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

[katydid23]

Your 100% on that? I know the “house rules” are always there but what she said seemed to be a reference to lawful requirements. Would assume legal counsel if that’s the case.

“lawyery trick” = legal loophole

She is gaslighting. That was not a reference to any legal requirement.

 

[Sundial]

There was five handovers found at her parents address in a cupboard in a shredders collection box. I don’t really include them in conclusions rdrawn from her own “collection“ though. If she knew they were there I think she would take them to her own house and put them in the folder.

But would she though? This folder has not been mentioned even by her own defence. Does said folder even exist?
JMO

 

[Sundial]

Your 100% on that? I know the “house rules” are always there but what she said seemed to be a reference to lawful requirements. Would assume legal counsel if that’s the case.

“lawyery trick” = legal loophole

Not necessarily. There was a dispute today over the whole Dr j comment between her own counsel and the prosecution claiming that LL is implying dr j is a liar.

For me I actually personally feel as though she’s tying herself up in her own web of lies to be honest. Digging a bigger hole for herself.
Moo

 

[Sundial]

Very simple, she's minimising her data protection rule-breaking because, guilty or innocent, it makes her look terrible.

And also because it is and she knows it.
IMO

 

[ColourPurple]

Not necessarily. There was a dispute today over the whole Dr j comment between her own counsel and the prosecution claiming that LL is implying dr j is a liar.

For me I actually personally feel as though she’s tying herself up in her own web of lies to be honest. Digging a bigger hole for herself.
Moo

And today was just a half hour taster. There's a lot more to come. Johnson will address every single change of story she's made, along with every single time she's disputed another parent, nurse or doctor's version of events, and won't accept all the vague non answers she gave to Myers. IMO

 

[Sundial]

And today was just a half hour taster. There's a lot more to come. Johnson will address every single change of story she's made, along with every single time she's disputed another parent, nurse or doctor's version of events, and won't accept all the vague non answers she gave to Myers. IMO

Indeed. Her answers to her own defence questions were quite vague. Some of them, Myers did not press further; avoidance on what should be key questions.
I find it difficult to understand why posters have suggested why Johnson didn’t ask xyz etc; perhaps because he had all of 20 mins to start the ball rolling before adjournment. We cannot expect all the questions and whatever else to come in the short space of time. He will have his moment, I’m sure of that.
Moo

 

[squish]

I agree, it's deeply weird. I'm not at all convinced that it's directly linked to or is in anyway indicative of her having committed the crimes she's accused of. Especially given we now know that these things span a period of five years.

Same with the FB searches, tbh. There are way too many for them to be directly connected to what she's accused of.

All MOO, of course.

I largely agree. Definitely, undoubtedly weird. And interesting psychologically, especially if she's found guilty.

But it's not actually overly relevant, at best it only proves she's a nosy cow with zero respect for patient privacy.

I think the prosecution would do better to focus on the medical evidence: try to prove the babies were sabotaged. Next, try to prove LL was the perpetrator..

All this other stuff like post it notes etc is interesting but it's a distraction as it doesn't actually prove anything. Writing "I killed them on purpose" is not actually a crime.

Maybe the prosecution are trying to appeal to the human side of the jury, but it could backfire if they're too distracted by it or feel it's weak and irrelevant.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Just so everyone knows I know if that is her approach I wouldn’t necessarily call it manipulative but it’s very sly, that’s why I think it’s a lawyery trick. It’s manipulative lies if it’s outright bs Though. It is the line drawn between “house rules” and “legal requirements“ though aand just how wrong you personally think those transgressions are.

i also can’t see her saying it without being instructed on this particular aspect of the case by people in the know. The handovers were a big part of the prosecution’s case. Mr Myers knew what would happen here another reason I think he told her to say that.

it’s very much a dodge imo but each side will have a strategy and tactics and perhaps reason as well.

 

[squish]

I get that but being organised isn't the same as doing things logically or the "right" way.

Also, I don't agree that her house was particularly organised. Her bedroom wasn't particularly neatly arranged and she had loads of random "stuff" around the place which seemed to have little or no relevance to the life of a well educated, mid 20's single woman, tbh.

Her bedroom was messy because she'd just come back from holiday the day before, and her luggage was spilling out everywhere.

She might not be a neat freak but she certainly had the normal organisational skills of a well-functioning person.

On a different note, I find it irritating when she comes out with crap like "I find it hard to throw things away". As the daughter of a hoarder, I feel she's trying to imply hoarding and vulnerability, and it's just offensive. If she had general difficulty throwing things away, her house would not look at all normal.

 

[Sundial]

I think I’m remembering something about her police interviews. im really not sure but when she said she didn’t have a shredder wasnt it suggested that the notes were found in the same room as the shredder? That may indeed have been my imagination though.

I didn’t hear of that personally. What I read was; the shredder was in the spare room with bank/visa statements still in it. There was (as far as I have seen thus far), no mention of the notes being find in the same room.

But let’s just say if they were, for a moment- hypothetically speaking. Shredders there, banks statements join the party,.. why not the notes? She said she acquired it fairly recently, it clearly worked at some point otherwise the bank statements wouldn’t be in there.
JMO

 

[squish]

Just so everyone knows I know if that is her approach I wouldn’t necessarily call it manipulative but it’s very sly, that’s why I think it’s a lawyery trick. It’s manipulative lies if it’s outright bs Though. It is the line drawn between “house rules” and “legal requirements“ though aand just how wrong you personally think those transgressions are.

i also can’t see her saying it without being instructed on this particular aspect of the case by people in the know. The handovers were a big part of the prosecution’s case. Mr Myers knew what would happen here another reason I think he told her to say that.

it’s very much a dodge imo but each side will have a strategy and tactics and perhaps reason as well.

I do get what you're saying about it being lawyery, she's sort of admitting it while minimizing it, and subtly implying she's oblivious to rules and procedures rather than being a deliberate rule breaker.

I don't know if taking random documents home is a crime as such, but it's 100% against hospital rules and makes her look like she is not a good nurse and has disregard for rules and disrespect for patients. It's not how much you personally think it's wrong, it is outright wrong. It just may not be a crime, but instead the sort of thing dealt with by her place of employment, or the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

 

[Sundial]

Just so everyone knows I know if that is her approach I wouldn’t necessarily call it manipulative but it’s very sly, that’s why I think it’s a lawyery trick. It’s manipulative lies if it’s outright bs Though. It is the line drawn between “house rules” and “legal requirements“ though aand just how wrong you personally think those transgressions are.

i also can’t see her saying it without being instructed on this particular aspect of the case by people in the know. The handovers were a big part of the prosecution’s case. Mr Myers knew what would happen here another reason I think he told her to say that.

it’s very much a dodge imo but each side will have a strategy and tactics and perhaps reason as well.

There is no line between house rules and legal requirements for confidentiality though. It is a legal obligation to dispose of them appropriately- it is not a house rule.

House rules are like not taking coffee where there are pc monitors or eating over the work station for example. A legal requirement is not even in the same dimension. There is nothing personal about it or how we think those transgressions are.
JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

I didn’t hear of that personally. What I read was; the shredder was in the spare room with bank/visa statements still in it. There was (as far as I have seen thus far), no mention of the notes being find in the same room.

But let’s just say if they were, for a moment- hypothetically speaking. Shredders there, banks statements join the party,.. why not the notes? She said she acquired it fairly recently, it clearly worked at some point otherwise the bank statements wouldn’t be in there.
JMO

I joined the dots actually remember now. Includes the pic of the shredder though. Her testimony about the folder in the spare room, just judging by the pic that is the spare room. Has nothing but a cardboard box and the shredder next to it in the corner. That box looks like it has folders in and looks organised. I thought if that is more like her office room hence the shredder and that box has all that kind of thing in it, it’s the most likely place someone would put a folder of work related stuff ie qualification certificates etc it’s also the only place in that room. Assuming it is indeed the spare room.

I think she probably didn’t spend much time thinking about them tbh more or less back of the cupboard kind of thing. Not important enough to spend the time on but something none the less.

 

[squish]

Going back to the theory that she's changed her story regarding Baby K and Dr. Jayaram, because her original claim that she was waiting to see if the baby self-corrected was confirmed as not accepted practice.

Does anyone else think this is an arrogant decision? It's like she can't bear to look like an incompetent nurse. It's surely better to look incompetent and ignorant, than to potentially face being found guilty of attempted murder?

In general, it would be her best bet to try to plead incompetence for some of these charges (especially the air embolisms as she'd only just qualified weeks before Baby A died), but her ego can't bear it.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I do get what you're saying about it being lawyery, she's sort of admitting it while minimizing it, and subtly implying she's oblivious to rules and procedures rather than being a deliberate rule breaker.

I don't know if taking random documents home is a crime as such, but it's 100% against hospital rules and makes her look like she is not a good nurse and has disregard for rules and disrespect for patients. It's not how much you personally think it's wrong, it is outright wrong. It just may not be a crime, but instead the sort of thing dealt with by her place of employment, or the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

Exactly my points really. if I wanted to go down the “sly old fox” route and could back it up I would say “yes it is my legal requirement to dispose of them properly but it doesn’t give me a time frame or indeed say that I have to dispose of them at all”. Sly old foxy stoaty stoat.
the hospital rules are the “house rules” in what I am saying. She’s definitely bending the rules if that’s the case.

 

[Sundial]

I do get what you're saying about it being lawyery, she's sort of admitting it while minimizing it, and subtly implying she's oblivious to rules and procedures rather than being a deliberate rule breaker.

I don't know if taking random documents home is a crime as such, but it's 100% against hospital rules and makes her look like she is not a good nurse and has disregard for rules and disrespect for patients. It's not how much you personally think it's wrong, it is outright wrong. It just may not be a crime, but instead the sort of thing dealt with by her place of employment, or the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

Some light reading;

https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/data-protection/data-sharing-policy.pdf

It can be seen in some instances as criminal behaviour, with very serious implications. Such as what we are seeing whether guilty or not. Apologies I don’t know if you are uk based or not- but If you research the NMC (for nurses) or the GMC (for doctors) and “confidentiality” and the various articles and journal documents on the matter- the legislation and obligations are the same, and in many other areas whether a trained nurse, doctor, social worker, teacher etc.

In 2015 in fact, there was also a member of staff (coincidentally in the same place as the accused) who was banned from practice on this very point. It doesn’t matter who does or does not do this (example as in others we’re doing it, on their phone or gossiping about patients etc) it is legally against the expectations of many professionals.

Moo

EBM

 

[Sundial]

Exactly my points really. if I wanted to go down the “sly old fox” route and could back it up I would say “yes it is my legal requirement to dispose of them properly but it doesn’t give me a time frame or indeed say that I have to dispose of them at all”. Sly old foxy stoaty stoat.
the hospital rules are the “house rules” in what I am saying. She’s definitely bending the rules if that’s the case.

Is that not the same as manipulating her position for her own agenda though? You said it was sly but not manipulation. Interchangeably, she’s technically doing the same thing.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

Some light reading;

https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/data-protection/data-sharing-policy.pdf

It can be seen in some instances as criminal behaviour, with very serious implications. Such as what we are seeing whether guilty or not. Apologies I don’t know if you are uk based or not- but If you research the NMC (for nurses) or the GMC (for doctors) and “confidentiality” and the various articles and journal documents on the matter- the legislation and obligations are the same, and in many other areas whether a trained nurse, doctor, social worker, teacher etc.

In 2015 in fact, there was also a member of staff (coincidentally in the same place as the accused) who was banned from practice on this very point. It doesn’t matter who does or does not do this (example as in others we’re doing it, on their phone or gossip sing about patients etc) it is legally against the expectations of many professionals.

Very criminal if the documents were sold or used for nefarious purposes ie targeting of individuals. Not sure of the thought if they are found but obviously securely kept with no purpose to them.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Is that not the same as manipulating her position for her own agenda though? You said it was sly but not manipulation. Interchangeably, she’s technically doing the same thing.

JMO

Bending the rules isn’t the same as wilfully distorting facts to hide or conceal a known truth which is manipulation imo.

 

[Sundial]

Very criminal if the documents were sold or used for nefarious purposes ie targeting of individuals. Not sure of the thought if they are found but obviously securely kept with no purpose to them.

Equally- we don’t know if they *were* kept securely though. It’s not a fact and she shouldn’t be doing this. We don’t know (or the jury for that matter) what “secure” means to her when they shouldn’t have even been there in the first place.

What really boggles my mind, is how many times she moved and even if she had, let’s say 5, at a push, 10 handovers, she technically could have done something about that but just ferried them from place to place, house to house, work and back, to and fro.. I can’t help but question how anyone would think that is remotely secure.
JMO