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

[Tortoise]

You ever known one?

Do I need to have?

I've followed a few cases over the years at WS

 

[Sweeper2000]

Be interesting to see what information the jury will use to come to their conclusion. After the verdict will that ever be known? Would guess that’s a part of what makes this case interesting.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Because they tend to be deceptive folk in the main, IMO

I meany why in the same note? And a note which they thought unlikely to be seen by anyone else, as she clearly did?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Be interesting to see what information the jury will use to come to their conclusion. After the verdict will that ever be known? Would guess that’s a part of what makes this case interesting.

No, the jury members are prohibited from ever discussing what was said during deliberations.

 

[DinerMite]

The note is interesting. My POV: She tries to convince herself at first with "slander/discrimination" but as the emotions come thick and fast and her writing gets messier the truth comes out, she talks of wanting to not be around, not deserving her parents, killing them on purpose and it all accumulates to "I am evil I did this" It's her admission of guilt to herself imo which started off as a protest of innocence.

 

[Tortoise]

I agree. This is not how people talk, at least not adults. It's like something you'd hear from a seven year-old.

I think a lot of the evidence points to an immaturity with her.

The way she says things to parents, allegedly, that even a fairly young child would appreciate was an inappropriate response at a time of such grief.

Asking the consultant who are these people? repeatedly, as if she has no self-control in situations, and the meltdowns she refers to remind me of toddler tantrums.

And if it's true that she attacked these babies in the manners alleged, it reminds me of an angry child breaking someone else's dolls, mindlessly.

JMO

 

[Jazmania]

Be interesting to see what information the jury will use to come to their conclusion. After the verdict will that ever be known? Would guess that’s a part of what makes this case interesting.

Hopefully they will use all of the information? Bit worrying if they only use some if it!

 

[Sweeper2000]

No, the jury members are prohibited from ever discussing what was said during deliberations.

Well cheese to that with knobs on.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Hopefully they will use all of the information? Bit worrying if they only use some if it!

Will definitely use all of it but I think only some major points will be vital to reach the conclusion.

 

[Tortoise]

I meany why in the same note? And a note which they thought unlikely to be seen by anyone else, as she clearly did?

She seems to have written some parts at different times, even if it's hours later on the same day.

I wouldn't presuppose that she had the same intent or frame of mind or internal narrative at all of these times, and I wouldn't presuppose that she had the same amount of self-restraint at all times. She might have just been releasing stuff that she hadn't dared express before that point, with careless abandon.

 

[Tortoise]

I meany why in the same note? And a note which they thought unlikely to be seen by anyone else, as she clearly did?

Incidentally, can anyone actually recall reporting of any notes where she says she didn't do it?

 

[WaxLyrical]

Incidentally, can anyone actually recall reporting of any notes where she says she didn't do it?

No, only the opening speeches which said something along the lines of the notes containing numerous protestations of innocence. Of the notes we’ve seen, there’s really only the ‘I haven’t done anything wrong’.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Incidentally, can anyone actually recall reporting of any notes where she says she didn't do it?

as far as I know she does not Know what it is that she was supposed to have done but she did say “I haven’t done anything wrong”.

 

[Cluedoneit]

Has anyone considered ‘On purpose’ to be a sign of arrogance? At the time she wrote it, most people would have considered her actions incompetence rather than malicious as we were a year from the police investigation. She may have been saying ‘I’m an excellent nurse, I didn’t do It because I was bad at my job, I killed them on purpose.’ Just an idea and my opinion only.

 

[Tortoise]

30 hours of interviews for individual case examination of 17 babies plus other matters, equates to about 1.5 hours say per baby, over three interviews. So say half an hour per baby, excluding repetition?

I'm finding it hard to think what else she might have to add on the witness stand, to what she's said before. So I'm thinking we might get through her evidence in chief fairly quickly, maybe even over two days?

 

[Sweeper2000]

I’ll be interested to hear why she called dr brearey and dr Ravi the b word. The way her testimony went would suggest imo that there was something specific said that she had heard. I’m not sure if we will hear that though would seem the questioning on the notes is over.

 

[bbsaz]

If we believe the 257 handover notes span slightly longer than the one Yr in question, then potentially LL moved some of them 3x


1) Ash House to flat
2) Flat to Ash House
3) Ash House to Westbourne Road

 

[katydid23]

Sorry no the standard of proof in a murder trial is much higher than the balance of probabilities. The jury can only convict if they are sure. This is what the judge will tell them.

If it ends up being a proven fact, that ONLY Nurse L was present for all of the charged incidents, then I think that will lead to a very high percentage of probability. All of the other side issues, like the 2nd TPN bag, and the confusion about aspiration, etc, will not be as important. It is very hard to believe that there is another nurse tainting the TPN bags besides the alleged actions of LL. JMO

 

[katydid23]

Agreed those summaries are top notch stuff.

ive still got a lot of doubt about the insulin. I don’t even think it crosses the bar for attempted murder. If the insulin doses were higher I would think this is definitely enough insulin to completely overwhelm the system with insulin. A drop is not the same as a torrent. Or if insulin had been administered away from a place that would rapidly recognise the blood sugar issues and treat them. I remember the testimony that said it causes issues for the brain as in stops it getting enough energy but I don’t remember there being any testimony about what would have happened if treatment hadn’t been immediately available.

we also have the issues with multiple bags being contaminated with insulin in the latter case it seemed numerous bags had roughly the same amount, suggesting the dosage was measured. If insulin couldn’t be detected in the bag presumably an attempt to kill would involve an amount of insulin that perhaps couldn’t be treated.

So if the insulin wasn't enough to kill a baby, then what? Should the poisoning of the bags be ignored?

 

[katydid23]

Might simply be that she connected the last interaction with the baby with a possible cause for the collapse. Logical thinking, “this baby collapsed without a obvious reason so perhaps the last interaction with the baby was the reason“. it follows that if these were more or less random collapses she wouldn’t be able to think of the cause so logically it might be the last interaction.

Oddly enough, LL was the 'last interaction' in many of the collapses.