UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #23

[Lay08]

Is LL allowed visitors during the course of her being on the stand?

whos LL?

 

[WaxLyrical]

I’d be interested to see what was put to ll in police interview. It could be that she just accepted what was put to her at the time in an effort to be cooperative. Now is the crunch time where she could be drawing a line as she realised what the costs could be. In essence was Lucy letby too agreeable and obligingly accepting at the time of police interview?

I can see someone doing that especially if a bit neurotic. Police are very intimidating, doesn’t like conflict, feels very under the spotlight, not too sure about what happened so just agrees with what the police are saying.

reasonable to expect I think.

The only way (imo) it can make sense is if there’s wider context to the police interviews as you say, and if all her responses were hypothetical, eg if someone walked in on me seemingly watching a child deteriorate it would be because I was looking for a self correction, and if the baby didn’t self correct I’d raise the alarm if a doctor wasn’t already present.

Because otherwise, doing a complete 180 is total utter madness. I assume she’s actually been present at her own trial and has actually listened to all the evidence presented thus far..

Also, I think if BM knew she was denying being there at all, he’d have certainly put that to Dr J when he was on the stand.

Utterly bizarre.

 

[JosieJo]

Not sure. I think it's been mentioned that she can't canfer with her legal team during her testimony.

Yes which makes sense...I wondered (especially being lengthy and having lots of days off) if someone could visit her and giver her the heads up on things she said so to speak

 

[JosieJo]

whos LL?

The defendant Lucy Letby

 

[Anxala]

Is LL allowed visitors during the course of her being on the stand?

I'd expect so. She's on trial but she's also still on remand (ie. not convicted) so presumably entitled to the same privileges anyone else on remand would be in terms of family, friends etc visits.

ETA. I feel so sorry for her parents, can't even begin to imagine what life must be like for them.

 

[Tortoise]

I wonder about Baby E and his Mum - I was waiting for the cross examination on this subject.

Didn't the nurse know about feeding time at 9?

Or maybe she chose that exact time to (allegedly) attack the child and then observe Mother's horrified expression while seeing blood in Baby's mouth and hearing "horrendous" scream?

And then told Mum to leave knowing perfectly well how Mother would suffer not knowing what was happening to her child?

Aren't feed times fixed?

And now she is saying Mum's testimony is false!

I hope Prosecution will cover all this thoroughly during cross e.!
I will be waiting.

JMO

If as the prosecution stated -

"What we are going to see as we progress is that Lucy Letby’s method of attacking the babies in the neonatal unit was beginning to develop," Mr Johnson tells the court.

and

"These were not naturally occurring, or random events; they were deliberate attempts to kill using a slightly different method by whilst Lucy Letby sought to give the appearance of chance events in the neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital."

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

- and if (allegedly) LL had already killed babies A and D with air embolisms, and was conscious that colleagues were talking about unexpected and unexplained deaths,

- and if baby E died from air embolism and bleeding from throat injury,

it's possible the bleeding (before follow-up injection of air) was intended to point towards haemmorhage and draw attention away from another unexplained death. IMO

Baby E's mum turned up slightly earlier than expected for the feed, and could have interrupted an alleged plan to inject air at that time. The experts allege that air was injected a few hours later, causing his collapse.

I tried to imagine a scenario where LL asks mum to leave, and then immediately injects air, causing a collapse. The mum would have to be called back because it's a life-threatening situation, and she tells the doctor, 'I was here just 10 minutes ago and he was bleeding and screaming, and nurse sent me back to my ward'. The doctors are going to think well if he was bleeding and screaming 10 minutes ago, why did LL tell mum to go, and why didn't LL bleep us, and his collapse isn't related to the extent of bleeding that they can see at that time. So I think LL could have been surprised by the mum's early visit, and waited a while to see if anyone would come. Then when they didn't, she decided to report the bleeding to a doctor 40 minutes later, because the mum knew, the mum also knew he hadn't collapsed, and mum or dad could contact the ward for an update.

Allegedly and speculatively and if she is proven guilty.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

I’m so used to following American cases so forgive if this is a silly question but will the prosecution get a rebuttal? Are they able to put witnesses on the stand after the defence has finished to rebut? As the burden of proof is on the prosecution, they usually get the last word.

 

[Tortoise]

I’d be interested to see what was put to ll in police interview. It could be that she just accepted what was put to her at the time in an effort to be cooperative. Now is the crunch time where she could be drawing a line as she realised what the costs could be. In essence was Lucy letby too agreeable and obligingly accepting at the time of police interview?

I can see someone doing that especially if a bit neurotic. Police are very intimidating, doesn’t like conflict, feels very under the spotlight, not too sure about what happened so just agrees with what the police are saying.

reasonable to expect I think.

She patently made plenty of denials in her police interviews. As she has on the stand.

I don't think we can say there is evidence of it in her nature to be submissive and agree to things she disagrees with.

JMO

 

[Cluedoneit]

I’m so used to following American cases so forgive if this is a silly question but will the prosecution get a rebuttal? Are they able to put witnesses on the stand after the defence has finished to rebut? As the burden of proof is on the prosecution, they usually get the last word.

It’s rare to get a rebuttal ( where the prosecution reopens their case after the defence has rested) but I have a funny feeling with all the new information Letby is providing that her defence didn’t talk to the prosecution witnesses about at the time that the judge will either allow it or call Dr J to the stand himself.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

I’m honestly wondering if things are going to proceed on Wednesday. I feel like something happened with LL yesterday over the lunch break. Maybe she is thinking of changing her plea, or maybe she’s trying to get out of having to continue giving evidence. I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s suddenly having to have her mental state assessed to see if she’s fit to stand trial. IMO that’s the only way she can get out of this is if she is found unfit, a mistrial would be declared and eventually once deemed fit to stand trial, a new jury would be selected and we’d start all over again, then she could decide not to give evidence. Which would be best case scenario for LL right now IMO.

Of course, I think she is 100% fit to stand trial so she’d have to give the performance of a lifetime to be found mentally unfit especially after she’s demonstrated she is well enough to understand proceedings this last week or so, but I think she’s probably regretting taking the stand, and will do anything to be able to take back some of the things she’s said. She’s made such a fool of herself IMO getting caught in so many lies, the only way to get out of this is to be deemed unable to stand trial and eventually get a do-over. It would be an absolute travesty if this happens. Those jurors will have wasted such a big chunk of their lives, the poor parents will have to go home without justice and knowing they’ll have to go through this again. It would be absolutely terrible but I wouldn’t be shocked in the slightest.

Hoping that it all proceeds as it should and she carries on tying herself in knots up there from Wednesday! Fingers crossed it was a genuine legal issue that caused yesterday to end early, but usually we’d be told it was because of ‘legal arguments’ or ‘illness’ but to not be told anything, even letting the media know outside the presence of the jury is really unusual.

All MOO

 

[Sweeper2000]

The only way (imo) it can make sense is if there’s wider context to the police interviews as you say, and if all her responses were hypothetical, eg if someone walked in on me seemingly watching a child deteriorate it would be because I was looking for a self correction, and if the baby didn’t self correct I’d raise the alarm if a doctor wasn’t already present.

Because otherwise, doing a complete 180 is total utter madness. I assume she’s actually been present at her own trial and has actually listened to all the evidence presented thus far..

Also, I think if BM knew she was denying being there at all, he’d have certainly put that to Dr J when he was on the stand.

Utterly bizarre.

It’s all very infuriating. I mean everythin. the medical evidenc, the sequence of events, but specifically her as well.

do you think her frequent usage of the “we” might actually be an indication to her seeing this from a hypothetical POV? I would have expected more “I” from someone really being “there”.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

It’s rare to get a rebuttal ( where the prosecution reopens their case after the defence has rested) but I have a funny feeling with all the new information Letby is providing that her defence didn’t talk to the prosecution witnesses about at the time that the judge will either allow it or call Dr J to the stand himself.

I hope they get to do this! I don’t think it will make a difference if they don’t because Dr J hasn’t been proven to be lying like LL has. Personally I’m thinking that even BM was surprised by some of the things she’s said while under cross examination. I can imagine him with his head in his hands at certain points, because she’s changed her story completely all of a sudden.

She has broken the golden rule:
‘it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court’

Now in America they have the 5th amendment right to remain silent to avoid self incrimination and no negative inference can be made if a defendant exercises this right either after arrest or by refusing to testify.
I think it’s different in the UK I’m pretty sure the judge tells the defendant that the jury can make a negative inference if they don’t give evidence and of course our rights are different here, we do not have the ‘right to remain silent’ in the same context that the US do.

If the prosecution call Dr J on rebuttal then I think that will spell the end for LL

All MOO

 

[Dotta]

I’m honestly wondering if things are going to proceed on Wednesday. I feel like something happened with LL yesterday over the lunch break. Maybe she is thinking of changing her plea, or maybe she’s trying to get out of having to continue giving evidence. I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s suddenly having to have her mental state assessed to see if she’s fit to stand trial. IMO that’s the only way she can get out of this is if she is found unfit, a mistrial would be declared and eventually once deemed fit to stand trial, a new jury would be selected and we’d start all over again, then she could decide not to give evidence. Which would be best case scenario for LL right now IMO.

Of course, I think she is 100% fit to stand trial so she’d have to give the performance of a lifetime to be found mentally unfit especially after she’s demonstrated she is well enough to understand proceedings this last week or so, but I think she’s probably regretting taking the stand, and will do anything to be able to take back some of the things she’s said. She’s made such a fool of herself IMO getting caught in so many lies, the only way to get out of this is to be deemed unable to stand trial and eventually get a do-over. It would be an absolute travesty if this happens. Those jurors will have wasted such a big chunk of their lives, the poor parents will have to go home without justice and knowing they’ll have to go through this again. It would be absolutely terrible but I wouldn’t be shocked in the slightest.

Hoping that it all proceeds as it should and she carries on tying herself in knots up there from Wednesday! Fingers crossed it was a genuine legal issue that caused yesterday to end early, but usually we’d be told it was because of ‘legal arguments’ or ‘illness’ but to not be told anything, even letting the media know outside the presence of the jury is really unusual.

All MOO

A mistrial???
Geez!

But either way she would be closed in mental hospital undergoing all kinds of tests.
Is it even possible to fool highly skilled psychiatrists??

Well, I reject the idea that a person can play the Justice system.

I hope to see her on Wednesday in the stand!

(Have I just said I would be happy to see her???)

JMO

 

[WaxLyrical]

If as the prosecution stated -

"What we are going to see as we progress is that Lucy Letby’s method of attacking the babies in the neonatal unit was beginning to develop," Mr Johnson tells the court.

and

"These were not naturally occurring, or random events; they were deliberate attempts to kill using a slightly different method by whilst Lucy Letby sought to give the appearance of chance events in the neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital."

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

- and if (allegedly) LL had already killed babies A and D with air embolisms, and was conscious that colleagues were talking about unexpected and unexplained deaths,

- and if baby E died from air embolism and bleeding from throat injury,

it's possible the bleeding (before follow-up injection of air) was intended to point towards haemmorhage and draw attention away from another unexplained death. IMO

Baby E's mum turned up slightly earlier than expected for the feed, and could have interrupted an alleged plan to inject air at that time. The experts allege that air was injected a few hours later, causing his collapse.

I tried to imagine a scenario where LL asks mum to leave, and then immediately injects air, causing a collapse. The mum would have to be called back because it's a life-threatening situation, and she tells the doctor, 'I was here just 10 minutes ago and he was bleeding and screaming, and nurse sent me back to my ward'. The doctors are going to think well if he was bleeding and screaming 10 minutes ago, why did LL tell mum to go, and why didn't LL bleep us, and his collapse isn't related to the extent of bleeding that they can see at that time. So I think LL could have been surprised by the mum's early visit, and waited a while to see if anyone would come. Then when they didn't, she decided to report the bleeding to a doctor 40 minutes later, because the mum knew, the mum also knew he hadn't collapsed, and mum or dad could contact the ward for an update.

Allegedly and speculatively and if she is proven guilty.

But this is what I don’t understand about Baby E.

Let’s say she just attacked the baby, despite knowing it was feeding time and mum was about to appear, and was immediately caught by mum, who saw the blood and heard the screaming. She knows the mum is going to tell others about it. She knows the mum is likely going to mention this to the doctor when she sees them, or the next designated nurse, or the midwife in the PN ward. She knows if the baby dies there will be a debrief, and it’s very likely to be mentioned, the issue will probably crop up, and the inconsistency between her notes and what the mum is saying.

And so why, if guilty, wouldn’t she go into immediate damage control mode. Why wouldn’t she acknowledge what the mum had seen and say yes I’ve paged the doctor already (and then call the doctor).

She surely didn’t think the mum witnessing this would just disappear?

Or maybe her calling the doctor around 9:30 and saying it was about mucky aspirate was her damage control, if guilty. But it still doesn’t make sense why she would lie about the mum. It feels soooo risky for someone who allegedly was quietly and competently killing, and successfully pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes. JMO.

Maybe I’m just looking for sense where there isn’t any.

 

[Enquirer-2019]

I’m wondering if baby c notes indicate something other than NG air Was the cause. Im no doctor but with the copious amounts of info on hg air I think we all have at least an idea. It’s baby c showing vital signs after the resus efforts that’s making me wonder. The info I’m thinking of is what magicarp said about how no breathing essentially starves the heart of oxygen so it doesn’t beat anymore. I don’t know if the muscle being starved of oxygen means that were that ng air to shift allowing flow to resume would the muscle start working again Or would the heart be permanently damaged beyond repair at that point?

dr Gibbs said he didn’t understand it from a natural disease POV but does that mean then that what happened is explainable by administered air? If so, why ? If not, why?

does the sequence of events around baby c correspond with what one could expect from ng air?

I really do question how the ng air allegation would cause death when aspiration of the ng tube is routine in resus efforts and presumably is done at the start of the resus efforts.

Having read around child C upon a member stating that the evidence points towards an ‘air bubble’. I am sceptical.

Child C clinical signs; Dark Vomit (e.g., bile like vomit) and respiratory distress (i.e., req. O2) followed later by cardio-pulmonary arrest

Investigations: raised WBC’s + Inflammatory markers

Findings- CXR: pneumonia, AXR: air in abdomen.

Upon questioning, by the defence Dr Bohn testified that baby C’s respiratory support (i.e., CPAP belly) could be a factor to account for the accumulation of air.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, November 1

THE trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

In relation some causes of cardiopulmonary arrest:

Child C had been vomiting and had pneumonia; pneumonia +\- hypovolemia can lead to hypoxia, which in turn can lead to reversible cardiopulmonary arrest. Which, in turn could explain the heart restarting, with later gasps for air - according to Dr Gibbs testimony.

LL claims she did not tend to Baby-C as SE was the designated nurse, until she assisted with the resuscitation attempts. (Post collapse)

 

[notsure]

But this is what I don’t understand about Baby E.

Let’s say she just attacked the baby, despite knowing it was feeding time and mum was about to appear, and was immediately caught by mum, who saw the blood and heard the screaming. She knows the mum is going to tell others about it. She knows the mum is likely going to mention this to the doctor when she sees them, or the next designated nurse, or the midwife in the PN ward. She knows if the baby dies there will be a debrief, and it’s very likely to be mentioned, the issue will probably crop up, and the inconsistency between her notes and what the mum is saying.

And so why, if guilty, wouldn’t she go into immediate damage control mode. Why wouldn’t she acknowledge what the mum had seen and say yes I’ve paged the doctor already (and then call the doctor).

She surely didn’t think the mum witnessing this would just disappear?

Or maybe her calling the doctor around 9:30 and saying it was about mucky aspirate was her damage control, if guilty. But it still doesn’t make sense why she would lie about the mum. It feels soooo risky for someone who allegedly was quietly and competently killing, and successfully pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes. JMO.

Maybe I’m just looking for sense where there isn’t any.

If guilty, then we stand no chance of making sense of her actions, thoughts, feelings, etc. It's beyond comprehension, imo.

 

[WaxLyrical]

It’s all very infuriating. I mean everythin. the medical evidenc, the sequence of events, but specifically her as well.

do you think her frequent usage of the “we” might actually be an indication to her seeing this from a hypothetical POV? I would have expected more “I” from someone really being “there”.

Re the “we”, I don’t know, I use “we” frequently when describing anything work-related which I would consider to be standard practice, or process, or an expectation placed upon me and others by the employer. For example, if I was a hairdresser (I’m not) and was asked “did you leave bleach on their hair for more than an hour”, I can easily see myself responding “no we would never leave it on for that long”.

 

[Tortoise]

But this is what I don’t understand about Baby E.

Let’s say she just attacked the baby, despite knowing it was feeding time and mum was about to appear, and was immediately caught by mum, who saw the blood and heard the screaming. She knows the mum is going to tell others about it. She knows the mum is likely going to mention this to the doctor when she sees them, or the next designated nurse, or the midwife in the PN ward. She knows if the baby dies there will be a debrief, and it’s very likely to be mentioned, the issue will probably crop up, and the inconsistency between her notes and what the mum is saying.

And so why, if guilty, wouldn’t she go into immediate damage control mode. Why wouldn’t she acknowledge what the mum had seen and say yes I’ve paged the doctor already (and then call the doctor).

She surely didn’t think the mum witnessing this would just disappear?

Or maybe her calling the doctor around 9:30 and saying it was about mucky aspirate was her damage control, if guilty. But it still doesn’t make sense why she would lie about the mum. It feels soooo risky for someone who allegedly was quietly and competently killing, and successfully pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes. JMO.

Maybe I’m just looking for sense where there isn’t any.

She would lie about the mum because she wasn't ready to report the bleeding and have that discovered by doctors yet, if it was intended to be accompanied by air embolism but she mistimed it.

Whatever she said to the mum worked, whether that was we'll update you, don't worry, or similar.

JMO

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

It’s all very infuriating. I mean everythin. the medical evidenc, the sequence of events, but specifically her as well.

do you think her frequent usage of the “we” might actually be an indication to her seeing this from a hypothetical POV? I would have expected more “I” from someone really being “there”.

‘we’ can also be a way of mentally distancing yourself from something, so it’s not actually ‘her’ in her own mind but the wider ‘we’ who do or don’t do things, she’s a collective not an individual then

 

[Parker Knoll]

I really don’t think legally they would abort the trial at this stage. If she refuses to give any further evidence and she says that on Wednesday I THINK and don’t quote me that the trial would continue straight onto the defence experts and carry on. There couldn’t be re examination of the cross examination from BM - I cannot see that being allowed by the trial judge. The jury would obviously take inference from her unwillingness to continue in the box and quite rightly so. She’s screwed either way.
It was a disaster to put her in the witness box in the first place.
The defence have never introduced any MH issues bar PTSD so they are in a really bizarre position here.
MOO