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

[Parker Knoll]

Yes agreed - she also stated “ it didn’t have to be like this “ from recollection.
What’s that all about ?
BM won’t push on these things though. We are going to have to wait for the cross examination.

 

[Sweeper2000]

”this situation could have been prevented, it didn’t need to get to this”

from memory
worried me a lot too.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

”this situation could have been prevented, it didn’t need to get to this”

from memory
worried me a lot too.

Just a punt... but maybe some of the stuff she was writing about was about being moved off her usual job as opposed to being about the babies? She was obviously very confused as to why she'd been relocated and what her alleged 'failings' were supposed to be.

I guess if she's guilty, then it could even be because she's split that side of her personality off and hidden it from herself, a form of denial or even dissociative personality, compartmentalising that side of herself away from her consciousness. So that the part of her personality that comes to the forefront says 'hang on, what's going on here, I've literally done nothing wrong' and absolutely means it? Uhhh I dunno, that's deep psychological stuff there... IMO JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

Just a punt... but maybe some of the stuff she was writing about was about being moved off her usual job as opposed to being about the babies? She was obviously very confused as to why she'd been relocated and what her alleged 'failings' were supposed to be.

I guess if she's guilty, then it could even be because she's split that side of her personality off and hidden it from herself, a form of denial or even dissociative personality, compartmentalising that side of herself away from her consciousness. So that the part of her personality that comes to the forefront says 'hang on, what's going on here, I've literally done nothing wrong' and absolutely means it? Uhhh I dunno, that's deep psychological stuff there... IMO JMO

Was, in evidence and her own words.

yeh if she’s guilty that’s well within reason. Jekyll and hide. I also thinks it’s the opposite of occams razor, too easy. Little evidence of it and I think there are more possibilities with “if guilty” than what the evidence presents.

the evidence presented to me about her confusion, reactions and the way the process including her went after she was “redeployed” is very important in my eyes. Could say more but won’t Apart from this. I don’t know this girl so I have no way to visualise her life’s influences so I can say that the immaturity at times she displays imo I find striking but also not necessarily striking since I have no way of determining what level of maturity would be reasonable to expect from one that had walked in her shoes.

 

[mummyshark]

So a band 7 nurse is what was a sister nurse, then? After a senior sister was the matron who was in charge of the ward.

It‘s sad the NHS has dumbed down now, it’s in a terrible state. I have read they’re now allowing pharmacists to diagnose minor ailments too and prescribe medicines. Personally, I’d sooner have a doctor who has far more knowledge and experience. The NHS is in such a mess now and I can’t understand why if a nurse takes degrees etc to run clinics don’t train for a PhD so they can be a doctor and rise the ranks eventually, nor just for prestige but better pay.

I haven't yet caught up and I'm sure that others who have been NHS nurses would have responded already, but nurses choose to be nurses because that's the job they want. They don't care about "prestige" or "better pay" they care about their patients. I am not a nurse, but my children have spent a lot of time in hospital and nurses are unsung heros. They're the ones who are on hand, who know their patients best. They deserve better pay because the job they do warrants it. Many nurses don't want to be doctors because it would take them away from the hands on care that they enjoy and that they're good at.

The NHS is in a bad way, but in my view that's not because of the way it's structured, it's because our government aren't investing enough in to it. The NHS is one of the greatest achievements of Britain, but it's being failed by a lack of funding. Privatising services within it isn't helping matters. The NHS is on its knees due to lack of funding and a Tory desire for it not to exist. They would rather see it fail so the rich have good health care and the poor are left wanting. If we hadn't had the Tony's in power for the past 13 years the NHS would be very different.

I know this isn't relevant to the case but i can't stand the NHS as a whole being blamed. It's not that simple.

 

[katydid23]

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.

How many feeble and unlikely explanations will we need to try and cover up those inconsistencies?

Even when was asked point blank in a formal police interview ----Do you have a shredder?' and her answer is NO, we do mental gymnastics for her to change her answer-----she probably broke it but she just answered no , OR she just forgot she had one, even though it was sitting in plain sight in her room.

When caught lying about her interactions with baby E and F's mother, we give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant, and assume the 4 people who corroborate the mothers version of events are mistaken or dishonest, even though there is no logical reason to do so.

When various notes are found, some looking like emotional confessions to the crime, we quickly dismiss them as meaningless scribble, and work hard to change the meaning by tacking on other words to the beginning of the sentences, to alter the incriminating meaning.

 

[katydid23]

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.

The above thought process of hers makes it seem like she is not telling the whole truth because it makes no sense.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Yis

 

[katydid23]

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

Maybe because it is against hospital rules to have confidential medical information for hundreds of patients in your home?

 

[katydid23]

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?

Maybe because she is reckless and a big risk taker?

If guilty, then it would not be at all unusual for her to do something risky and stupid. If guilty she did dozens and dozens of brazen stupid things. She likely enjoyed doing so.

If innocent, it is very hard to understand why she would write those incriminating words,and even harder to understand why she didn' t dispose of them.

 

[mummyshark]

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

Do you not think that putting them in a folder is odd in itself? I can't imagine myself taking a piece of paper out of my work bag, think "oh ****, I shouldn't have brought this home", and then going on to put it away in a folder. Putting it on my desk at home and then forgetting about it? Absolutely. Putting it back in to my work bag and then forgetting about it? Sure. Putting it in to a specific folder of "things I shouldn't have brought home"? No.

 

[mummyshark]

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?

I get your point, but they didn't ask her how many shredders she had. In fact, I don't think they asked her if she had a shredder, she voluntarily said she didn't have one.

It was said in evidence that they identified the documents that had been shredded - bank statements - I'd be interested to know the dates of these statements. Equally, I'd like to know if the shredder box which had some handover notes in it was the box for the same shredder.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Do you not think that putting them in a folder is odd in itself? I can't imagine myself taking a piece of paper out of my work bag, think "oh ****, I shouldn't have brought this home", and then going on to put it away in a folder. Putting it on my desk at home and then forgetting about it? Absolutely. Putting it back in to my work bag and then forgetting about it? Sure. Putting it in to a specific folder of "things I shouldn't have brought home"? No.

I think the oddest point about the handover notes is that 17 related to charges were found in one Bag and I presume each may have been from very different dates.

 

[mummyshark]

I think the oddest point about the handover notes is that 17 related to charges were found in one Bag and I presume each may have been from very different dates.

Do we know if the 17 were from the 17 attempted murders? If so, was she perhaps trying to learn something?

Also, wasn't it said, when it was first revealed just how many hand over sheets she had, that on some of the ones that didn't relate to babies in the charges, she had written on the back of them notes related to babies included (I think Baby N and O)? I could be misremembering.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Do we know if the 17 were from the 17 attempted murders? If so, was she perhaps trying to learn something?

Also, wasn't it said, when it was first revealed just how many hand over sheets she had, that on some of the ones that didn't relate to babies in the charges, she had written on the back of them notes related to babies included (I think Baby N and O)? I could be misremembering.

I think all we know about the seventeen in one bag is that there were seventeen of 31 handover notes in total that related to the charges. It’s a muddying fact that 17 of 31, especially with no other details.

yes i Think you are correct on the handwritten ones, but again not sure of the details. For instance were the handover notes with baby o in handwriting dated at the same time as baby o was present on the unit etc

she has 250 odd ho altogether

imo most evidence suggests they are not important to her.

its really annoying because I want to know to what degree she had disposed of others. 250 odd I don’t think that’s every single one for a year so what to do with the others? Other details as well like if they were found in any particular order, condition of them etc if working overtime or others is it possible to be given more than one handover sheet a day etc just to try and get more potential building points from the evidence.

 

[katydid23]

What I think most interesting, is the post explaining that each handover sheet at CHOC would have ALL the babies in the neonatal unit at the time. So essentially, LL would have vital medical info about every baby that had been in the unit for that entire year. Why did she want or need that?

 

[Kemug]

What I think most interesting, is the post explaining that each handover sheet at CHOC would have ALL the babies in the neonatal unit at the time. So essentially, LL would have vital medical info about every baby that had been in the unit for that entire year. Why did she want or need that?

And if she didn't want or need that, why on earth would she bring them home, or if that was unintentional, why on earth would she not return them, or at least destroy them? Especially as she had a shredder right there.

 

[Kemug]

Whether guilty or not guilty, it is abundantly clear that LE was justified in charging LE and bringing her to trial.

 

[Charlot123]

<modsnip - response to snipped portion of above post>

The 'direct connection' with LL and the insulin is two fold----she is one of 2 nurses that co-signed for and made up the bags and hung the first one. And she was the ONLY caretaker that was present in the unit for ALL of the charged collapses.

The only one for the whole unit? No second nurse or doctor? No one else? The only one per all babies?

Surely one can't run an ICU unit with only one caregiver? And what if she fainted, for example? So ICU would be left with no one?

It's like equipping a passenger airplane with just one pilot instead of two.

 

[Kemug]

Whether guilty or not guilty, it is abundantly clear that LE was justified in charging LE and bringing her to trial.

Sorry, I meant of course to say that LE was justified in charging LL.