UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #5

[BuzzC]

Your last point is my point exactly, if she KNEW she had murdered them she wouldn’t add the “on purpose” or even presumably the word “killed”which isn’t implicative of guilt. It’s a neutral word because to kill is not necessarily to do wrong. Assuming denial isn’t at play which is way off. No sign of denial with the phrase “I haven’t done anything wrong” which is in that note which is the correct way a denial of guilt would be given.

I’ll admit to misunderstanding your point then.

To me, it seems like you’re saying that by explicitly saying she killed deliberately she’s somehow expressing the opposite?

I feel like you’re coming from this from the point of view that she’s innocent and fitting the evidence to that belief.

 

[Sweeper2000]

She didn’t say “deliberately” or “intentionally” she said “on purpose” as opposed to “by mistake”. I’m not really talking about technicalities of language, words often have more than one meaning. Another dictionary definition of the phrase “on purpose” is”purposely” which is different in context to intentionally. I’m talking more about the way and in what context language is used.

 

[BuzzC]

She didn’t say “deliberately” or “intentionally” she said “on purpose” as opposed to “by mistake”. I’m not really talking about technicalities of language, words often have more than one meaning. Another dictionary definition of the phrase “on purpose” is”purposely” which is different in context to intentionally. I’m talking more about the way and in what context language is used.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “purposely” means “intentionally”.

If she didn’t kill them “by mistake”, then she killed them deliberately. There isn’t another option.

Edit to add: the other option is, of course, that she didn’t kill them at all. But in the context of the note.

But I’m going to bow out of this now because there was a lot of evidence discussed in court today and I feel like I’m repeating the same point over and over.

My final point, and I’ll be happy to refer back to this at the time whether I’m right or wrong, is that I fully believe that the prosecution will make explicit reference to the “on purpose” element of her statement, and I fully expect that the defence won’t engage in an argument about definitions and will instead argue that she wrote down something that she didn’t actually do due to her state of mind.

Thanks for engaging, it’s been an interesting debate.

 

[squish]

I am not at all questioning his credibility or integrity as a witness, or capability as a doctor, but I have found Dr. Ravi Jayaram causes my hackles to raise. I just get strong showy-offy attention-seeky vibes from him. Nothing to do with this trial, it's just how his personality comes across. He's just unlikeable to me. Again, nothing to do with the trial, although I found his word choice when describing his management putting him off from complaining about Letby to be a little bit inappropriate, as you should talk in a straight forward manner when testifying in court.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I’ll admit to misunderstanding your point then.

To me, it seems like you’re saying that by explicitly saying she killed deliberately she’s somehow expressing the opposite?

I feel like you’re coming from this from the point of view that she’s innocent and fitting the evidence to that belief.

I don’t know why people would take an initial statement of innocence and then one that is potentially but not definitely one of guilt and then take it at face value. Surely the presence of statements that are polar opposites should demand further inspection as to other potential meaning in this case you can determine that by reading the rest of the note and that can “set the scene” to determine the meaning behind the self contradiction.

 

[TraderJones]

She didn’t say “deliberately” or “intentionally” she said “on purpose” as opposed to “by mistake”. I’m not really talking about technicalities of language, words often have more than one meaning. Another dictionary definition of the phrase “on purpose” is”purposely” which is different in context to intentionally. I’m talking more about the way and in what context language is used.

Honestly.

If you're determined to play defence rather than look at this objectively, then maybe concentrate your argument on *why* she might have written that e.g. Listing accusations against her, or psychosis? (however I believe she has been deemed mentally fit).

In my mind this is likely a practice suicide note/ brainstorm of ideas for one. It would explain why she has presumably kept it around.

 

[Sweeper2000]

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “purposely” means “intentionally”.

If she didn’t kill them “by mistake”, then she killed them deliberately. There isn’t another option.

Edit to add: the other option is, of course, that she didn’t kill them at all. But in the context of the note.

But I’m going to bow out of this now because there was a lot of evidence discussed in court today and I feel like I’m repeating the same point over and over.

My final point, and I’ll be happy to refer back to this at the time whether I’m right or wrong, is that I fully believe that the prosecution will make explicit reference to the “on purpose” element of her statement, and I fully expect that the defence won’t engage in an argument about definitions and will instead argue that she wrote down something that she didn’t actually do due to her state of mind.

Thanks for engaging, it’s been an interesting debate.

You are correct again except for the fact that there is a third option. She could have killed no one.

I expect also that will be the defences approach.

 

[arrogantcat]

Yes but it’s not what you would say were you actually confessing to a crime. You would say “I killed them” the phrase is used additionally, the presence of it in the sentence strongly implies emotions not related to any definite guilt. You would only use that phrase if you had an element of doubt. You don’t say “I shot the soldier on purpose” do you? With an admission of guilt you only say “yes” or “no” you wouldn’t add something implicative of doubt. I don’t think people would Register the phrase “on purpose” as being the opposite of “without purpose” which doesn’t fit, it would be much more used in the context of unintentional ie by mistake Am I right or wrong? Or neither

To me, the logical parsing of this is it being in response to the (actual or hypothetical question) “are they saying I killed them by accident?”

The response being, “no, they think you killed them on purpose”.

 

[BuzzC]

You are correct again except for the fact that there is a third option. She could have killed no one.

I expect also that will be the defences approach.

Indeed, I edited my post to say that as well.

 

[arrogantcat]

She didn’t say “deliberately” or “intentionally” she said “on purpose” as opposed to “by mistake”. I’m not really talking about technicalities of language, words often have more than one meaning. Another dictionary definition of the phrase “on purpose” is”purposely” which is different in context to intentionally. I’m talking more about the way and in what context language is used.

A really good question to ask about the post-it note is *why* she wrote it.
Whether you believe it is a confession or an insistence of innocence, what is your explanation for her putting pen to paper at all? And why is your favoured admission/denial the true part, and the opposite not? (not aimed at you OP, but at everyone considering the note and it’s language)

To me it reads entirely like a typical CBT/life coaching ‘thought download’ aimed at capturing all the spiralling thoughts and feelings in a moment of panic. It would explain there being contrasting admissions/denials as it’s all just sentences in her brain in that moment - some her own, some she has heard. Her job is just to get them all out. The aim is to be able to clear your head, separate facts from fiction, etc.

It would also explain her naming the emotions to the side, too.

How To Do A Thought Download - It Begins With A Thought Coaching

One of the best ways to reach your goals is by doing daily thought downloads. Here's how to do thought work and a thought download example.

itbeginswithathought.com

 

[Sweeper2000]

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “purposely” means “intentionally”.

If she didn’t kill them “by mistake”, then she killed them deliberately. There isn’t another option.

Edit to add: the other option is, of course, that she didn’t kill them at all. But in the context of the note.

But I’m going to bow out of this now because there was a lot of evidence discussed in court today and I feel like I’m repeating the same point over and over.

My final point, and I’ll be happy to refer back to this at the time whether I’m right or wrong, is that I fully believe that the prosecution will make explicit reference to the “on purpose” element of her statement, and I fully expect that the defence won’t engage in an argument about definitions and will instead argue that she wrote down something that she didn’t actually do due to her state of mind.

Thanks for engaging, it’s been an interesting debate.

According to the Cambridge dictionary the word “purposely” also means “with a specific intent”. It’s the psychology at the root of language here, gets messy.

 

[arrogantcat]

My impression as we progress to child C: the medical evidence so far has not looked good for LL. Prosecution, from what we have seen and heard (and important to remember that this is just snippets via Twitter, mainly) have done a robust job in showing air embolism as the most likely cause of death for babies A and B.

They have yet to show that only LL could have administered this, but no doubt they will come to that in due course.

LL’s defence seem to be treading a murky line between “it didn’t happen” and “if it did happen, it was caused by accident or by the equpment and procedures”. Will be interesting to see if they bring any of their own expert testimony in the coming days - but is this likely now the prosecution have moved on to child c?

 

[Sweeper2000]

A really good question to ask about the post-it note is *why* she wrote it.
Whether you believe it is a confession or an insistence of innocence, what is your explanation for her putting pen to paper at all? And why is your favoured admission/denial the true part, and the opposite not? (not aimed at you OP, but at everyone considering the note and it’s language)

To me it reads entirely like a typical CBT/life coaching ‘thought download’ aimed at capturing all the spiralling thoughts and feelings in a moment of panic. It would explain there being contrasting admissions/denials as it’s all just sentences in her brain in that moment - some her own, some she has heard. Her job is just to get them all out. The aim is to be able to clear your head, separate facts from fiction, etc.

It would also explain her naming the emotions to the side, too.

How To Do A Thought Download - It Begins With A Thought Coaching

One of the best ways to reach your goals is by doing daily thought downloads. Here's how to do thought work and a thought download example.

itbeginswithathought.com

Yes that’s exactly what I think as well. I’m not sure what if anything you can take from it. It starts lucid and ends somewhere way off the beaten track. I would like to see some of her other notes or writing, see if you can compare or build a bigger understanding.

Lots of people write stuff down. Think I heard somewhere the post it notes were for a specific type of thought or when you were in a certain mood/mind or whatever. . Is supposed to help as well with credible people saying it does.

 

[Sundial]

Just catching up with the last two days. How unbelievably sad and heartbreaking for these families. I am somewhat troubled by this conversation by text however. It makes me feel somewhat uncomfortable;

Letby later adds: "Forget I said anything, I will be fine, it's part of the job. Just don't feel like there is much team spirit tonight x"
The colleague replies: "I am not going to forget but think you're way too hard on yourself..."
Letby referred to previous events she had seen in a women's hospital, and the support available following such events.

3:36pm

The text message conversation, on Whatsapp, concludes at about 11pm.
Child C collapsed 20 minutes later.

My own thoughts; I wonder if she had seen such sadness amongst staff at the other hospital she worked, perhaps how they were comforted, their grief.. It could be purely nothing, but included with the medical reports so far, the need to stay away from room 1, then almost want to be in room 1.. there is just something which feels very uncomfortable here.

 

[Sweeper2000]

My impression as we progress to child C: the medical evidence so far has not looked good for LL. Prosecution, from what we have seen and heard (and important to remember that this is just snippets via Twitter, mainly) have done a robust job in showing air embolism as the most likely cause of death for babies A and B.

They have yet to show that only LL could have administered this, but no doubt they will come to that in due course.

LL’s defence seem to be treading a murky line between “it didn’t happen” and “if it did happen, it was caused by accident or by the equpment and procedures”. Will be interesting to see if they bring any of their own expert testimony in the coming days - but is this likely now the prosecution have moved on to child c?

Good questions, to be honest we haven’t really heard much from the defence other than questions to statements made by the prosecution. I don’t believe that’s all we can expect is it?

Yeh I think the medical evidence has been pretty tight with the air embolism theory. a big part of that you will hear from the Defence tomorrow after the “nearly always fatal” gets explained. Will be interesting to see there approach at explaining why Lucy apparently changed “killing method” if that is appropriate and fitting.

 

[JosieJo]

My impression as we progress to child C: the medical evidence so far has not looked good for LL. Prosecution, from what we have seen and heard (and important to remember that this is just snippets via Twitter, mainly) have done a robust job in showing air embolism as the most likely cause of death for babies A and B.

They have yet to show that only LL could have administered this, but no doubt they will come to that in due course.

LL’s defence seem to be treading a murky line between “it didn’t happen” and “if it did happen, it was caused by accident or by the equpment and procedures”. Will be interesting to see if they bring any of their own expert testimony in the coming days - but is this likely now the prosecution have moved on to child c?

I agree regarding the defence so far and how effective will this be I'm not sure

 

[JosieJo]

Good questions, to be honest we haven’t really heard much from the defence other than questions to statements made by the prosecution. I don’t believe that’s all we can expect is it?

Yeh I think the medical evidence has been pretty tight with the air embolism theory. a big part of that you will hear from the Defence tomorrow after the “nearly always fatal” gets explained. Will be interesting to see there approach at explaining why Lucy apparently changed “killing method” if that is appropriate and fitting.

Presumably they will say she changed methods to try and avoid detection?

 

[Dotta]

I guess if the note was a kind of confession, then if she is guilty, she might really confess at some point.

This case reminds me of a story of a priest I read some time ago - but I don't remember if it was fiction or fact - well, he killed young boys b/c he honestly believed he was saving them from the wicked materialistic world.

He considered himself their saviour, and pled not guilty.
He said the boys were now in Heaven - blisfully happy.
Moo

 

[merrypason]

Some additional detail from today in the DM. This is the second time so far LL has told either parents or doctors she believes babies are going to die when all the other medical staff are convinced they're healthy and well (said it with one of the other babies at the end as well, can't remember which). It's so weird. I personally think it's really unprofessional and cruel to tell parents their child is about to die when it's not what the doctors have said or indicated - I mean these are human beings with emotions, nothing excuses this callousness tbh.

Premature baby survived 'injection of air', Lucy Letby trial hears

The parents of Baby C, who is alleged to have been killed by neonatal nurse Lucy Letby, claim their newborn son was taken from their arms as they tried to comfort the dying baby.

www.dailymail.co.uk

"Today the jury at Manchester Crown Court was read a statement in which the father recalled him and his wife holding him as his life ebbed away.

'There was nothing more that could be done for him,' said the father. 'We just wanted to cuddle him and make him pain-free. We didn't want to leave him while he was still alive'.

A nurse he thought may have been Letby came in with a ventilated basket. She allegedly told the couple: 'You've said your goodbyes. Do you want me to put him in here?'

'This comment shocked us,' admitted the father.

'My wife said: 'He's not dead yet'. The nurse backed off and tried to defuse the situation, but I couldn't believe she'd said that'.

I didn't really take in what was happening, and didn't take in the severity of the situation, until a nurse came up and asked whether I wanted someone to call a priest.

'I remember feeling quite shocked and I asked if she thought he was going to die. She responded: "Yes, I think so".

'I was surprised that this piece of information came from a nurse rather than a doctor.'

She described the nurse as being in her mid to late 20s with a fair complexion and her hair in a ponytail."

 

[arrogantcat]

Some additional detail from today in the DM. This is the second time so far LL has told either parents or doctors she believes babies are going to die when all the other medical staff are convinced they're healthy and well (said it with one of the other babies at the end as well, can't remember which). It's so weird. I personally think it's really unprofessional and cruel to tell parents their child is about to die when it's not what the doctors have said or indicated - I mean these are human beings with emotions, nothing excuses this callousness tbh.

Premature baby survived 'injection of air', Lucy Letby trial hears

The parents of Baby C, who is alleged to have been killed by neonatal nurse Lucy Letby, claim their newborn son was taken from their arms as they tried to comfort the dying baby.

www.dailymail.co.uk

"Today the jury at Manchester Crown Court was read a statement in which the father recalled him and his wife holding him as his life ebbed away.

'There was nothing more that could be done for him,' said the father. 'We just wanted to cuddle him and make him pain-free. We didn't want to leave him while he was still alive'.

A nurse he thought may have been Letby came in with a ventilated basket. She allegedly told the couple: 'You've said your goodbyes. Do you want me to put him in here?'

'This comment shocked us,' admitted the father.

'My wife said: 'He's not dead yet'. The nurse backed off and tried to defuse the situation, but I couldn't believe she'd said that'.

I didn't really take in what was happening, and didn't take in the severity of the situation, until a nurse came up and asked whether I wanted someone to call a priest.

'I remember feeling quite shocked and I asked if she thought he was going to die. She responded: "Yes, I think so".

'I was surprised that this piece of information came from a nurse rather than a doctor.'

She described the nurse as being in her mid to late 20s with a fair complexion and her hair in a ponytail."

These anecdotes seem too vague to hold significance IMO. We don’t know if either of these nurses was in fact LL, and we don’t know what standard procedure was in these situations on the ward. Eg, was the baby likely to be more comfortable in the ventilated basket? Etc.

I’d expect all nurses to be able to tell that the infant wasn’t going to make it after such a long period of resuscitation with no pulse. This was essential info for the mother, to allow her to make a judgement on calling for a baptism, so may have been entirely appropriate (and/or the actions of another nurse entirely).