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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
She did indeed, which left me wondering ‘how does she know if it would be difficult or not?’ IMO it could be suggested that she knows it’s difficult because she’s tried it before, maybe there is some resistance felt in the syringe when trying to push it through? Is that what she means by difficult?
MOO
What I was thinking was that nurses are trained to be careful not to allow air into a line, so wouldn't she know that air could easily be pushed through the line if done intentionally?
 
He was only referring to the babies she is charged with when he spoke about the prosecution's chart, and has never made any claims of other babies being left out of the prosecution's case to put LL in the frame.

I think when he said "The chart does not show 'other collapses or desaturations' for the children when Letby is not present" some people have wrongly assumed he was talking about other babies.

Dr Evans has said he was not aware of the name Lucy Letby until she was arrested, so the selection criteria for suspicious events was made purely on medical facts. This has been demonstrated several times throughout his testimony.

JMO
I never meant or thought he was trying to put LL in the frame, concerning other babies.

I thought he was implying that other babies had collapsed between June 2015 and June 2016, who LL had no connection to. Thus discounting the allegation that ALL collapses happened under her watch.

I don't think his opening statements were very clear---at least not in the way reported. It may have been more clear in the court room.

I understand the suspicious events were only made based upon medical facts. I just wondered if there were a few that were borderline. Some of the children in the charged cases had illnesses --like pneumonia, hemophilia, lung issues, etc. ---so just wondered if a medical expert could have flagged a few other collapses as unexplained as well. That seemed to be what Meyers was trying to say in some of the cross examinations, IIRC.

But obviously you are right that there was not much to it since he never followed through.
 
What I was thinking was that nurses are trained to be careful not to allow air into a line, so wouldn't she know that air could easily be pushed through the line if done intentionally?

I can’t recall what type of line she is accused of putting air into. If TPN, there are inline filters that would catch air bubbles or minute particles, so maybe that is what she meant?

Only if she’s guilty and IMO.
 
Last edited:
Does anybody remember the specifics of her arrests ?

I was under the impression she was arrested on the first occasion and was told she wasn't allowed to return home and went to live with her parents ?

Did she continue working after her first arrest ?
and where and when were all the notes/handover notes found ?

If anyone knows.

Thank you in advance <3
 
Does anybody remember the specifics of her arrests ?

I was under the impression she was arrested on the first occasion and was told she wasn't allowed to return home and went to live with her parents ?

Did she continue working after her first arrest ?
and where and when were all the notes/handover notes found ?

If anyone knows.

Thank you in advance <3

^ She was first arrested in July 2018. She was suspended from work in approx June/July 2017. So no, she hadn't worked for the prior year. Guardian article from July 2018 -

It is understood she was suspended 12 months ago and before this she had been removed from clinical duties and placed in an administrative role.
 
Last edited:
LL was initially arrested on suspicion in 2018. Then rearrested in June 2019, eventually finally rearrested again in November 2020.

I still think about her first arrest. She of course was allowed to go home afterwards.

Surely as she has intelligence even for her job, she (if guilty) would have thought maybe she will be questioned again in the near future.

So why did she not think about 'shredding' or even burning all the 257 handover sheets, along with the post-it notes that had been found between her home and her parents home.

Of course it is a blessing she didn't as those have been mentioned and shown in court.

But had this been me I would have been thinking along those lines and get to destroy anything that I would think would go against me if I was questioned again, or a search might be arranged for my home.

Extremely good question. I assume that until the time the police located and took possession of the papers, they weren't in any way aware of them existing? ie, they did not locate them, disregard them, and then realise the significance and come back months later with a warrant?

I have said this many times before and maybe some people find it inappropriate for suggestions to be made as regards LL's state of mind and psyche but to my mind, LL has probably got a sophisticated slippery thinking system, compartmentalising, and denial mechanisms applied internally to her own self and her own ego, never mind how she interacts with others.

It is possible that in her mind, the papers just 'came home' with her (all by themselves, uninvited) a situation in which she had no input, agency, or control. Since they weren't meant to be there, and she didn't do it, they didn't exist in reality in plastic bags under her bed, but in some 'other' space that she couldn't deal with thinking about and ignored. So they sort of existed only in a very partitioned off part of her that isn't freely accessible to all of her. Ergo most of the time, there is nothing that needs to be destroyed.

When she did think about it more consciously, she literally lost her mind, couldn't cope, wrote despairing post it notes in a high level of agitation and distress. Notably, even then still couldn't bring herself to face up to destroying them which would have taken very conscious present moment action and agency over herself, so she stuffed them back under the bed again. A form of internal hide and seek with herself, never mind the police. I think the proof of this argument is that she hadn't destroyed them. Anyone would have.

JMO MOO
 
Also, the clear and present possibility that she proactively *wanted* to keep the papers, 'collecting paper' as she says in her own words for treasuring and sentimental reasons. AKA 'trophies'.

And that is pretty straightforward compared to my above complex theory and is chilling and sickening to even contemplate.

JMO MOO
 
You're right. It was to do with the time it took them to get to the jury room, get settled and begin deliberations.
So I got this totally the wrong way around.

It used to be two hours into deliberations before a judge could give a majority instruction, it is now two hours and 10 minutes.

I don't have a subscription to this law book but the first few lines are available for free -

428. Procedure on majority verdict.


If the jury returns (whether for the first time or subsequently) or is sent for after the statutory two hours and ten minutes1 (or such longer time as the judge thinks reasonable) has elapsed since the last member of the jury left the jury box to go to the jury room on initial retirement, they should be asked: 'Have you reached a verdict upon which you are all agreed? Please answer Yes or No'2; followed by (if unanimous): 'What is your verdict?'3. If it appears that the members of the jury are
428. Procedure On Majority Verdict. | Criminal Procedure | LexisNexis
 
Extremely good question. I assume that until the time the police located and took possession of the papers, they weren't in any way aware of them existing? ie, they did not locate them, disregard them, and then realise the significance and come back months later with a warrant?

I have said this many times before and maybe some people find it inappropriate for suggestions to be made as regards LL's state of mind and psyche but to my mind, LL has probably got a sophisticated slippery thinking system, compartmentalising, and denial mechanisms applied internally to her own self and her own ego, never mind how she interacts with others.

It is possible that in her mind, the papers just 'came home' with her (all by themselves, uninvited) a situation in which she had no input, agency, or control. Since they weren't meant to be there, and she didn't do it, they didn't exist in reality in plastic bags under her bed, but in some 'other' space that she couldn't deal with thinking about and ignored. So they sort of existed only in a very partitioned off part of her that isn't freely accessible to all of her. Ergo most of the time, there is nothing that needs to be destroyed.

When she did think about it more consciously, she literally lost her mind, couldn't cope, wrote despairing post it notes in a high level of agitation and distress. Notably, even then still couldn't bring herself to face up to destroying them which would have taken very conscious present moment action and agency over herself, so she stuffed them back under the bed again. A form of internal hide and seek with herself, never mind the police. I think the proof of this argument is that she hadn't destroyed them. Anyone would have.

JMO MOO
Her house and the office she worked in were searched and her notes and handover sheets etc were seized by police with her first arrest.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, April 17
 
12:59

Were you playing daft in your police interview, Letby asked​

The court was told that in her police interview Lucy Letby said she didn't know what the dangers of injecting air were.
She says now that she meant she didn't know the exact pathological danger, but did know that ultimately it would end in death.
Nick Johnson KC: "Were you playing daft?"
Lucy Letby: "No, it’s something every nurse would know."
Nick Johnson KC: "Why didn’t you say something?"
Lucy Letby: "I know the ultimate outcome would be death - how that would appear in terms of symptoms for a baby - I don’t know."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65602988/page/2
"I know the ultimate outcome would be death ..."

Here, I believe the prosecutor has obtained what he was after (and I think he got it from her with the risks of giving unprescribed insulin too), that she had knowledge of the risks which would be one of the elements of proving intent.

MOO
 
"I know the ultimate outcome would be death ..."

Here, I believe the prosecutor has obtained what he was after (and I think he got it from her with the risks of giving unprescribed insulin too), that she had knowledge of the risks which would be one of the elements of proving intent.

MOO

Yes, and even if she were to say that maybe air got in the line because she was texting with one hand and not paying due care and attention for example, then that would still be 'causing the death of'. IMO
 
Her house and the office she worked in were searched and her notes and handover sheets etc were seized by police with her first arrest.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, April 17

So they came to her home the first time unexpectedly and in that search they located most of the handover sheets and removed them?

In which case, she wasn't to know they would come looking. However, she did know she was already under scrutiny and possible trouble or at least some form of controversy. It's hard to imagine why she didn't destroy the sheets before then. Maybe she was holding on to them so she couldn't be accused of misappropriating and destroying them?

JMO MOO
 
Man. Wow. That "defense". If you could call it that. I think her lawyer threw in the towel. Over a hundred days hearing about babies being murdered, EVERY single day? Being the person in charge of standing up for an accused baby murderer for 100+ days? Man needs a vacation. <modsnip: Nicknames or derogatory terms for individuals are not allowed>
I'm so curious re what actually went on with Myers' representation of her. It did very much feel like he threw in the towel and it's left us all wondering this reason as to why.
It could only really be a few things.
1. There were never any defence witnesses he was just blagging it.
2. There were defence witnesses but Letby threw herself under the bus so they couldn't be called
3. The mix up over the 'agreed statements' caused tension and now either she wants to fire him or visa versa.
4. A mix of all of the above

All JMO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm so curious re what actually went on with Myers' representation of her. It did very much feel like he threw in the towel and it's left us all wondering this reason as to why.
It could only really be a few things.
1. There were never any defence witnesses he was just blagging it.
2. There were defence witnesses but Letby threw herself under the bus so they couldn't be called
3. The mix up over the 'agreed statements' caused tension and now either she wants to fire him or visa versa.
4. A mix of all of the above

All JMO

I think most likely they withdrew in the face of other evidence that was presented along the way.
Plus LL made statements that rendered their input redundant, in line with your point 2.

Personally, if it were me, I'd have got cold feet along the way and wouldn't want my professional reputation staked on defending the likes of LL. Although IMO every defendant should have recourse to an expert to pull apart holes and flaws in the prosecution's case, what if there were no discernible holes?
 
I'm so curious re what actually went on with Myers' representation of her. It did very much feel like he threw in the towel and it's left us all wondering this reason as to why.
It could only really be a few things.
1. There were never any defence witnesses he was just blagging it.
2. There were defence witnesses but Letby threw herself under the bus so they couldn't be called
3. The mix up over the 'agreed statements' caused tension and now either she wants to fire him or visa versa.
4. A mix of all of the above

All JMO
He never gave any indication that the defence had their own experts though. It was only with the two-day hearings without the jury this week that there was whispering of a possible last minute expert being brought before the court for sanction. I think it comes down to whether you had expectations that he would have experts, and it's not true that anything actually changed for the defence. From my perspective.

JMO
 
I'm so curious re what actually went on with Myers' representation of her. It did very much feel like he threw in the towel and it's left us all wondering this reason as to why.
It could only really be a few things.
1. There were never any defence witnesses he was just blagging it.
2. There were defence witnesses but Letby threw herself under the bus so they couldn't be called
3. The mix up over the 'agreed statements' caused tension and now either she wants to fire him or visa versa.
4. A mix of all of the above

All JMO
Yes arguably Ben Myers case now lies in tatters, similar to the toilet paper floating around the Ill maintained plumbing of an unrelated and irrelevant location.

POO (personal opinion only)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
137
Guests online
629
Total visitors
766

Forum statistics

Threads
608,260
Messages
18,236,929
Members
234,325
Latest member
davenotwayne
Back
Top