UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #25

[Jayney404]

I would also add:

Her terror when the team from another hospital arrived.

As if she was suddenly yanked from her comfort zone,
her "kingdom where she ruled" not disturbed by anyone.

Reality suddenly hit hard.

Not that it deterred her

If guilty of course

JMO

Yes why else would your heart sink when more experienced and qualified people arrived to assist!

I think NJ described this very well that ‘eyes from the outside’ were a threat. If guilty.

 

[CS2C]

So tomorrow I will be creating a video on my experience at court yesterday.
Can I just clarify what I can speak about ? Am I allowed to mention observations of Lucy such as very calm, articulate etc etc ?

I know I am not allowed to speak about my belief if she is innocent or guilty and I know I can discuss only what the jury has heard. I am just wondering about personal thoughts such as my opinion of how she appears to me and how she responded during certain exchanges etc.

I don't want to be clapped in irons and sent to the hell hole

 

[Sweeper2000]

So tomorrow I will be creating a video on my experience at court yesterday.
Can I just clarify what I can speak about ? Am I allowed to mention observations of Lucy such as very calm, articulate etc etc ?

I know I am not allowed to speak about my belief if she is innocent or guilty and I know I can discuss only what the jury has heard. I am just wondering about personal thoughts such as my opinion of how she appears to me and how she responded during certain exchanges etc.

I don't want to be clapped in irons and sent to the hell hole

That’s all good so long as it’s followed with a qualifier “imo” etc. I think, not too sure. If your posts get removed the mods normally tell you why and they are very very insistent on anything that qualifies as subjudice Being removed.

 

[Penny68]

@CS2C Just a thought, I wonder maybe if you could send a mod the video to view first, then any changes needed you could do that before putting it on for all to see.

 

[Dotta]

So tomorrow I will be creating a video on my experience at court yesterday.
Can I just clarify what I can speak about ? Am I allowed to mention observations of Lucy such as very calm, articulate etc etc ?

I know I am not allowed to speak about my belief if she is innocent or guilty and I know I can discuss only what the jury has heard. I am just wondering about personal thoughts such as my opinion of how she appears to me and how she responded during certain exchanges etc.

I don't want to be clapped in irons and sent to the hell hole

I still can't wrap my head around that you were sitting NEXT TO a fellow WS poster and knew nothing about it.

Geez! What a pity you couldn't arrange something.
Just to talk, drink some coffee together during breaks, exchange views etc during the trial.

 

[lululolly]

So can I ask here, the evidence that the prosecution had presumably would have been the non used in legal terms, meaning it didn't do anything to support the case but they had it available to them. But presumably given LLs statements on the stand about isolation, they then felt that nonused evidence became relevant so they served it on her to prove the point that they felt she was being insincere?

 

[lululolly]

So can I ask here, the evidence that the prosecution had presumably would have been the non used in legal terms, meaning it didn't do anything to support the case but they had it available to them. But presumably given LLs statements on the stand about isolation, they then felt that nonused evidence became relevant so they served it on her to prove the point that they felt she was being insincere?

By the way, I mean that with respect to the social media stuff

 

[squish]

So can I ask here, the evidence that the prosecution had presumably would have been the non used in legal terms, meaning it didn't do anything to support the case but they had it available to them. But presumably given LLs statements on the stand about isolation, they then felt that nonused evidence became relevant so they served it on her to prove the point that they felt she was being insincere?

Yes, they would have access to all kinds of info on her, but didn't bother to bring up her previously irrelevant social life until it became proof of her lying under oath on the stand. I think the prosecution wanted to go out with a bang and leave a big impression on the jury that she's a proven unreliable narrator.

 

[squish]

I get the feeling that BM is not convinced of his client's innocence. Maybe he was at the start of the trial, but all the evidence we have heard may have changed his mind.

I was surprised how little effort he seemed to make with his questioning after the prosecutions' cross examination finished. Maybe he was just desperate to get her off the stand for her own sake.

 

[Dcflag]

I had actually wondered about a claim of ineffective counsel. Almost any person who is found guilty immediately files for appeal so I would expect nothing less if there is any conviction in this case.

 

[Tortoise]

Blink and you could miss this additional piece of evidence about the targeting of baby L with insulin -

(Twin) Baby L -

Mr Johnson says the insulin administered to Child L was a 'targeted attack' as the dextrose bag had been in place since noon on April 8.
"It follows that insulin was administered while the [dextrose] bag was hanging, doesn't it?"
Letby: "I don't know."

[...]

Mr Johnson says a series of prescriptions for three different babies at 9.25-9.29am, co-signed by a nursery nurse and Mary Griffith, gave Letby the "opportunity" to administer the insulin for Child L.
Letby says: "No, I don't know how the insulin got there."
Mr Johnson says it has already been established the insulin was administered on the unit, on the bag that was connected to Child L throughout that time.
NJ: "That's what it's a targeted attack, isn't it?"
Letby pauses.
NJ: "What do you say?"
LL: "Not by me it wasn't."

[...]

Mr Johnson says despite the fact the bag was changed at noon on April 9, the insulin kept being administered to Child L, "didn't it?"
Letby: "Yes."
Mr Johnson says "we know that" because the blood sample taken to the lab was taken at 3.45pm "contained exogenous insulin".
Letby: "I can't recall."
Mr Johnson says Child L was targeted with a second bag of insulin.

[...]

Mr Johnson says a third bag is hung up at 4.30pm. The hypoglycaemia "continued". Letby agrees.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 5 - cross-examination continues

(Twin) Baby M -

Mr Johnson says at 3.30pm, a 10% dextrose fluid bag is started for Child M.
Letby agrees with Mr Johnson there is nothing to suggest insulin was put in this bag.
Letby says she cannot recall what Mary Griffith was doing at this time. Mr Johnson suggests this was when Ms Griffith was collecting a blood sample for Child L to be 'podded' and sent to a laboratory for analysis.

Letby says she "couldn't say" how long it would take to draw up a 12.5% dextrose solution, which in this case was for Child L, the twin of Child M.
Letby agrees it would have been after 3.45pm that that process would have started.
Letby denies that it was around 3.45pm that she "sabotaged" Child M.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 7 - cross-examination continues

 

[katydid23]

Yes, they would have access to all kinds of info on her, but didn't bother to bring up her previously irrelevant social life until it became proof of her lying under oath on the stand. I think the prosecution wanted to go out with a bang and leave a big impression on the jury that she's a proven unreliable narrator.

And in the beginning, many people felt sorry for her, hearing her explain through her tears, that she was so isolated and alone, then arrested in her pyjamas, and when out on bail continued to be all alone and hopeless.

So those pictures do some damage to that personal narrative she put out there. Especially finding out she lied about something as meaningless as the pyjamas. How can we trust what she says?

 

[notsure]

And in the beginning, many people felt sorry for her, hearing her explain through her tears, that she was so isolated and alone, then arrested in her pyjamas, and when out on bail continued to be all alone and hopeless.

So those pictures do some damage to that personal narrative she put out there. Especially finding out she lied about something as meaningless as the pyjamas. How can we trust what she says?

Ikr, my worst nightmare would be to be dragged from the house in my nightie and no makeup!

 

[Dotta]

And in the beginning, many people felt sorry for her, hearing her explain through her tears, that she was so isolated and alone, then arrested in her pyjamas, and when out on bail continued to be all alone and hopeless.

So those pictures do some damage to that personal narrative she put out there. Especially finding out she lied about something as meaningless as the pyjamas. How can we trust what she says?

She should have chosen acting as a career.
"Oscar" would be hers!

JMO

 

[notsure]

She should have chosen acting as a career.
"Oscar" would be hers!

JMO

I mean, did she not think anyone would check?

 

[katydid23]

This one text from Doc Choc really stands out to me:

Doc: Lucy, if anyone knows how hard you've worked over the last three days it's me. The standard of care delivered is tertiary nicu level. if *anybody* says anything to you about not being good enough or performing adequately I want you to promise me that you'll give my details to provide a statement. I don't care who it is and I don't care if I've left the trust. Promise?


Reading that makes me wonder ----maybe one reason NJ spent so much time outing him as a boyfriend was he didn't want the doctor to try and be a character witness for her in any way.

 

[Tortoise]

And in the beginning, many people felt sorry for her, hearing her explain through her tears, that she was so isolated and alone, then arrested in her pyjamas, and when out on bail continued to be all alone and hopeless.

So those pictures do some damage to that personal narrative she put out there. Especially finding out she lied about something as meaningless as the pyjamas. How can we trust what she says?

One might say there's something karmic about a bunch of police knocking on her door while she was still in her pyjamas, after she gleefully reported to her friend that she had knocked on the door of parents on the unit and broadcast details of the mother's nightwear. JMO

 

[Dotta]

This one text from Doc Choc really stands out to me:

Doc: Lucy, if anyone knows how hard you've worked over the last three days it's me. The standard of care delivered is tertiary nicu level. if *anybody* says anything to you about not being good enough or performing adequately I want you to promise me that you'll give my details to provide a statement. I don't care who it is and I don't care if I've left the trust. Promise?


Reading that makes me wonder ----maybe one reason NJ spent so much time outing him as a boyfriend was he didn't want the doctor to try and be a character witness for her in any way.

I honestly doubt he would vouch for her now.
He quickly took a back seat as soon as she was arrested.

But who knows?

JMO

 

[Jayney404]

This one text from Doc Choc really stands out to me:

Doc: Lucy, if anyone knows how hard you've worked over the last three days it's me. The standard of care delivered is tertiary nicu level. if *anybody* says anything to you about not being good enough or performing adequately I want you to promise me that you'll give my details to provide a statement. I don't care who it is and I don't care if I've left the trust. Promise?


Reading that makes me wonder ----maybe one reason NJ spent so much time outing him as a boyfriend was he didn't want the doctor to try and be a character witness for her in any way.

You only offer to write someone a statement if you know an investigation is pending imo.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

One might say there's something karmic about a bunch of police knocking on her door while she was still in her pyjamas, after she gleefully reported to her friend that she had knocked on the door of parents on the unit and broadcast details of the mother's nightwear. JMO

This whole pyjama thing... I'm confused, can anyone clarify?

So, IIRC, LL was arrested at her own home the first time - I assume an early morning 'surprise visit' from officers, usually these are in the early hours? Is it this occasion she is claiming to have been in her nightie / PJs?

The second (and third - were there three times?) she was arrested at her parents' home - the final time obviously being taken into custody? Were those also 'dawn raid' type door knocks by the police or at least conducted by surprise? Is it at her parents' home when she was taken into custody that she's claiming she was in her nightwear?

Why are some people saying she said a nightie and others saying pyjamas?

Did she answer the door wearing the 'Lee Cooper lounge wear' (this brand is forever trashed LOL)?

Maybe she really did quickly pull a track suit on over her nightie?

If she was arrested several times, then how is there only one video to view and not two or three to prove she was in matching pants and top?

Or maybe she sleeps in casual jog pants and hoodie as PJs (I personally do this *all* the time because I have PTSD from various issues and find it comforting and reassuring. (In the past there's been times where I've needed to flee outdoors without time to get clothes)

How do the police know what she was wearing when they pounced, she would have taken some time to come to the door I assume? Or did her parents answer?

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just curious, any responses gratefully received.