UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #21

[ShireChe]

I respectfully disagree, because she isn't on trial for allegedly killing babies through lack of care for protocols. That would be negligence and would be a civil claims matter.

No she isn't. but then again the jury aren't scientific or medical experts either. Their decision will be based on multiple factors. The material has been allowed to be submitted in court and the jury may or may not choose to give it any importance in their overall deliberating

 

[Sundial]

Within the notes total evidence he only really has the one note in the black bag as evidence implying she didn’t care about confidentiality which is my point. He only has that to imply she had a reckless attitude about confidentiality and it stands alone compared to the seemingly quite tight organisation of handovers at hers generally. It’s an exceptionally weak proposition.

Only has the one note? I’m sorry, am
I missing something? How can he “only really have the one note in the black bag as evidence”

How does 250 odd “notes” as agreed facts found at her home go to just one singular note?

How does that “tight” organisation of handovers you describe at her house or her parents (which she shouldnt even have) compare to the severity of doing it in the first place? How do you even know it is even “tight” because the accused says? For all we know she could be leaving her windows and doors open all day and night, live in a crime-ridden area, at risk of burglary, she even had dr choc and friends over.. her dad too we heard in evidence the day she was arrested still in her pjs. Anyone can access them. How is that “tight”

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

To be honest I have followed this trial with intrigue and curiosity from the start, sitting on the fence thinking it was due to understaffing, burnt out etc. many of us have worked in those sort of environments. But whatever it is that’s happened, I can’t shake the feeling that something is deeply quite wrong here. Aside from various other evidence and agreed facts; shes basically admitting she doesn’t know how to keep sensitive data and isn’t GDPR compliant; said no nurse or medical professional ever.

This afternoon we have heard how one minute she suggests she doesn’t know that policy, but it’s also reported she said she knew it should go in confidential waste. She would also know that just because it’s in your house and you live alone, does not make it ok. She’s really tripped up on her own web of lies here. She’s not stupid.

I just have a very uneasy feeling about the whole thing.
JMO

I have a theory about this: she is trying to preserve her public image.

I don’t think that there can be any real argument about whether the handover sheets at her house were there purely by accident. Even if we accept that she took them home by accident, that doesn’t explain why she didn’t get rid of them.

In my opinion, they are clearly important to her for some reason, and that reason may be either because (if guilty), they are trophies of her crimes, or for some reason unconnected to criminal acts . There is in my opinion some kind of underlying psychological attachment to them. LL may herself not be aware of what such an attachment is called, but she knows she has an attachment and that it is out of the ordinary. The closest she gets to acknowledging it is by saying that she “ has trouble throwing things away.”

If she admits that she deliberately took home the handover sheets or deliberately chose not to throw them out ( even if she is entirely innocent of these criminal charges), it would be clear evidence that she is unfit to be a nurse . I suspect she would lose her nursing license because admitting that you deliberately break GDPR and general patient confidentiality because of a psychological disorder which causes you to form unusual attachments to confidential documentation is incompatible in my opinion with being a nurse serving members of the public.

LL seems to have built her life around being a nurse . Even if she is found completely innocent, if she admits to deliberately taking home the handover notes, she will forever be known as the “weirdo” or “disgraced “ or “strange” or “stalkerish” former nurse who was acquitted of murder (and certain sections of the press will no doubt coin lots of other unflattering phrases to describe her).

It seems that is not something LL is willing to accept, even if by admitting to such an attachment, it might well provide a more plausible explanation for the jury which might end up seeing her acquitted.

 

[Marie Bell]

What I find interesting is that the Judge must have called nurse manager Elaine Powell to the stand himself.
She was called neither by the defence nor the prosecution.
The judge pretty much told johnson he couldn't cross examine her. She wasn't the defences witness because letby has to be the first (if giving evidence) according to the law.

I'm sorry, I'm confused here. I expect you mean Eirian Powell, but I don't recall the situation that you mention. Please can you say the date I need to look for it in?

 

[esther43]

I'm sorry, I'm confused here. I expect you mean Eirian Powell, but I don't recall the situation that you mention. Please can you say the date I need to look for it in?

Sorry that's right Eirane! ( Apologies) it was on the same day the prosecution rested it's case.

 

[Jazmania]

Within the notes total evidence he only really has the one note in the black bag as evidence implying she didn’t care about confidentiality which is my point. He only has that to imply she had a reckless attitude about confidentiality and it stands alone compared to the seemingly quite tight organisation of handovers at hers generally. It’s an exceptionally weak proposition.

But she said she scattered the notes randomly around her house. Plus there were notes at her parents house. At the very least this is proof that she doesn't care about confidentiality and sees herself as above the rules.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

I think the jury will take atleast a week if not longer to return a verdict when the time comes, LL’s story has been conflicting on many details and they’ll have to go right back to the testimony of each witness for each baby to recognise the discrepancies in what they’ve testified to vs what LL has said in her time on the stand and that’s just so far, NJ has barely scratched the surface yet!

It’s easy for the defence to say that there’s not enough evidence and IMO if we were looking at 1 or even 5 cases there could be room for reasonable doubt. However it’s going to be a case of looking at the totality of the evidence, the entire picture painted by both the prosecution and defence once the time comes. Whether they can safely assume that the likelihood of there being more than one murderer on the unit between 2015-2016 is close to none. If we are to believe that LL wasn’t involved then someone else was injecting babies with air, poisoning them with insulin and over feeding. To believe that, then one has to believe that there was more than one person committing these crimes because there was not another staff member on shift for all of the incidents except for LL.

Personally, I think that’s going to be the biggest hurdle for the defence to overcome. If they have experts who can testify to a reasonable degree of certainty that there was another cause for each collapse/death then the jury’s job is going to be even more difficult IMO, they will have to all agree on who’s argument they find most convincing. If the defence do have some convincing expert testimony then IMO a hung jury would not shock me one bit, finding 12 people to agree on guilt or innocence is going to be tough. In this thread alone for the several of us who believe the prosecution have a strong case, there are more than one or two who disagree, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case amongst the jury.

There are only so many times you can get away with saying ‘it was just an unfortunate coincidence’ though IMO, and here we have the defence saying there were 22 ‘unfortunate coincidences’ all involving LL and babies who by most accounts were doing very well and many close to going home. That they would suddenly collapse and die/almost die is extremely unlikely IMO.

All MOO

 

[Sweeper2000]

So the consultants initial discussions and concerns with management etc and the trust bringing in the police and carrying out a thorough investigation didn’t count?

Did the notes found at her parents or her home and the moving house and carrying these sensitive documents around not amount to anything?

Does dr Boheim medical evidence not count either, or any of the others? I don’t think we can take one piece and say nothing to see move along; it has to be viewed in its entirely. There were steps going on WAY before dr evans was even involved. People were raising concerns so I don’t think it’s that simple.
IMO

No the original quote was around what it was that the cps thought worthy enough to bring to trial. Obviously accusations by themselves aren’t. I woUID have thought in there shoes they need to see what they could use to build a strong trial worthy case. Dr evans diagnosis of criminal AE would be it And they have built everything else after it and around it.

I don’t think you can draw much from the notes with some exception, for instance the 17 of 31 in the Morrison’s bag. I certainly don’t think you could make a case for the notes being evidence of her not caring about rules or patient confidentiality. The two Exceptions being five notes in box at parents and the one note in the bin bag, all the other evidence ie 99% of the information about the handovers notes suggest at least some care. If she really didn’t give a damn about them she would just discard them without any thought for who could read them which would be evidence imo of someone not caring about patient confidentiality.

I agree with your last paragraph.

 

[esther43]

I think the jury will take atleast a week if not longer to return a verdict when the time comes, LL’s story has been conflicting on many details and they’ll have to go right back to the testimony of each witness for each baby to recognise the discrepancies in what they’ve testified to vs what LL has said in her time on the stand and that’s just so far, NJ has barely scratched the surface yet!

It’s easy for the defence to say that there’s not enough evidence and IMO if we were looking at 1 or even 5 cases there could be room for reasonable doubt. However it’s going to be a case of looking at the totality of the evidence, the entire picture painted by both the prosecution and defence once the time comes. Whether they can safely assume that the likelihood of there being more than one murderer on the unit between 2015-2016 is close to none. If we are to believe that LL wasn’t involved then someone else was injecting babies with air, poisoning them with insulin and over feeding. To believe that, then one has to believe that there was more than one person committing these crimes because there was not another staff member on shift for all of the incidents except for LL.

Personally, I think that’s going to be the biggest hurdle for the defence to overcome. If they have experts who can testify to a reasonable degree of certainty that there was another cause for each collapse/death then the jury’s job is going to be even more difficult IMO, they will have to all agree on who’s argument they find most convincing. If the defence do have some convincing expert testimony then IMO a hung jury would not shock me one bit, finding 12 people to agree on guilt or innocence is going to be tough. In this thread alone for the several of us who believe the prosecution have a strong case, there are more than one or two who disagree, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case amongst the jury.

There are only so many times you can get away with saying ‘it was just an unfortunate coincidence’ though IMO, and here we have the defence saying there were 22 ‘unfortunate coincidences’ all involving LL and babies who by most accounts were doing very well and many close to going home. That they would suddenly collapse and die/almost die is extremely unlikely IMO.

All MOO

I think the jury will take at least a month to deliberate. There's so much to go through, I'm not sure with such a demanding schedule they'd have had much opportunity to meet all together to discuss it as they go along. Working through 22 counts is going to take a massive amount of analysis. Unlike all of us they have had little time to synthesize the info. Say they spent three days on each case that would be 66 working days of debate. Could even take them a couple of months...

 

[Blondiexoxo]

I think the jury will take at least a month to deliberate. There's so much to go through, I'm not sure with such a demanding schedule they'd have had much opportunity to meet all together to discuss it as they go along. Working through 22 counts is going to take a massive amount of analysis. Unlike all of us they have had little time to synthesize the info. Say they spent three days on each case that would be 66 working days of debate. Could even take them a couple of months...

Definitely it wouldn’t surprise me atall, even just one of the counts could take days to come to a verdict so imagine with 22 we could be looking at 2-3 months.

Those who said we may be near Christmas time when this case is over could well be correct at this rate!

 

[ShireChe]

No the original quote was around what it was that the cps thought worthy enough to bring to trial. Obviously accusations by themselves aren’t. I woUID have thought in there shoes they need to see what they could use to build a strong trial worthy case. Dr evans diagnosis of criminal AE would be it And they have built everything else after it and around it.

I don’t think you can draw much from the notes with some exception, for instance the 17 of 31 in the Morrison’s bag. I certainly don’t think you could make a case for the notes being evidence of her not caring about rules or patient confidentiality. The two Exceptions being five notes in box at parents and the one note in the bin bag, all the other evidence ie 99% of the information about the handovers notes suggest at least some care. If she really didn’t give a damn about them she would just discard them without any thought for who could read them which would be evidence imo of someone not caring about patient confidentiality.

I agree with your last paragraph.

It simply IS a disregard of the rules in this case. Those documents should not have remained at her home even if they were under lock and key in one box and no one could ever access them.

Does it mean she disregards all other rules continuously as part of her character? probably not, but the jury are entitled to assess this evidence, along with all the other evidence and give it whatever relevance they feel and that is why the prosecution are giving it some prominence

 

[Sweeper2000]

Only has the one note? I’m sorry, am
I missing something? How can he “only really have the one note in the black bag as evidence”

How does 250 odd “notes” as agreed facts found at her home go to just one singular note?

How does that “tight” organisation of handovers you describe at her house or her parents (which she shouldnt even have) compare to the severity of doing it in the first place? How do you even know it is even “tight” because the accused says? For all we know she could be leaving her windows and doors open all day and night, live in a crime-ridden area, at risk of burglary, she even had dr choc and friends over.. her dad too we heard in evidence the day she was arrested still in her pjs. Anyone can access them. How is that “tight”

You need to explain why you think the notes at her house is evidence that she doesn’t care about patients confidentiality and rules?

if the notes were found in a bomb proof safe she obviously cares about patient confidentiality, she might think her house is a safe as most people do. The “tight” is a reference to the somewhat organised nature of the notes themselves. If the search found some notes in a drawer, some notes in the fridge, some notes on a window ledge, some notes in her car ie properly scattered it would suggest two things IMO 1. She’s an unorganised mess maker 2 she really doesn’t care about the notes or confidentiality or even a mix of the two. the fact they are semi organised means something imo and it doesnt point to what the prosecution are alleging.

I don’t consider her taking home notes over her entire career as evidence that she doesn’t care, or is even a particularly severe transgression of the rules.

 

[DianaWW]

A little bit more from the Independent

Lucy Letby: Murder accused nurse denies she has only cried for herself during trial

A tearful Lucy Letby denied deliberately harming numerous infants while on duty at the Countess of Chester Hospital’s neonatal unit

www.independent.co.uk

‘Asked about a number of handover sheets found at her parents’ house in Hereford, she said her parents did not enter her bedroom.

Mr Johnson said: “They are not held in confidence, are they?”

Letby said: “I don’t believe anybody would have looked at them.”

Mr Johnson asked: “Do you obey the rules only when it suits you?”

“No,” said Letby.

Mr Johnson said: “You like telling other people what to do but you don’t quite live up to those standards yourself, do you?”

Letby said: “No.”

The cross-examination of Letby will continue on Thursday.

She denies all the allegations.’

 

[Dotta]

It's a poor way to commence, tbh. Immediately attacking her behavior in court rather than addressing the actual evidence might give the impression that he's struggling, tbh.

As Defence attacking the Expert Dr Evans?

 

[Imnothere]

The handover notes speak to her character in my opinion.

You can't play smart and dumb at the same time. You have to pick a lane.

She said it was only a few, but it was 250. She said the papers were in varied places around her house, but she stored them in folders, under her bed, at her parents house etc. She's quick to call out other peoples mistakes but has no idea what to do with confidential information.

She would have been better off just saying on the stand that she's a hoarder of paper. That for me would be easier to understand than her current explanations.

 

[Sundial]

You need to explain why you think the notes at her house is evidence that she doesn’t care about patients confidentiality and rules?

if the notes were found in a bomb proof safe she obviously cares about patient confidentiality, she might think her house is a safe as most people do. The “tight” is a reference to the somewhat organised nature of the notes themselves. If the search found some notes in a drawer, some notes in the fridge, some notes on a window ledge, some notes in her car ie properly scattered it would suggest two things IMO 1. She’s an unorganised mess maker 2 she really doesn’t care about the notes or confidentiality or even a mix of the two. the fact they are semi organised means something imo and it doesnt point to what the prosecution are alleging.

I don’t consider her taking home notes over her entire career as evidence that she doesn’t care, or is even a particularly severe transgression of the rules.

Actually, could you perhaps explain to me why you think it is acceptable for a nurse to be doing so?
It is a serious legal implication. They should NOT have been there under any circumstance. If she cannot do that for whatever reason and oblige to the basic principles of being a nurse and breaching confidentiality, then she should not be practicing. It’s that simple.

I do not have to explain why “I think” this about patient confidentiality; it is a matter of fact in every single nhs, private, voluntary (etc) sectors. You do NOT do it. I’m not quite sure why you seem to think this behaviour is acceptable or trying to justify it.

 

[Tortoise]

The handover notes speak to her character in my opinion.

You can't play smart and dumb at the same time. You have to pick a lane.

She said it was only a few, but it was 250. She said the papers were in varied places around her house, but she stored them in folders, under her bed, at her parents house etc. She's quick to call out other peoples mistakes but has no idea what to do with confidential information.

She would have been better off just saying on the stand that she's a hoarder of paper. That for me would be easier to understand than her current explanations.

I think even 'hoarder of paper' could be too simple to explain this. Why shred her bank statements?

I think it's something to do with the information she wanted to keep. Which is wholly different. JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

Actually, could you perhaps explain to me why you think it is acceptable for a nurse to be doing so?
It is a serious legal implication. They should NOT have been there under any circumstance. If she cannot do that for whatever reason and oblige to the basic principles of being a nurse and breaching confidentiality, then she should not be practicing. It’s that simple.

I do not have to explain why “I think” this about patient confidentiality; it is a matter of fact in every single nhs, private, voluntary (etc) sectors. You do NOT do it. I’m not quite sure why you seem to think this behaviour is acceptable or trying to justify it.

I’ve never said it was acceptable or not against the rules, only that it isnt evidence that she doesn’t care.

I also think within the parameters of normal human behaviour this isn’t completely outf the ordinary. The exception being the somewhat organised nature of them, they are definitely gathered.
im also not trying to justify it but am saying it’s not completely unexpected or a particularly severe transgression. I’m trying to think of a comparable wrong and am seeing someone parking on a double yellow line. It’s wrong ie against the rules but actually a victimless crime unless they did get stolen and used, it’s the risk involved that’s the problem not the taking it home.

eta. Or you could shoot someone at dawn for it, if you think it’s that bad.

 

[katydid23]

Just had an interesting thought - are the prosecution allowed to cross-examine her about specific things the defence hasn't asked her?

They cannot cross her on an entirely different subject, but if they want to ask anything about each specific baby, even if that particular thing was not asked, they can do so. If Meyers ignored certain aspects of a child's case, KC can ask about it
---as far as I understand.

 

[Tortoise]

I’m trying to think of a comparable wrong

Someone at your bank taking home copies of all your bank statements and keeping them.