiality and the circumstances in which this can be breeched is well legislated for and applies across multiple organisations.
For me the fact there were 257 changes things but I get we all have different thresholds.

A ball game that has three reasonable options 1.Shred them or tear them up
2.Take them back to work and dispose of them.
3. Keep them and procrastinate over the fact they should not be in your home.

I disagree. It's quite clear that the shredder had its own room with the laundry. It wasn't reported as broken. In fact judging by the company it kept, the laundry drier, I have every reason to suspect the printer was high functioning!

im confident the shredder works Im just not confident it’s such a memorable thing, same as remembering the handover sheets or paying them allot of attention.

your third point assumes these handover sheets were of significance, what evidence points to it?

this also applies to occams razor, ie she never paid them much attention to realise they really should be shredded it’s an easier and simpler answer than she’s so attached to them she didn’t dispose of.
[/QUOTE]
It's not a simpler explanation it's an explanation you've engineered to fit the narrative. As you have been told (a few times now) LL has already said that they meant nothing to her and she did not even think of them.

im confident the shredder works Im just not confident it’s such a memorable thing, same as remembering the handover sheets or paying them allot of attention.

Again, multiple times, it was significant. She is trained on how to dispose of confidential waste, as highlighted by LL in her police interview.

this also applies to occams razor, ie she never paid them much attention to realise they really should be shredded it’s an easier and simpler answer than she’s so attached to them she didn’t dispose of.

I don't think Occam's razor applies when she has already stated that she has an issue holding on to things. Though apparantly not the handover notes, despite having 257 and being aware of protocol. It's very contradictory but MOO.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Not remembering to dispose of something is a much much simpler explanation than “is attached to bits of paper for reasons unknown“

 

[Tortoise]

You would then need to explain why this admission on the part of ll ie “the damned note“ was left hanging around in her diary?

She didn't expect she was going to be arrested and her house would be searched, without warning, being unfamiliar with police procedures, is one reason.

The (alleged) crime scene was the hospital, not her home, and she would have no reason to think they would search her bedroom, for evidence of deaths that happened years before, with medical equipment long disposed of.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

She didn't expect she was going to be arrested and her house would be searched, without warning, being unfamiliar with police procedures, is one reason.

The (alleged) crime scene was the hospital, not her home, and she would have no reason to think they would search her bedroom, for evidence of deaths that happened years before, with medical equipment long disposed of.

JMO

I thought that might have potential but im not sure. If you had done as alleged i think it reasonable to assume you would look forward to potential comeback. remember she noted awareness of possible police involvement if her word is true at the beginning and in one of her texts “I don’t know where this will end” or something like it. Meaning she had indeed. Looked to the future and a guilty person would be only too aware of possible police involvement and she is definitely intelligent enough to know That if suspected of murder the police will be at the front door. Everyone knows that. Imo

 

[Tortoise]

I thought that might have potential but im not sure. If you had done as alleged i think it reasonable to assume you would look forward to potential comeback. remember she noted awareness of possible police involvement if her word is true at the beginning and in one of her texts “I don’t know where this will end” or something like it. Meaning she had indeed. Looked to the future and a guilty person would be only too aware of possible police involvement and she is definitely intelligent enough to know That if suspected of murder the police will be at the front door. Everyone knows that. Imo

I don't think she did.

She wouldn't have lied about having a shredder if she knew they'd searched and already knew.

IMO

 

[WaxLyrical]

re the handover notes, I think there’s a vital piece of information missing, and whether they all relate to the year in question or if they’re spread across several years.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I don't think she did.

She wouldn't have lied about having a shredder if she knew they'd searched and already knew.

IMO

That’s one of the things that makes me think she didn’t lie. Forgetting isn’t lying. Why lie about the very blatant shredder and not about the note? She also must have known they searched the place otherwise they wouldn’t know and be asking ab the handovers. If she knew they were in a folder next to the shredder she’s not going to lie about it especially when the lie of “tbh I just forgot about them, so unimportant after a days work” Is so much more believable and imo the go to lie for that situation. Jmo though and fairs fair to all. Jeez if she wanted to she could have said I was collecting them together to bring back into the hospital and dispose of there.

i do get what people say though, pressure at the time made her just spit it out without thinking. I just don’t think she would lie about something like that, it’s so blatant and if the shredder itself was something of significance to her ie remembered she wouldn’t lie about it not being there when a more believable lie will be better placed. I also get what people say about the data protection but to me it’s so insignificant, ie the rule about not taking papers home. Of all things I would not expect a nurse on a unit like that to remember that rule would be second To not stealing pens. Which is abundantly prolific.

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

You would then need to explain why this admission on the part of ll ie “the damned note“ was left hanging around in her diary?

Arrogance?
Complacency?
Naivety?
Stupidity?

Take your pick.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

Arrogance?
Complacency?
Naivety?
Stupidity?

Take your pick.

JMO

if she had of wanted to she could have lied about when she wrote it. I really don’t think she lied about that note and to me that means something.

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

if she had of wanted to she could have lied about when she wrote it. I really don’t think she lied about that note and to me that means something.

If guilty, Ms Letby is not your average murderer.

I feel you are viewing her actions and comparing them to what might be deemed "normal", or expected, in the behaviour of a killer, or criminal, and then saying to yourself "well that is not what I would expect of a killer/criminal" and applying a hefty amount of benefit of the doubt based on this.

The reality, may well be, that murder was Ms Letby's first ever crime.

If this is true, then we are not dealing with a person well versed in crime.
We are not dealing with a person who is likely to adequately cover their tracks.
We are dealing with a person completely green, and completely unfamiliar with police procedure.

We are potentially dealing with an opportunist, whom seizes the moment, knowing full well they will not be caught red handed, yet completely blasé to how deep the crown will dig, once the possibility of foul play has been established.


Her alleged crimes, if guilty, remind me of that of a young cleptomaniac, not a murderer's.
Stealing impulsively from the same store week in, week out, not brazenly, but not exactly astutely, either.
Until one day the store installs CCTV, a detector and tags the products. On that day, the alarms sound, security rush over and the reality dawns on the cleptomaniac that they are indeed immersed in criminal behaviour.
How do they react? Complete and absolute denial, of course.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

If guilty, Ms Letby is not your average murderer.

I feel you are viewing her actions and comparing them to what would be "normal", or expected, in the behaviour of a killer, or criminal, and then saying to yourself "well that is not what I would expect of a killer/criminal" and applying a hefty amount of benefit of the doubt based on this.

The reality, may well be, that murder was Ms Letby's first ever crime.

If this is true, then we are not dealing with a person well versed in crime.
We are not dealing with a person who is likely to adequately cover their tracks.
We are dealing with a person completely green, and completely unfamiliar with police procedure.

We are potentially dealing with an opportunist, whom seizes the moment, knowing full well they will not be caught red handed, yet completely blasé to how deep the crown will dig, once the possibility of foul play has been established.


Her alleged crimes, if guilty, remind me of that of a young cleptomaniac, not a murderer's.
Stealing from the same store week in, week out, not brazenly, but not exactly astutely, either.
Until one day the store installs CCTV, a detector and tags the products. On that day, the alarms sound, security rush over and the reality dawns on the cleptomaniac that they are indeed immersed in criminal behaviour.
How do they react? Complete and absolute denial, of course.

JMO

I get what you are saying but no I am not. I really have been looking for anything at all that would leave me no doubt that this young woman had indeed been deceiving the entire work place, had been concealing her tracks, was aware that if she did do this there will most likely be serious consequences, had at least an inkling that if she murders kids expect something but more reasonably expect the full weight of the law against her. But no I’m left with making a choice between the med evidence in all its complexities and her own output think of it what you will. I really really absolutely would like something that gives me a nudge but No I’m left with just understanding how difficult this will be for the jury. Possibly.
totally agree though if guilty she as far from the average murderer one could possibly be.

 

[ShireChe]

It's the use of the word evil that made my ears prick up.

Referring to oneself as evil is unusual, even with respect to the scenarios you are referring to.

Rarely have I ever heard anyone refer to themself as evil, and when questioned about it then proceed to brush it off as something they wrote because they thought it was a possibility they had made an honest mistake, and not realised it.
For me, no, just no. Regardless of someone's state of mind it's just far too big a reaction to be taken at face value.

Writing what Ms Letby did is one thing, but failing to satisfactorily explain why it was written doubles down on the sheer unlikelihood of it being the musings of an innocent person.

At this point, if innocent, Ms Letby is doing a bang up job of appearing to have intentionally played some part in at least one of the baby's collapses.

JMO

Isn't it strange how we all seem to pick up different things from the notes. The line that really makes me uncomfortable is: 'No-one will ever know what happened and why I am a failure'.

I didn't hear anything about this from the police interviews shown in court, but surely the obvious question to ask is 'well what did happen and why are you a failure' . If it was me on the jury this is what I would be wanting to know. It is of course possible that questions about this are answered in the full transcript if it has been provided to the jury