UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #27

[Dotta]

I picture everyone asleep in the courtroom, judge, jury, maybe even Lucy as Dr Myers bangs on for hours on end, talking to himself about medical innuendos and possibilities.

It is literally the only way I can explain how someone with no medical experience is allowed to claim medical facts despite not bringing in a single expert…Other than the expert of copper pipes

I imagine the Jury are sitting huddled terrified of being drenched in icy cold water from the bucket BM mentioned at the beginning.

Mind you - their health is sooo fragile.

Just My Opinion

 

[katydid23]

3:42pm

Mr Myers recalls Child E's mother's statement.
He says there is no basis for what happened here to the bleed later, as Dr Harkness reviewed Child E later and found him to be 'stable'.
Mr Myers says the record of Child E's "horrendous" screaming, as recalled by Child E's mother - "cannot be like that". He says the unit would have been "full of people coming and going". He asks "how on earth" would that not raise the concerns of people nearby? He says it is "unrealistic" it can be "in the way she described".

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 27 - defence closing speech

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

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

3:39pm

Mr Myers refers to the allegation Letby attacked Child E at 9pm.
He says Child E's mother's account was she walked in and Letby was not near the incubator at the time. He says the prosecution's statement was a "highly charged" statement.
He says "that is the evidence", that Letby was "not causing harm".
He says he is sympathetic with Child E's mother. He says the prosecution have "done their best" to turn this "into a binary choice" - that 'either Lucy Letby is lying or [Child E's mother] is lying'. He says the prosecution have done that deliberately.
He says the question is what degree of accuracy has each said.
BM: "Perhaps can we take the heat out of that?"

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 27 - defence closing speech

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

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

So BM starts by saying:
He says the prosecution have "done their best" to turn this "into a binary choice" - that 'either Lucy Letby is lying or [Child E's mother] is lying'. He says the prosecution have done that deliberately.
He says the question is what degree of accuracy has each said.
BM: "Perhaps can we take the heat out of that?"

But he then goes on to say:
Mr Myers says the record of Child E's "horrendous" screaming, as recalled by Child E's mother - "cannot be like that". He says the unit would have been "full of people coming and going". He asks "how on earth" would that not raise the concerns of people nearby? He says it is "unrealistic" it can be "in the way she described".


He starts by accusing the prosecution of falsely making it a case of 'who is lying' ---unfairly pitting LL against the mom.

But then he goes on to pit LL against the mom, by calling mom's memory of the events unrealistic, and saying 'how on earth' could it have been possible, it just could not have happened that way, etc etc.

All hyperbole on his part. Her version of events sounded very plausible and believable. and she has corroboration, which he basically ignored.

 

[notsure]

My post was a tad flippant. My previous posts explained a bit better the point I was getting at (re acting as if the medical experts and witnesses hadn't refuted/disputed his claims) so I won't repeat myself.

I understand Just trying to consider both viewpoints.

 

[Sundial]

Are they his opinions or his client's stories though?

I have a sneaky feeling that not every defence barrister is finding their client innocent by the end of a case and can likely see the points of law where a jury ought rightly convict but they can hardly throw the towel in. Can they...? (IANAL!) JMO

Oh for sure I agree with you here; BUT speaking of the towel, I can’t help but feel it’s been there hovering by his side as soon as she got on the stand; her “well I disagree now” statement when she refuted agreed evidence (presented as fact by baby Ns father) as put forward by her defence. That I found was a quite a sour (memorable IMO) point for me and most likely did not got unnoticed by the jury.

I guess this is likely the last chance he’s got to make an impression, even if all based on his personal bias. I’m sure the plumber can hand him a towel to wipe his brow when his closing speech concludes.

If guilty etc
Moo

 

[Sundial]

This! It’s like watching the average person on Facebook become more of an expert than the person with the phd or doctorate

Amen!! Exactly how I feel. IMO if this is all he has to go on, it’s presented as nothing else IMO but just to create a distraction.

Make enough noise scenario.

Just my opinion
MOO

 

[squish]

So BM starts by saying:
He says the prosecution have "done their best" to turn this "into a binary choice" - that 'either Lucy Letby is lying or [Child E's mother] is lying'. He says the prosecution have done that deliberately.
He says the question is what degree of accuracy has each said.
BM: "Perhaps can we take the heat out of that?"

But he then goes on to say:
Mr Myers says the record of Child E's "horrendous" screaming, as recalled by Child E's mother - "cannot be like that". He says the unit would have been "full of people coming and going". He asks "how on earth" would that not raise the concerns of people nearby? He says it is "unrealistic" it can be "in the way she described".


He starts by accusing the prosecution of falsely making it a case of 'who is lying' ---unfairly pitting LL against the mom.

But then he goes on to pit LL against the mom, by calling mom's memory of the events unrealistic, and saying 'how on earth' could it have been possible, it just could not have happened that way, etc etc.

All hyperbole on his part. Her version of events sounded very plausible and believable. and she has corroboration, which he basically ignored.

IMO he would have been better off not reminding the jury of Baby E’s screams at all, than disputing the mother’s account.

It’s not like the screams are vital to the prosecution’s case for this charge.

 

[squish]

If guilty -

I don't know if it is motivation as such, but I was watching a video the other day about the psychological profile of homicidal poisoners. I hadn't really put LL into the category of (alleged) poisoner before, apart from the (alleged) insulin poisonings, but then I thought well actually if she is guilty of injecting air, that is poisoning too.

Some of the most common traits of (convicted) homicidal poisoners are -

a sense of inadequacy with scorn for authority
a strong need for control
a self-centred exploitative interpersonal style
spoiled in childhood
cunning
skilled at pretending to be something they're not
avoid confrontation so tend to rely on manipulation to get what they want
immature, developmentally stunted, viewing others without empathy

JMO

A lot of this fits with what we’ve surmised about LL.

She has obvious narcissistic tendencies, which is rooted in deep-seated shame at feeling inadequate. She said she was “not good enough” in her note.

She is scornful of everyone less or more qualified than herself, as proven by her bitching and griping in her texts. She seemed to hate being told what to do, regarding allocations etc.

She comes across as controlling and manipulative in her texts, someone who wants to get her own way and get certain responses from people. If guilty, the killings themselves could indicate a desire to control life and death itself.

She got wound up by a doctor “faffing” during resus, as LL said she liked everything to be tidy and calm. This seems controlling and intolerant to me.

She’s definitely cunning and skilled at pretending to be something she’s not - regardless of guilt, she had everyone believing she’s a competent, dedicated nurse, when in fact she was texting non-stop, falsifying notes, stashing confidential documents, and resentful of the “boring” side of her duties.

Her lies and tactics in court were very childlike in their quality (like a primary school level of lies), even though the delivery was masterful. Her bitching also seems immature.

There’s no hard evidence but a lot of people, including me, get the strong impression she was coddled, infantilised and spoiled by her parents.

No evidence yet of her being interpersonally exploitative (but I can see this sort of thing coming out post-verdict), nor of avoiding confrontation, as there are multiple accounts of her having altercations with other staff.

Otherwise this profile fits her rather well. JMO, not an indication of guilt.

 

[katydid23]

Yes, it's like he's completely erased the last 8 months and just repeated his opening statement.

Which would be understandable if he had opposing medical experts to back up his claims. I always heard that an attorney cannot make a statement in closing that was not shown to be true, in some way, during trial.

 

[katydid23]

I suppose it's fair to say that both parties are summarising their respective sides? I thought that was the point of it.

True, there are both sides. But one side brought in medical experts to testify and show their evidence.

But Meyers is 'refuting' their medical experts but without having any medical experts to corroborate his statements.

He puts up an X-ray of a patient with an A/E, then says ' It looks nothing like the X-rays in this case.' HE IS NOT AN EXPERT IN THIS FIELD. How can he make such absolute medical attests with no medical expertise?

 

[katydid23]

duplicate

 

[Nali87]

Does NJ get a chance for rebuttal? Meyers is making some incorrect statements that should be pushed back on.

No, this is it. Defense closes.

 

[Moll]

No, this is it. Defense closes.

But judge sums up. I'm relying on him.

 

[Tortoise]

A lot of this fits with what we’ve surmised about LL.

She has obvious narcissistic tendencies, which is rooted in deep-seated shame at feeling inadequate. She said she was “not good enough” in her note.

She is scornful of everyone less or more qualified than herself, as proven by her bitching and griping in her texts. She seemed to hate being told what to do, regarding allocations etc.

She comes across as controlling and manipulative in her texts, someone who wants to get her own way and get certain responses from people. If guilty, the killings themselves could indicate a desire to control life and death itself.

She got wound up by a doctor “faffing” during resus, as LL said she liked everything to be tidy and calm. This seems controlling and intolerant to me.

She’s definitely cunning and skilled at pretending to be something she’s not - regardless of guilt, she had everyone believing she’s a competent, dedicated nurse, when in fact she was texting non-stop, falsifying notes, stashing confidential documents, and resentful of the “boring” side of her duties.

Her lies and tactics in court were very childlike in their quality (like a primary school level of lies), even though the delivery was masterful. Her bitching also seems immature.

There’s no hard evidence but a lot of people, including me, get the strong impression she was coddled, infantilised and spoiled by her parents.

No evidence yet of her being interpersonally exploitative (but I can see this sort of thing coming out post-verdict), nor of avoiding confrontation, as there are multiple accounts of her having altercations with other staff.

Otherwise this profile fits her rather well. JMO, not an indication of guilt.

I have to confess the actual phraseology was 'avoids physical confrontation' so rely on manipulation to get what they want etc.. I missed out the word physical.

It's just a personal opinion of mine but I think we have seen examples of her avoiding physical confrontation, in the way she uses texting to complain but not directly to the person she is complaining about, in some of her notes to self about other people, and in her demeanour on the witness stand.

It could be said that taking the witness stand is an act of physical confrontation but perhaps, if she does have this style, this was a huge dilemma for her with the stakes as they are; not taking the stand means passing up the opportunity to (as alleged by the prosecution) manipulate and gaslight the jury, and fight these allegations. But, my impression is that on the stand she has been quite clipped with her answers of 'no', has avoided looking at NJ and been fairly disconnected, sometimes withdrawing into silence, which could be because she is used to avoiding confrontation.

As regards interpersonally exploitative, I think that covers gaslighting, and also could be the reason for her friendships with the doctors, if she used those relationships to be trusted when she was allegedly harming the babies and to get inside information and a feel for what the doctor group was thinking about her.

JMO and if guilty.

 

[Tortoise]

Which would be understandable if he had opposing medical experts to back up his claims. I always heard that an attorney cannot make a statement in closing that was not shown to be true, in some way, during trial.

I think it's not that it must have been shown to be true during trial, but that it must have been an argument made by the defence during the trial.

I also think there's clearly a lot of things we didn't get to hear through the reporting of the trial. Through all of the witness testimony, yesterday was the first time gas mentioned in baby C's post mortem has been mentioned in reporting, that I'm aware of, giving new context to Dr Marnerides' conclusions. I'm assuming there must have been disagreement during the evidence with the insulin results for baby L, for BM to be allowed to say that it was lower than baby F's, even if none of the experts accepted the arguments. He has to continue as if he is right about it. Similarly the arguments about baby C having a bowel blockage were raised by the defence, and were rejected by all of the experts.

It's a defence by argument rather than by positive witness testimony, on the basis that every single witness is wrong or has lied. I call it the 'under the wheels of the bus defence', and it's only going to get worse before the week is out, because there are a lot more witnesses to get under that bus yet.

JMO

 

[marynnu]

I have to confess the actual phraseology was 'avoids physical confrontation' so rely on manipulation to get what they want etc.. I missed out the word physical.

It's just a personal opinion of mine but I think we have seen examples of her avoiding physical confrontation, in the way she uses texting to complain but not directly to the person she is complaining about, in some of her notes to self about other people, and in her demeanour on the witness stand.

It could be said that taking the witness stand is an act of physical confrontation but perhaps, if she does have this style, this was a huge dilemma for her with the stakes as they are; not taking the stand means passing up the opportunity to (as alleged by the prosecution) manipulate and gaslight the jury, and fight these allegations. But, my impression is that on the stand she has been quite clipped with her answers of 'no', has avoided looking at NJ and been fairly disconnected, sometimes withdrawing into silence, which could be because she is used to avoiding confrontation.

As regards interpersonally exploitative, I think that covers gaslighting, and also could be the reason for her friendships with the doctors, if she used those relationships to be trusted when she was allegedly harming the babies and to get inside information and a feel for what the doctor group was thinking about her.

JMO and if guilty.

I'd very much like to know the content of her conversations with Dr. A.

 

[Eloise]

But judge sums up. I'm relying on him.

JMO but if all the prosecution evidence - months of it - can be undone with one final closing argument, then they weren't going to convict anyway. MOO, IMO etc

 

[Moll]

8:09am

This will be the third day of the defence's closing speech, expected to last five days in total.
For our coverage from Tuesday, click here: Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 27 - defence closing speech

10:26am

The courtroom at Manchester Crown Court is filling up. Lucy Letby has arrived, as has Benjamin Myers KC, who has been delivering the closing speech for the defence the past two days.

10:31am

The trial is now resuming.

10:35am

Mr Myers refers to the case of Child F.
He discusses the counts of insulin in general - for Child F and Child L.
He says the prosecution referred to Letby's 'concessions' of the insulin results. He says the defence reject she has committed an offence for those two counts.
He says the jury 'may well accept' the insulin results. He says it is insufficient to say Letby's concessions that the lab results are accurate when she cannot say otherwise. He says the defence can't test the results as they have long since been disposed of.
He says the evidence at face value shows how the insulin results were obtained. He says it is not agreed evidence.

10:38am

He says 'it seems', insulin continued throughout, and Letby 'cannot be held responsible for, realistically'.
He says Letby was accused of adding insulin to bags already put up [for Child F], or 'spiking it three times' for Child L. He says these explanations are "contrived and artificial".

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 28 - defence closing speech

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

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Moll]

10:41am

Mr Myers says a 'striking' matter that neither Child F or Child L "come close" to exhibiting serious symptoms as a result of high doses of insulin. Child F had a vomit. Child L "only ever seemed to be in good health", other than low blood sugar levels.

10:53am

He says for Child F, if accurate, received exogenous insulin administered, according to the laboratory result.
He says it was 12.25am when a TPN bag is put up for Child F by Letby and a colleague, and that was changed at noon by two other nurses as the cannula line had tissued.
He says the lab sample came at a time when Letby was not on duty, and was after the second bag had been put up.
Mr Myers says the readings of blood glucose found for Child F and Child L are not that different for their respective days, but the levels of insulin found in the lab sample differ [Child F had a reading of 4,659; Child L had a reading of 1,099].
He says Professor Peter Hindmarsh was asked to describe the signs of high insulin/low blood glucose. He said there was the potential for brain damage in low blood glucose levels. The other symptoms in serious cases include death of brain cells, seizures, coma, and even death.
He says "fortunately", "neither of these babies" exhibited the serious symptoms. He says that is surprising if both babies had the high levels of insulin alleged.

10:56am

Mr Myers says it is "a strange intent to kill" when the person with intent would know a remedy would be available - a solution of dextrose. He says Letby helped administer that dextrose.
He says it is "interesting" the proseution did not ask doctors to rule them out of involvement with insulin. He adds he is not making an allegation.

11:00am

He says there is "no evidence" Letby interfered with any TPN bag.
He says the fridge is used by "all nurses" on the unit, and the "risk would be obvious" that someone could be caught interfering with a TPN bag.
He says there are "lots of reasons" to show Letby would be noticed if she were to carry the act of administering insulin.

11:05am

Mr Myers says the defence make the "obvious" explanation that there is nothing to say Letby exclusively was responsible for the insulin being in the bag.
He says insulin continued to be given to Child F after Letby had left the unit, via a maintenance bag. He says it is "incredible" that Letby is held responsible for this.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 28 - defence closing speech

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

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[marynnu]

10:41am

Mr Myers says a 'striking' matter that neither Child F or Child L "come close" to exhibiting serious symptoms as a result of high doses of insulin. Child F had a vomit. Child L "only ever seemed to be in good health", other than low blood sugar levels.

10:53am

He says for Child F, if accurate, received exogenous insulin administered, according to the laboratory result.
He says it was 12.25am when a TPN bag is put up for Child F by Letby and a colleague, and that was changed at noon by two other nurses as the cannula line had tissued.
He says the lab sample came at a time when Letby was not on duty, and was after the second bag had been put up.
Mr Myers says the readings of blood glucose found for Child F and Child L are not that different for their respective days, but the levels of insulin found in the lab sample differ [Child F had a reading of 4,659; Child L had a reading of 1,099].
He says Professor Peter Hindmarsh was asked to describe the signs of high insulin/low blood glucose. He said there was the potential for brain damage in low blood glucose levels. The other symptoms in serious cases include death of brain cells, seizures, coma, and even death.
He says "fortunately", "neither of these babies" exhibited the serious symptoms. He says that is surprising if both babies had the high levels of insulin alleged.

10:56am

Mr Myers says it is "a strange intent to kill" when the person with intent would know a remedy would be available - a solution of dextrose. He says Letby helped administer that dextrose.
He says it is "interesting" the proseution did not ask doctors to rule them out of involvement with insulin. He adds he is not making an allegation.

11:00am

He says there is "no evidence" Letby interfered with any TPN bag.
He says the fridge is used by "all nurses" on the unit, and the "risk would be obvious" that someone could be caught interfering with a TPN bag.
He says there are "lots of reasons" to show Letby would be noticed if she were to carry the act of administering insulin.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 28 - defence closing speech

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

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

A lot of nonsense there, in my view. Firstly, any nurse could add insulin to a bag undetected. And why ask the doctors? They never handle insulin at all, and very rarely even use the ward keys. All JMO.

 

[marynnu]

dbm