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

[katydid23]

Here are some excerpts from episode 35: The Trials of Lucy Letby---'Not Lying!'
PART ONE

Episode 35: ’Not lying!’ LL believes that a group of consultants conspired to blame her for the baby’s deaths, to cover up for hospital failings. She’ll also say staffing shortages and the mistakes of colleagues contributed to collapses and deaths and drs and nurses who’ve given evidence about seeing her beside the baby’s cots or witnessed unusual rashes on the alleged victims or left her in charge of newborns when they were on a break, are all mistaken or lying


Q: Any reason why you cry when you talk about yourself and you do not cry when you talk about the dead and seriously injured children.

LL: I have cried when talking about some of the babies

Q:That’s your answer is it?


Johnson asks if there is anything from her defense statement through May 2nd until now, that she now wants to change?

LL: No.

So Johnson gave an example—he reminded her of what she said last week in relation to Baby K. Dr J gave evidence that he believed he interrupted LL mid-attack because he found her standing at the baby’s cot side , doing nothing while she collapsed


My Johnson said that ’nowhere, not in LL’s defense statement or in police interviews has she disputed being in the nursery with Baby K’ —until last week when she told the jury she’d been feeding and changing the nappy of another baby in a different room.


You might remember that she said that she didn’t remember having a conversation with Dr J on that night shift at all


Q: Did you in your police interviews ever suggest Dr J is a liar who is inventing seeing you standing over Baby K on Feb the 17th


LL: I’ve never accepted in my police interview what Dr Jaharam said actually happened.


Q: I’m suggesting to you that the first time you said Dr J was making it up was yesterday

LL: I don’t think I said yesterday he was making it up


Q: You said you were never standing over Baby K so it follows you’re saying Dr J has deliberately misled this jury


LL: Yes

Q: So when was the first time you said that, Lucy Letby?

LL: If I’m accepting what you say, it was yesterday. I can’t say without going through everything Ive ever said.

Q: I’m going to suggest to you for your consideration that when Dr J was cross-examined by Mr Meyers that suggestion was never made—do you accept or reject that?

LL: I can’t recall the specific questions asked at that time

Q: No, but you remember the gist of the questions, don’t you?

LL: Yes

Q: Was my Meyers suggesting to Dr J that he never saw you standing over baby K?

LL: I can’t comment on that

Q: can’t or won’t?

LL: It’s very difficult to recall everything everyone has said during a seven month trial

Q: It is and in due course I will remind you, don’t worry Lucy Letby. I’m suggesting to you you’re lying now, claiming that that you don’t remember

LL: No, I’m not lying

Johnson began listing 19 colleagues, and asked her about her relationship with them and she insisted she had a normal working relationship with them all.


When he got to Dr A, the dr her coworkers teased her about flirting with , Mr Johnson asked her directly, ‘were you in love with him?’


LL: No, I loved Dr A as a friend, I wasn’t in love with him


But as the questioning went on she named 4 consultants, Dr J, Dr Stephen Breary, Dr John Gibbs and Dr B, as being out to get her. She said the 4 were involved in a conspiracy to blame her for the baby’s deaths.


When she wrote the word ‘bastards’ on her post it note is was about Dr J and Dr Brery because she was angry they had pointed the finger at her


Q: Are you suggesting there is some sort of an agreement between medical staff to get you?


LL: In the consultants group I do believe, yes.

Q: Four doctors—a Gang of Four let’s call them-what’s the conspiracy?

LL: They have apportioned blame onto me

Q: The motive?

LL: I believe to cover failings at the hospital


But Mr Johnson suggested she was the only common feature and had to be the person responsible for harming the babies …


…and remember the jury has already seen the graph of shift patterns of every nurse on duty during the alleged deaths and collapses which shows that LL was the only one working every time.


Q: Do you agree that if certain combinations of these children were attacked, unless there was more than one person attacking them, you have to be the attacker ?

LL: No, I have not attacked anyone. Just because I was on shift doesn’t mean I have done anything...



She was also asked about the 2 babies, Baby F and Baby L, who she’e accused of poisoning with insulin, she agreed that both boys were given insulin unlawfully, but insisted it was not given by her

Q: Do you agree that Baby F was poisoned with insulin?

LL: Yes

Q: Somebody targeted him specifically?

LL: No

Q: Knowing what you know about insulin readings ,blood sugar readings, what other realistic possibilities in Baby L’s case ?

LL: I don’t believe any other member of the unit would make a mistake

Q: A mistake is not an option…

LL: Yes

Q: Deliberate poisoning but not you…

LL: Insulin has been added by somebody but not me

 

[katydid23]

Here are some excerpts from episode 35: The Trials of Lucy Letby---'Not Lying!'

I thought there were a few interesting tidbits in this episode:

Episode 35: ’Not lying!’ LL believes that a group of consultants conspired to blame her for the baby’s deaths, to cover up for hospital failings. She’ll also say staffing shortages and the mistakes of colleagues contributed to collapses and deaths and drs and nurses who’ve given evidence about seeing her beside the baby’s cots or witnessed unusual rashes on the alleged victims or left her in charge of newborns when they were on a break, are all mistaken or lying


Q: Any reason why you cry when you talk about yourself and you do not cry when you talk about there dead and seriously injured children.

LL: I have cried when talking about some of the babies

"Some of the babies' made her cry? Weren't all of them attacked by someone? But only 'some' made her cry?

Q:That’s your answer is it?


Johnson asks if there is anything from her defense statement throw May 2nd until now, that she now wants to change?

LL: No.

So Johnson gave an example—he reminded her of what she said last week in relation to Baby K. Dr J gave evidence that he believed he interrupted LL mid-attack because he found her standing at the baby’s cot side , doing nothing while she collapsed


My Johnson said that ’nowhere, not in LL’s defense statement or in police interviews has she disputed being in the nursery with Baby K’ —until last week when she told the jury she’d been feeding and changing the nappy of another baby in a different room.

I've thought that was a weird new bit of info too. After everything we have learned about how much LL loves being so helpful and important during resuscitations, it is hard for me to believe she would be right across the hall in room 2, feeding babies and changing nappies, while a code red emergency is going on in room 1. I think she would have hurried across the hall, instead of worrying about a messy diaper.

You might remember that she said that she didn’t remember having a conversation with Dr J on that night shift at all


Q: Did you in your police interviews ever suggest Dr J is a liar who is inventing seeing you standing over Baby K on Feb the 17th


LL: I’ve never accepted in my police interview what Dr Jaharam said actually happened.


Q: I’m suggesting to you that the first time you said Dr J was making it up was yesterday

LL: I don’t think I said yesterday he was making it up


Q: You said you were never standing over Baby K so it follows you’re saying Dr J has deliberately misled this jury


LL: Yes

So she does finally admit she is saying DR J is misleading jury when he says she was in Baby K's room during the collapse---

Q: So when was the first time you said that, Lucy Letby?

LL: If I’m accepting what you say, it was yesterday. I can’t say without going through everything Ive ever said.

And then she finally admits that she never said anything about that until the previous day's testimony....

Q: I’m going to suggest to you for your consideration that when Dr J was cross-examined by Mr Meyers that suggestion was never made—do you accept or reject that?

LL: I can’t recall the specific questions asked at that time

Q: No, but you remember the gist of the questions, don’t you?

LL: Yes

Q: Was mr Meyers suggesting to Dr J that he never saw you standing over baby K?

LL: I can’t comment on that

She knows full well Meyers never said she wasn't standing over Baby K just as Dr J described...

Q: can’t or won’t?

LL: It’s very difficult to recall everything everyone has said during a seven month trial

Q: It is and in due course I will remind you, don’t worry Lucy Letby. I’m suggesting to you you’re lying now, claiming that that you don’t remember

LL: No, I’m not lying

I think he did show she was lying because she admitted in the beginning that she never denied she was standing over the cot until the previous day...but then she digs in her feet and tries to walk it back a bit...saying maybe Meyers said it earlier, she just can't remember...

Johnson began listing 19 colleagues, and asked her about her relationship with them and she insisted she had a normal working relationship with them all.


When he got to Dr A, the dr her coworkers teased her about flirting with , Mr Johnson asked her directly, ‘were you in love with him?’


LL: No, I loved Dr A as a friend, I wasn’t in love with him

I wonder if the jurors will remember her post it notes about her saying " I was in love with you...', etc etc?

But as the questioning went on she named 4 consultants, Dr J, Dr Stephen Breary, Dr John Gibbs and Dr B, as being out to get her. She said the 4 were involved in a conspiracy to blame her for the baby’s deaths.


When she wrote the word ‘bastards’ on her post it note is was about Dr J and Dr Brery because she was angry they had pointed the finger at her


Q: Are you suggesting there is some sort of an agreement between medical staff to get you?


LL: In the consultants group I do believe, yes.

Q: Four doctors—a Gang of Four let’s call them-what’s the conspiracy?

LL: They have apportioned blame onto me

Q: The motive?

LL: I believe to cover failings at the hospital


But Mr Johnson suggested she was the only common feature and had to be the person responsible for harming the babies …


…and remember the jury has already seen the graph of shift patterns of every nurse on duty during the alleged deaths and collapses which shows that LL was the only one working every time.


Q: Do you agree that if certain combinations of these children were attacked, unless there was more than one person attacking them, you have to be the attacker ?

That ^^^was a very concise question that is hard to deny, considering the graph showing the shifts

LL: No, I have not attacked anyone. Just because I was on shift doesn’t mean I have done anything...

That^^^ is just word play on her part---he never said ' we know you attacked someone just because you were on a shift.' She is ignoring the initial statement, about her being 'the only nurse on EVERY single shift , in which there was an unexplained collapse.

She was also asked about the 2 babies, Baby F and Baby L, who she’e accused of poisoning with insulin, she agreed that both boys were given insulin unlawfully, but insisted it was not given by her

Q: Do you agree that Baby F was poisoned with insulin?

LL: Yes

Q: Somebody targeted him specifically?

LL: No

Q: Knowing what you know about insulin readings ,blood sugar readings, what other realistic possibilities in Baby L’s case ?

LL: I don’t believe any other member of the unit would make a mistake

Q: A mistake is not an option…

LL: Yes

Q: Deliberate poisoning but not you…

LL: Insulin has been added by somebody but not me

That is problematic for her, because I think it will be hard for the jury to accept there are other nurses also attacking those same babies.

 

[Cardgame]

Here are some excerpts from episode 35: The Trials of Lucy Letby---'Not Lying!'
PART ONE

Episode 35: ’Not lying!’ LL believes that a group of consultants conspired to blame her for the baby’s deaths, to cover up for hospital failings. She’ll also say staffing shortages and the mistakes of colleagues contributed to collapses and deaths and drs and nurses who’ve given evidence about seeing her beside the baby’s cots or witnessed unusual rashes on the alleged victims or left her in charge of newborns when they were on a break, are all mistaken or lying


Q: Any reason why you cry when you talk about yourself and you do not cry when you talk about the dead and seriously injured children.

LL: I have cried when talking about some of the babies

Q:That’s your answer is it?


Johnson asks if there is anything from her defense statement through May 2nd until now, that she now wants to change?

LL: No.

So Johnson gave an example—he reminded her of what she said last week in relation to Baby K. Dr J gave evidence that he believed he interrupted LL mid-attack because he found her standing at the baby’s cot side , doing nothing while she collapsed


My Johnson said that ’nowhere, not in LL’s defense statement or in police interviews has she disputed being in the nursery with Baby K’ —until last week when she told the jury she’d been feeding and changing the nappy of another baby in a different room.


You might remember that she said that she didn’t remember having a conversation with Dr J on that night shift at all


Q: Did you in your police interviews ever suggest Dr J is a liar who is inventing seeing you standing over Baby K on Feb the 17th


LL: I’ve never accepted in my police interview what Dr Jaharam said actually happened.


Q: I’m suggesting to you that the first time you said Dr J was making it up was yesterday

LL: I don’t think I said yesterday he was making it up


Q: You said you were never standing over Baby K so it follows you’re saying Dr J has deliberately misled this jury


LL: Yes

Q: So when was the first time you said that, Lucy Letby?

LL: If I’m accepting what you say, it was yesterday. I can’t say without going through everything Ive ever said.

Q: I’m going to suggest to you for your consideration that when Dr J was cross-examined by Mr Meyers that suggestion was never made—do you accept or reject that?

LL: I can’t recall the specific questions asked at that time

Q: No, but you remember the gist of the questions, don’t you?

LL: Yes

Q: Was my Meyers suggesting to Dr J that he never saw you standing over baby K?

LL: I can’t comment on that

Q: can’t or won’t?

LL: It’s very difficult to recall everything everyone has said during a seven month trial

Q: It is and in due course I will remind you, don’t worry Lucy Letby. I’m suggesting to you you’re lying now, claiming that that you don’t remember

LL: No, I’m not lying

Johnson began listing 19 colleagues, and asked her about her relationship with them and she insisted she had a normal working relationship with them all.


When he got to Dr A, the dr her coworkers teased her about flirting with , Mr Johnson asked her directly, ‘were you in love with him?’


LL: No, I loved Dr A as a friend, I wasn’t in love with him


But as the questioning went on she named 4 consultants, Dr J, Dr Stephen Breary, Dr John Gibbs and Dr B, as being out to get her. She said the 4 were involved in a conspiracy to blame her for the baby’s deaths.


When she wrote the word ‘bastards’ on her post it note is was about Dr J and Dr Brery because she was angry they had pointed the finger at her


Q: Are you suggesting there is some sort of an agreement between medical staff to get you?


LL: In the consultants group I do believe, yes.

Q: Four doctors—a Gang of Four let’s call them-what’s the conspiracy?

LL: They have apportioned blame onto me

Q: The motive?

LL: I believe to cover failings at the hospital


But Mr Johnson suggested she was the only common feature and had to be the person responsible for harming the babies …


…and remember the jury has already seen the graph of shift patterns of every nurse on duty during the alleged deaths and collapses which shows that LL was the only one working every time.


Q: Do you agree that if certain combinations of these children were attacked, unless there was more than one person attacking them, you have to be the attacker ?

LL: No, I have not attacked anyone. Just because I was on shift doesn’t mean I have done anything...



She was also asked about the 2 babies, Baby F and Baby L, who she’e accused of poisoning with insulin, she agreed that both boys were given insulin unlawfully, but insisted it was not given by her

Q: Do you agree that Baby F was poisoned with insulin?

LL: Yes

Q: Somebody targeted him specifically?

LL: No

Q: Knowing what you know about insulin readings ,blood sugar readings, what other realistic possibilities in Baby L’s case ?

LL: I don’t believe any other member of the unit would make a mistake

Q: A mistake is not an option…

LL: Yes

Q: Deliberate poisoning but not you…

LL: Insulin has been added by somebody but not me

If this reporting is accurate, then she seems IMO like a very skilled deflector, someone who comes across as very accomplished and practised at not answering direct questions.

Is this really the defence that they are running?

That 4 hospital consultants have conspired to blame LL for 'hospital failings' by somehow retrospectively contriving for her to have been the only person on shift when each one of those 'failings' happened (and despite her own evidence that 'hospital failings' are not responsible in several of the cases she has been cross examined about so far)?

You'd think taking the stand would be LL's big chance to explain why and how the hospital was failing and exactly what it is the consultants are trying to 'cover up' but she just... isn't.

I'm no longer sure exactly what her defence is.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

If this reporting is accurate, then she seems IMO like a very skilled deflector, someone who comes across as very accomplished and practised at not answering direct questions.

Is this really the defence that they are running?

That 4 hospital consultants have conspired to blame LL for 'hospital failings' by somehow retrospectively contriving for her to have been the only person on shift when each one of those 'failings' happened (and despite her own evidence that 'hospital failings' are not responsible in several of the cases she has been cross examined about so far)?

You'd think taking the stand would be LL's big chance to explain why and

If this reporting is accurate, then she seems IMO like a very skilled deflector, someone who comes across as very accomplished and practised at not answering direct questions.

Is this really the defence that they are running?

That 4 hospital consultants have conspired to blame LL for 'hospital failings' by somehow retrospectively contriving for her to have been the only person on shift when each one of those 'failings' happened (and despite her own evidence that 'hospital failings' are not responsible in several of the cases she has been cross examined about so far)?

You'd think taking the stand would be LL's big chance to explain why and how the hospital was failing and exactly what it is the consultants are trying to 'cover up' but she just... isn't.

I'm no longer sure exactly what her defence is.

But she isn’t the only person on shift when the “failings “ happened.

We now know that some of the failings happened when she wasn’t even on shift. This is why the prosecution has ( apparently for the first time, as it does not seem to have been reported that the prosecution brought it up during its case in chief ) had to introduce during its cross-examination of LL the idea that people could get onto the ward when they were not on shift and without leaving a digital footprint by using their swipe cards (because someone else swiped them in or held the door open for them).

 

[Cardgame]

But she isn’t the only person on shift when the “failings “ happened.

We now know that some of the failings happened when she wasn’t even on shift. This is why the prosecution has ( apparently for the first time, as it does not seem to have been reported that the prosecution brought it up during its case in chief ) had to introduce during its cross-examination of LL the idea that people could get onto the ward when they were not on shift and without leaving a digital footprint by using their swipe cards (because someone else swiped them in or held the door open for them).

Hmmm, interesting. But I thought the swipe evidence was introduced specifically to prove that she was present in the hospital even when she claimed she wasn't. Not that other random people could be or were. Presumably if there was any possibility of that, then it would have been picked up during the police investigation. Isn't it as far-fetched as the conspiracy story to suggest that just because LL didn't always swipe in or out properly, it therefore follows that there was a completely unknown or unidentified attacker who managed to go completely unnoticed by all the other members of staff over the period babies were dying unexpectedly?? This coinciding somehow with every time LL also happened to be on shift or about to start a shift, or recently finished a shift?

I guess what I mean is, if her defence is that it is a conspiracy, then what is the nature of that conspiracy? It is a conspiracy of murderers? Have they killed the babies on purpose and framed her?

Or is she claiming that the conspirators have fitted the 'failings' events to make her look guilty? In which case, how have they achieved this? How have four consultants manipulated so much evidence to point the finger at LL, when they couldn't possibly have anticipated the failings that would lead to babies collapsing?

Is she claiming the conspiracy extends to the people who were brought in to investigate?

And why isn't she being more definitive about what those failings were?

I'm just confused as to what the defence actually IS.

Maybe it's just me, but I sort of feel like LL's defence team are saying one thing and LL is saying another.

 

[Enquirer-2019]

I thought there were a few interesting tidbits in this episode:


"Some of the babies' made her cry? Weren't all of them attacked by someone? But only 'some' made her cry?

I've thought that was a weird new bit of info too. After everything we have learned about how much LL loves being so helpful and important during resuscitations, it is hard for me to believe she would be right across the hall in room 2, feeding babies and changing nappies, while a code red emergency is going on in room 1. I think she would have hurried across the hall, instead of worrying about a messy diaper.

So she does finally admit she is saying DR J is misleading jury when he says she was in Baby K's room during the collapse---

And then she finally admits that she never said anything about that until the previous day's testimony....

She knows full well Meyers never said she wasn't standing over Baby K just as Dr J described...

I think he did show she was lying because she admitted in the beginning that she never denied she was standing over the cot until the previous day...but then she digs in her feet and tries to walk it back a bit...saying maybe Meyers said it earlier, she just can't remember...

I wonder if the jurors will remember her post it notes about her saying " I was in love with you...', etc etc?

That ^^^was a very concise question that is hard to deny, considering the graph showing the shifts

That^^^ is just word play on her part---he never said ' we know you attacked someone just because you were on a shift.' She is ignoring the initial statement, about her being 'the only nurse on EVERY single shift , in which there was an unexplained collapse.

That is problematic for her, because I think it will be hard for the jury to accept there are other nurses also attacking those same babies.

… let’s look at the facts

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

AND

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

 

[Tortoise]

When I was on a jury, the only time we were given a transcript was of an audio tape of two prisoners speaking to each other on their journey to court in the back of a security van, and I think the recording device must have been in the engine or something, there was so much background noise. We had to listen to it through headphones and were told we couldn't rely on the transcript, it was just there as a guide of what police thought they were saying, but we had to make up our own minds about what was actually being said.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Hmmm, interesting. But I thought the swipe evidence was introduced specifically to prove that she was present in the hospital even when she claimed she wasn't. Not that other random people could be or were. Presumably if there was any possibility of that, then it would have been picked up during the police investigation. Isn't it as far-fetched as the conspiracy story to suggest that just because LL didn't always swipe in or out properly, it therefore follows that there was a completely unknown or unidentified attacker who managed to go completely unnoticed by all the other members of staff over the period babies were dying unexpectedly?? This coinciding somehow with every time LL also happened to be on shift or about to start a shift, or recently finished a shift?

I guess what I mean is, if her defence is that it is a conspiracy, then what is the nature of that conspiracy? It is a conspiracy of murderers? Have they killed the babies on purpose and framed her?

Or is she claiming that the conspirators have fitted the 'failings' events to make her look guilty? In which case, how have they achieved this? How have four consultants manipulated so much evidence to point the finger at LL, when they couldn't possibly have anticipated the failings that would lead to babies collapsing?

Is she claiming the conspiracy extends to the people who were brought in to investigate?

And why isn't she being more definitive about what those failings were?

I'm just confused as to what the defence actually IS.

Maybe it's just me, but I sort of feel like LL's defence team are saying one thing and LL is saying another.

I don’t think she’s going so far as to say someone has murdered babies and while doing it framed her.

I think LL’s defence (though I’m not sure this is shared by her actual defence team…) is that everyone decided something was happening and then massaged the evidence to make it seem like it had to be LL doing it (specifically their recollections of what was happening at the time the events took place).

There is a potentially good argument in there based on confirmation bias, which is what Ben Myers has tried to push IMO. But when LL is left to testify and explain it , her explanation comes across as though there is more of an actual conspiracy (so it sounds more implausible).

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Just going back to a discussion we were all having a couple of weeks ago about whether the prosecution and defence will be reading anything posted online in forums such as these to either get a steer as to how the evidence is being received by people who are hearing it for the first time, or ideas as to arguments they haven’t thought of.

I have just finished listening to the last two episodes of the Your Own Backyard podcast about the Kristin Smart murder trial. In the last two episodes, which were recorded after the was found guilty of murder, the Podcaster interviews the prosecutor and some of the team of investigators. The prosecutor explains how his lead investigator would go onto the Reddit group about the trial at the end of each day and read the posts about the day’s evidence and would prepare notes of any good points to give to the prosecutor the following morning.

The defence’s closing argument lasted over five hours and straddled two days. At the end of the first day, the prosecutor himself went and read through the Reddit comments, and there was a specific comment that “ the only at risk behaviour Kristin Smart was engaged in was existing in the same ZIP Code as Paul Flores.” The prosecutor really liked it, and so he quoted that verbatim the following day when he got up to give his rebuttal arguments following the conclusion of the defence’s closing argument.

That has obviously all taken place in America, so maybe lawyers in the UK take a different approach, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Hmmm, interesting. But I thought the swipe evidence was introduced specifically to prove that she was present in the hospital even when she claimed she wasn't. Not that other random people could be or were. Presumably if there was any possibility of that, then it would have been picked up during the police investigation. Isn't it as far-fetched as the conspiracy story to suggest that just because LL didn't always swipe in or out properly, it therefore follows that there was a completely unknown or unidentified attacker who managed to go completely unnoticed by all the other members of staff over the period babies were dying unexpectedly?? This coinciding somehow with every time LL also happened to be on shift or about to start a shift, or recently finished a shift?

I guess what I mean is, if her defence is that it is a conspiracy, then what is the nature of that conspiracy? It is a conspiracy of murderers? Have they killed the babies on purpose and framed her?

Or is she claiming that the conspirators have fitted the 'failings' events to make her look guilty? In which case, how have they achieved this? How have four consultants manipulated so much evidence to point the finger at LL, when they couldn't possibly have anticipated the failings that would lead to babies collapsing?

Is she claiming the conspiracy extends to the people who were brought in to investigate?

And why isn't she being more definitive about what those failings were?

I'm just confused as to what the defence actually IS.

Maybe it's just me, but I sort of feel like LL's defence team are saying one thing and LL is saying another.

Just to add, the prosecution has IMO being backed into a corner during its evidence which it is now trying to get out of, which is why its position on who was on shift/swipe data has involved.

One of the prosecution’s own witnesses gave evidence in relation to baby F that the first line had tissued, and that when that happens, you don’t just change the line, you change the TPN bag which is attached to the line as well. When the line tissued , LL was not on duty. And because that witness said that the TPN bag would have been changed, and the prosecution’s own witnesses say that both TPN bags were poisoned with insulin, that creates problems for the prosecution, because LL was not there to allegedly poison the second bag.

So if you now look at the evidence, it suggests that someone else allegedly poisoned baby F. And if you conclude that someone other than LL allegedly poisoned baby F, then it is likely that you would conclude that the same person is responsible for all of the collapses. So the entire prosecution case falls apart.

That, in my opinion, is why the prosecution has introduced the evidence that people could get onto the ward when they were not on duty and without leaving a digital footprint. They are doing it to address what they see as a point which potentially jeopardises the whole trial for them.

Just to be clear, I do not understand why the prosecution has got itself into this situation. IMO, as soon as their witness testified that the TPN bag would have been changed under questioning from Ben Myers, the prosecution should have got right back up and asked questions to make it clear that a possible explanation is that the TPN bag was not changed. Yes, it should’ve been changed; yes, it’s bad that it wasn’t changed; but mistakes happen. That should’ve been the approach the prosecution adopted in my opinion.

But they did not do that, and so the jury was left with the idea of a second TPN bag. And now the prosecution is trying to mitigate that damage.

 

[Marantz4250b]

But she isn’t the only person on shift when the “failings “ happened.

We now know that some of the failings happened when she wasn’t even on shift. This is why the prosecution has ( apparently for the first time, as it does not seem to have been reported that the prosecution brought it up during its case in chief ) had to introduce during its cross-examination of LL the idea that people could get onto the ward when they were not on shift and without leaving a digital footprint by using their swipe cards (because someone else swiped them in or held the door open for them).

I have to say that this did strike me as a bit strange. I wonder why they are bringing this up now when they haven't previously? It's not as though they didn't have the opportunity as they've had a data analyst going through her electronic footprint so surely that person could also have examined the entry/exit systems and evidence could (should?) have been introduced in their initial case.

Her counsel said in his opening "...in some of these cases she simply wasn't present...", or words to that effect. Now it seems that the prosecution are introducing at a late stage something which they have not claimed was the case previously.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Hmmm, interesting. But I thought the swipe evidence was introduced specifically to prove that she was present in the hospital even when she claimed she wasn't. Not that other random people could be or were. Presumably if there was any possibility of that, then it would have been picked up during the police investigation. Isn't it as far-fetched as the conspiracy story to suggest that just because LL didn't always swipe in or out properly, it therefore follows that there was a completely unknown or unidentified attacker who managed to go completely unnoticed by all the other members of staff over the period babies were dying unexpectedly?? This coinciding somehow with every time LL also happened to be on shift or about to start a shift, or recently finished a shift?

I guess what I mean is, if her defence is that it is a conspiracy, then what is the nature of that conspiracy? It is a conspiracy of murderers? Have they killed the babies on purpose and framed her?

Or is she claiming that the conspirators have fitted the 'failings' events to make her look guilty? In which case, how have they achieved this? How have four consultants manipulated so much evidence to point the finger at LL, when they couldn't possibly have anticipated the failings that would lead to babies collapsing?

Is she claiming the conspiracy extends to the people who were brought in to investigate?

And why isn't she being more definitive about what those failings were?

I'm just confused as to what the defence actually IS.

Maybe it's just me, but I sort of feel like LL's defence team are saying one thing and LL is saying another.

As regards the whole "conspiracy" claim by her; as far as I'm aware this was never really her direct defence, as such.

The idea of a "conspiracy" against her was suggested to her by the prosecution in their examination of her on the stand. When I read it I did get the impression that it was framed in such a was as to intended to get her to say what they wanted her to say, tbh. A bit like the "...you could get onto the wards by means other than swiping in, couldn't you..." line of questioning.

 

[Sausage777]

I have to say that this did strike me as a bit strange. I wonder why they are bringing this up now when they haven't previously? It's not as though they didn't have the opportunity as they've had a data analyst going through her electronic footprint so surely that person could also have examined the entry/exit systems and evidence could (should?) have been introduced in their initial case.

Her counsel said in his opening "...in some of these cases she simply wasn't present...", or words to that effect. Now it seems that the prosecution are introducing at a late stage something which they have not claimed was the case previously.

Wonder if there are other swipe doors on the way to the unit, staff carpark, was her residence at the time on a swipe? I presume at the time they were able to check cctv around the hospital. Would they checked her mobile for her whereabouts on her days off?
I'm still struggling to grasp that it was OK for her to be around the unit when on time off, they all must of been doing it.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Wonder if there are other swipe doors on the way to the unit, staff carpark, was her residence at the time on a swipe? I presume at the time they were able to check cctv around the hospital. Would they checked her mobile for her whereabouts on her days off?
I'm still struggling to grasp that it was OK for her to be around the unit when on time off, they all must of been doing it.

I think that at the time she was allegedly there very late or on days off she lived on site in nurses accommodation. Not sure, though, as everything is tending to blend into one of late!

 

[Sausage777]

I think that at the time she was allegedly there very late or on days off she lived on site in nurses accommodation. Not sure, though, as everything is tending to blend into one of late!

My nursing accommodation (a long time ago now) was swipe access to get into the building.

 

[Tortoise]

I have to say that this did strike me as a bit strange. I wonder why they are bringing this up now when they haven't previously? It's not as though they didn't have the opportunity as they've had a data analyst going through her electronic footprint so surely that person could also have examined the entry/exit systems and evidence could (should?) have been introduced in their initial case.

Her counsel said in his opening "...in some of these cases she simply wasn't present...", or words to that effect. Now it seems that the prosecution are introducing at a late stage something which they have not claimed was the case previously.

They have entered all the swipe data of all the staff for the relevant periods into evidence. They were speed reading hundreds of data tiles into evidence for every case, and if you recall on one occasion the judge made a remark about it sending them to sleep and called a break. But the reporters have obviously not managed to report all that data in the updates.

That is how Mr Johnson can now refer LL to there being no swipe data for her, on the night she wasn't working but went in at around 11pm and texted her friend about baby G's condition.

He's also pointed out that LL often stayed on the ward for hours after her shift ended, as evidenced in her texts, which also would not be reflected in the swipe data.

 

[Tortoise]

Wonder if there are other swipe doors on the way to the unit, staff carpark, was her residence at the time on a swipe? I presume at the time they were able to check cctv around the hospital. Would they checked her mobile for her whereabouts on her days off?
I'm still struggling to grasp that it was OK for her to be around the unit when on time off, they all must of been doing it.

As regards CCTV, if it did cover the relevant unit doors, I don't think it would have been retained for that length of time. Police weren't called in until 2017.

 

[katydid23]

But she isn’t the only person on shift when the “failings “ happened.

We now know that some of the failings happened when she wasn’t even on shift. This is why the prosecution has ( apparently for the first time, as it does not seem to have been reported that the prosecution brought it up during its case in chief ) had to introduce during its cross-examination of LL the idea that people could get onto the ward when they were not on shift and without leaving a digital footprint by using their swipe cards (because someone else swiped them in or held the door open for them).

Right, and now that LL admitted that she was sometimes on the unit, without swiping her card and without being on duty, that is no longer a valid defense, that she was 'wasn't even on shift.'

That excuse is no longer credible because of her own words, which nullified it.

 

[katydid23]

… let’s look at the facts

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

"she was not by Child K's incubator at the time Dr Jayaram entered room 1" she doesn't deny that Dr Jayaram entered the room, or that she was also in the room, just denies being by the incubator at that time.

She even contradicts herself in police interview. First she says she 'doesn't remember' if she was there or not--- and then says she 'wasn't next to the incubator' at what would be the same event. So which is it?

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...pted-murder-of-babies-21.677253/post-18324673

AND

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

 

[katydid23]

I don’t think she’s going so far as to say someone has murdered babies and while doing it framed her.

I think LL’s defence (though I’m not sure this is shared by her actual defence team…) is that everyone decided something was happening and then massaged the evidence to make it seem like it had to be LL doing it (specifically their recollections of what was happening at the time the events took place).

There is a potentially good argument in there based on confirmation bias, which is what Ben Myers has tried to push IMO. But when LL is left to testify and explain it , her explanation comes across as though there is more of an actual conspiracy (so it sounds more implausible).

It is not 'confirmation bias' that she was the only nurse on duty for all 22 unexplained collapses.
It is not 'confirmation bias' that the collapses stop when she is on vacation or when she switches from night shifts to day, and then begin again when she returns to the unit.

Meyers has not been able to explain that set of coincidences yet. JMO