UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #24

[esther43]

Thanks for all updates
What a day!

Re Baby K.

AFAI can remember this Baby was in the unit for about 10 hours and the name was not even on the handover sheet, right?

And suddenly, after many months LL checks parents' FB?

I admire Prosecutor's patience!
And meticulous work the whole team put into this terrible case.

As for the Juror's sudden emergency surgery - it doesn't bode well for the trial.
Let's hope this person gets well soon.

JMO

I hope so too!

Dotta, were you proud today when Mr. NJ had another gleeful moment after LL stated that she knew nothing about the insulin and then he whipped out those text messages without a second thought?

Mr Johnson says she was aware at the time.

"The court is then shown a transcript of Letby's police

interview, where she tells police she was not aware the infant had problems with his blood sugar.

"You were aware though, weren't you, at the time?" Mr Johnson asks.

"No," says Letby.

The court is then shown a WhatsApp conversation between Letby and her colleague on 5 August 2015.

Letby: Did you hear what Child F's sugar was at 8?

| Letby: 1.8

Letby: Wonder if he has an endocrine problem then. Hope they can get to the bottom of it. "

Lucy Letby trial: Facebook searches of nurse accused of murdering babies read out in court

Lucy Letby, a former neonatal nurse, has been back in court for another day of cross-examination by the prosecution on Friday. She is accused of the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of 10 others, and denies all the charges.

news.sky.com

 

[Dotta]

I hope so too!

Dotta, were you proud today when Mr. NJ had another gleeful moment after LL stated that she knew nothing about the insulin and then he whipped out those text messages without a second thought?

Mr Johnson says she was aware at the time.

"The court is then shown a transcript of Letby's police

interview, where she tells police she was not aware the infant had problems with his blood sugar.

"You were aware though, weren't you, at the time?" Mr Johnson asks.

"No," says Letby.

The court is then shown a WhatsApp conversation between Letby and her colleague on 5 August 2015.

Letby: Did you hear what Child F's sugar was at 8?

| Letby: 1.8

Letby: Wonder if he has an endocrine problem then. Hope they can get to the bottom of it. "

Lucy Letby trial: Facebook searches of nurse accused of murdering babies read out in court

Lucy Letby, a former neonatal nurse, has been back in court for another day of cross-examination by the prosecution on Friday. She is accused of the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of 10 others, and denies all the charges.

news.sky.com

Thanks for pointing it to me

I just skimmed through the reports as Im dead tired (the end of school year mayhem) and my poor head is killing me - I can barely open my eyes

But Im ALWAYS proud of Mr Nick J KC

 

[CS2C]

My word what a day ! Finally home after a 5 hour drive.

I saw Lucy’s parents as I approached the court outside and held the door open for them. I have to say my heart really does break for them, they look as you would imagine,distraught.

My interpretation of today was that Mr Johnson found it very hard to break Lucy down and to be perfectly honest she remained composed and held her own for the entirety of the proceedings.

Her demeanour remains pretty much the same regardless of what is asked or what she is accused of.

When Mr Johnson started talking about the incident with Dr Jayaram (spelling) and the monitor, Lucy replied that she has no recollection of that event and when Mr Johnson said “So you are saying it didn’t happen” she replied “I am not saying it did or didn’t happen, I am saying I have no recollection of that event taking place”

This I found to be quite interesting and it felt like Mr Johnson didn’t seem to know where to go next as she wasn’t denying nor confirming a certain version of events. I also wondered exactly what the jury make of it ? What can they conclude from someone who can’t recall something that happened a long time ago ?

It was similar with the insulin poisoning in that Mr Johnson was giving different methods in which this insulin could have ended up in the bag and Lucy would simply say “Well yes I would imagine that is possible but I wouldn’t know for sure because it isn’t something I have ever done”

Before attending there I was pretty heavy on the side of guilt but I find her answers (having viewed what I did) eerily honest and genuine (cannot believe I just wrote that)

For instance if she was guilty why not deny the interaction with Dr Jayaram took place at all ? Part of me thought maybe they could prove she was there and she didn’t want to be caught out in the moment but it is the way she talks and her demeanour!

I have to say I am totally confused having seen her in person and although I tried my upmost to solely focus on the words she said and try to look past the persona in front of me, It just left me with a very uneasy feeling about it all.

Happy to answer any questions if I can.

 

[ColourPurple]

I’ve posted them already upthread. One was in the podcast for baby O. Was the father who said it. He said it was definitely swelling which I would think is him Saying he saw it.

I can't see any other quote from you but just had a quick listen to the podcast. It's not clear if he's talking about witnessing it swelling himself or being told it had been swelling , but I think the latter because when he's directly asked about whether he witnessed his stomach he doesn't mention watching it swell in fact he refers to it going down.

Police : can you remember what they told you about baby O what his issues were?
Father: no not 100%.. we got told something to do with the stomach swelling. I'm not sure they said that from the off. They just said...not sure what's going on but we'll try our best. His stomach was definitely swelling at one point...

Police: Did you witness baby O's stomach?
Father: It was like ET's stomach. Like a pot belly. I think it had gone down. It did not stay up.

I know all your points just think it must be difficult to put yourself in the shoes of a baby that’s all, think all that care would likely be innate rather than learned. The last point though, you wou need empathy to know when it is appropriate to apologise without prompting, showing an understanding of impact on others.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the baby/empathy aspect.
Re apologising...You can learn behaviour so you can learn when its appropriate to apologise, without having any empathy for the person you're apologising to. Particularly if there is some benefit to you apologising, such as carrying on a friendship or conversation that you want to be part of.

 

[ColourPurple]

I think the most plausible explanation is that LL searched for the name after she had been tipped off that was one of the babies being investigated by police. It’s the only thing that makes sense.

Even if you are a proponent of the theory that LL was taking souvenirs and partaking in grief tourism , she never searched baby K before this and no handover sheets were recovered for this baby at her home.

But there has been no evidence at all that she was tipped off that Baby K was one of the babies police were investigating. So it's not a plausible explanation at all IMO, it's more a case of just completely making something up to fit.

And LL doesn't seem to have a problem with throwing others under the bus, so I can't see her not just saying that somebody gave her the name. Especially when the prosecution are suggesting that she remembered the name because she tried to kill Baby K.

JMO

ETA Baby K wouldn't have been on the handover sheet, as she was born mid-shift.

 

[esther43]

For instance if she was guilty why not deny the interaction with Dr Jayaram took place at all ? Part of me thought maybe they could prove she was there and she didn’t want to be caught out in the moment but it is the way she talks and her demeanour!

Thanks for your update. Always interesting to hear another view. Just to clear up the matter of Dr RJ. Was she not denying that she has any memory of that event?. Could that not be seen as deflecting NJ away from a further route of enquiry? One way to shut a conversation down is to say 'i don't recall' -

 

[ColourPurple]

When Mr Johnson started talking about the incident with Dr Jayaram (spelling) and the monitor, Lucy replied that she has no recollection of that event and when Mr Johnson said “So you are saying it didn’t happen” she replied “I am not saying it did or didn’t happen, I am saying I have no recollection of that event taking place”

This I found to be quite interesting and it felt like Mr Johnson didn’t seem to know where to go next as she wasn’t denying nor confirming a certain version of events. I also wondered exactly what the jury make of it ? What can they conclude from someone who can’t recall something that happened a long time ago ?...For instance if she was guilty why not deny the interaction with Dr Jayaram took place at all ? Part of me thought maybe they could prove she was there and she didn’t want to be caught out in the moment but it is the way she talks and her demeanour!

RSBM

I think she's having to backtrack a bit with Dr Jayaram, after being pulled up by Johnson previously for saying Dr J's version of events didn't happen. So now she's changed it to say that she has no recollection of the event rather than saying it did or didn't happen.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I can't see any other quote from you but just had a quick listen to the podcast. It's not clear if he's talking about witnessing it swelling himself or being told it had been swelling , but I think the latter because when he's directly asked about whether he witnessed his stomach he doesn't mention watching it swell in fact he refers to it going down.

Police : can you remember what they told you about baby O what his issues were?
Father: no not 100%.. we got told something to do with the stomach swelling. I'm not sure they said that from the off. They just said...not sure what's going on but we'll try our best. His stomach was definitely swelling at one point...

Police: Did you witness baby O's stomach?
Father: It was like ET's stomach. Like a pot belly. I think it had gone down. It did not stay up.


We'll have to agree to disagree on the baby/empathy aspect.
Re apologising...You can learn behaviour so you can learn when its appropriate to apologise, without having any empathy for the person you're apologising to. Particularly if there is some benefit to you apologising, such as carrying on a friendship or conversation that you want to be part of.

That was it colour thanks, I have been trying to find it. That quote “definitely swelling” reads to me he saw it swelling. I think this is to do with patchy reporting as well maybe.

the other quote was baby i I think and I think I remember it was Melanie Taylor who said it.

your last point I would ask for your reasons why you think it is a learned behaviour or why other evidence supports it being false? It’s one of those things I think is backed up by her other coms and other evidence showing empathy.

 

[ColourPurple]

That was it colour thanks, I have been trying to find it. That quote “definitely swelling” reads to me he saw it swelling. I think this is to do with patchy reporting as well maybe.

the other quote was baby i I think and I think I remember it was Melanie Taylor who said it.

I think the opposite but I think if it had been an important point that pointed towards a different cause for the swelling, then the defence would've been all over it. There's still time for that if they think it's relevant.

your last point I would ask for your reasons why you think it is a learned behaviour or why other evidence supports it being false? It’s one of those things I think is backed up by her other coms and other evidence showing empathy.

It goes back to your point that she must have empathy as she apologised. I was just pointing out that you don't need empathy to apologise. So an apology doesn't really prove anything either way when it comes ot empathy.

 

[esther43]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed - sub judice>
Interesting. I think I remember @squish saying the other day that she is very good at using tone and it's only when you read what she's actually saying that you realise that these inconsistencies exist.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I think the opposite but I think if it had been an important point that pointed towards a different cause for the swelling, then the defence would've been all over it. There's still time for that if they think it's relevant.

It goes back to your point that she must have empathy as she apologised. I was just pointing out that you don't need empathy to apologise. So an apology doesn't really prove anything either way when it comes ot empathy.

Do you think she lacks empathy? If so what in the evidence points to it? It was the fact she didn’t need prompting to apologise that shows empathy imo

yeh It’s dr evans using evidence to support his diagnosis in some cases like when he learned of a rash at trial, I’m just wondering if he did the same with what the dad said and if he didn’t why not? The dad’s statements comes from police interview so he wouldn’t have known about it originally, dr evans that is.

 

[CS2C]

Interesting. I think I remember @squish saying the other day that she is very good at using tone and it's only when you read what she's actually saying that you realise that these inconsistencies exist.

Yes I totally agree with Squish and tried my best to focus just on what was being said and cut through all the noise. The best way I can describe what I saw was witnessing someone stuck in a tumble dryer struggling to remember and process everything in a timely manner in order to respond. It was clear she was very measured in her replies and said as little as possible but for whatever reason it didn’t come across as sneaky or deceitful.

Obviously it interests me greatly why I have this opinion and I even thought to myself “Well if you have years and years to comprehend what is happening to you and some length of time to adjust to the fact you will have to take the stand and answer these questions then maybe it is easier to put on that facade” Because I mean it isn’t as if she was arrested last week and she is now in the hot seat. She has had time to prepare for this moment mentally, consciously or subconsciously.

I got the impression when the hard questions were asked that I was looking at someone lost but not in a deceitful way (Again it feels ridiculous typing this but I am just going with my impression of today) I may well have a different opinion if I ever brave the journey again.

 

[Sweeper2000]

My word what a day ! Finally home after a 5 hour drive.

I saw Lucy’s parents as I approached the court outside and held the door open for them. I have to say my heart really does break for them, they look as you would imagine,distraught.

My interpretation of today was that Mr Johnson found it very hard to break Lucy down and to be perfectly honest she remained composed and held her own for the entirety of the proceedings.

Her demeanour remains pretty much the same regardless of what is asked or what she is accused of.

When Mr Johnson started talking about the incident with Dr Jayaram (spelling) and the monitor, Lucy replied that she has no recollection of that event and when Mr Johnson said “So you are saying it didn’t happen” she replied “I am not saying it did or didn’t happen, I am saying I have no recollection of that event taking place”

This I found to be quite interesting and it felt like Mr Johnson didn’t seem to know where to go next as she wasn’t denying nor confirming a certain version of events. I also wondered exactly what the jury make of it ? What can they conclude from someone who can’t recall something that happened a long time ago ?

It was similar with the insulin poisoning in that Mr Johnson was giving different methods in which this insulin could have ended up in the bag and Lucy would simply say “Well yes I would imagine that is possible but I wouldn’t know for sure because it isn’t something I have ever done”

Before attending there I was pretty heavy on the side of guilt but I find her answers (having viewed what I did) eerily honest and genuine (cannot believe I just wrote that)

For instance if she was guilty why not deny the interaction with Dr Jayaram took place at all ? Part of me thought maybe they could prove she was there and she didn’t want to be caught out in the moment but it is the way she talks and her demeanour!

I have to say I am totally confused having seen her in person and although I tried my upmost to solely focus on the words she said and try to look past the persona in front of me, It just left me with a very uneasy feeling about it all.

Happy to answer any questions if I can.

Tbh I think most of what people have said is her lying could easily not be, I’m not surprised at all to hear you say you thought she was being honest. For instance the shredder fiasco, why lie about it? Just doesn’t make sense.

she could still be lying though.

 

[Dotta]

What is the point of taking the stand if a person just says:
"I don't remember/recall/have no memory of the event"?

I would think the cross examination might be the chance to clear things, not to muddle them further.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

What is the point of taking the stand if a person just says:
"I don't remember/recall/have no memory of the event"?

I would think the cross examination might be the chance to clear things, not to muddle them further.

JMO

Hopefully to tell the truth or to lie.

 

[Tortoise]

Yes I totally agree with Squish and tried my best to focus just on what was being said and cut through all the noise. The best way I can describe what I saw was witnessing someone stuck in a tumble dryer struggling to remember and process everything in a timely manner in order to respond. It was clear she was very measured in her replies and said as little as possible but for whatever reason it didn’t come across as sneaky or deceitful.

Obviously it interests me greatly why I have this opinion and I even thought to myself “Well if you have years and years to comprehend what is happening to you and some length of time to adjust to the fact you will have to take the stand and answer these questions then maybe it is easier to put on that facade” Because I mean it isn’t as if she was arrested last week and she is now in the hot seat. She has had time to prepare for this moment mentally, consciously or subconsciously.

I got the impression when the hard questions were asked that I was looking at someone lost but not in a deceitful way (Again it feels ridiculous typing this but I am just going with my impression of today) I may well have a different opinion if I ever brave the journey again.

Very interesting impressions! Thank you, and I'm sorry you had such a disappointing journey.

Did Mr Johnson say anything about the apparently anomalous blood sugar reading for baby F written in by LL that morning?

 

[katydid23]

I mentioned this weeks and weeks ago but if you are correct and that was actually her motivation, then she cannot be convicted of attempted murder as there is clearly no intent to cause death. Risking death, even if death is extremely likely, is not sufficient.

Thslat is a fact of law and if we are thinking that here then there is every possibility that the jury are too!

MOO!

I disagree, because each collapse brought each child to the brink of death, and without resuscitation efforts each would have died. And some did.

But if found guilty for each death and not for the attempts, that would be enough for full life term anyway, I suppose.

 

[WaxLyrical]

My word what a day ! Finally home after a 5 hour drive.

I saw Lucy’s parents as I approached the court outside and held the door open for them. I have to say my heart really does break for them, they look as you would imagine,distraught.

My interpretation of today was that Mr Johnson found it very hard to break Lucy down and to be perfectly honest she remained composed and held her own for the entirety of the proceedings.

Her demeanour remains pretty much the same regardless of what is asked or what she is accused of.

When Mr Johnson started talking about the incident with Dr Jayaram (spelling) and the monitor, Lucy replied that she has no recollection of that event and when Mr Johnson said “So you are saying it didn’t happen” she replied “I am not saying it did or didn’t happen, I am saying I have no recollection of that event taking place”

This I found to be quite interesting and it felt like Mr Johnson didn’t seem to know where to go next as she wasn’t denying nor confirming a certain version of events. I also wondered exactly what the jury make of it ? What can they conclude from someone who can’t recall something that happened a long time ago ?

It was similar with the insulin poisoning in that Mr Johnson was giving different methods in which this insulin could have ended up in the bag and Lucy would simply say “Well yes I would imagine that is possible but I wouldn’t know for sure because it isn’t something I have ever done”

Before attending there I was pretty heavy on the side of guilt but I find her answers (having viewed what I did) eerily honest and genuine (cannot believe I just wrote that)

For instance if she was guilty why not deny the interaction with Dr Jayaram took place at all ? Part of me thought maybe they could prove she was there and she didn’t want to be caught out in the moment but it is the way she talks and her demeanour!

I have to say I am totally confused having seen her in person and although I tried my upmost to solely focus on the words she said and try to look past the persona in front of me, It just left me with a very uneasy feeling about it all.

Happy to answer any questions if I can.

So interesting, thanks for reporting back!

I’ve been confused from day 1. I believe I could argue the entire case from both a position of guilt and innocence. I’ve joked in the past that it feels like there are two people on trial, one guilty and one not, but that is how I truly feel. It’s bizarre.

 

[esther43]

What is the point of taking the stand if a person just says:
"I don't remember/recall/have no memory of the event"?

I would think the cross examination might be the chance to clear things, not to muddle them further.

JMO

I have really tried to reason what LL is saying about not recalling. The only way that I think you would not recall things like child D's Dad breaking down on the floor, Child G's mum spotting blood before a serious incident,and being asked by child C's nurse to leave the family alone is if those parents and their circumstances genuinely wernt important to you. Otherwise I think you'd remember seriously upsetting incidents like that.
On the occasions I've supported parents through bereavement, I remember the time I spent with them very clearly indeed, even though incidents were 7, 8 and even 9 years ago.
I still remember where everyone in the room was, I remember the things we spoke about.
For one the bereavement that lasted several days, I can't remember the exact sequence of events, for example when particular conversations were had only what was said and where it was said.
One thing I can not remember, is any other interactions I had with other families on those days.
I may have seen 8 other parents on the same day but they've gone out of my head now.
However, the bereaved families, you remember, I found.

 

[notsure]

What is the point of taking the stand if a person just says:
"I don't remember/recall/have no memory of the event"?

I would think the cross examination might be the chance to clear things, not to muddle them further.

JMO

To tell her side of the story and fight for her life, I suppose.