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

[BuzzC]

Lucy Letby trial hears how doctor raised concerns but was told 'not to make a fuss'

Dr Ravi Jayaram, a paediatrician at the Countess of Chester Hospital, also said the unusual skin discolouration of Letby's first alleged victim, a baby boy known as Child A, "didn't fit with anything I had ever seen".

news.sky.com

Here is an article about the relevant events. Yes the suspicions were raised during Baby A inquest which was in October 2016 which fitting with the timeline is when things got fishy. No I don’t believe Lucy had been arrested at this point. The doctor also stated “no hard evidence” and noted nothing about LL character. In that article it is also stated by the nurse who knew LL since university that she was “professional” in conduct. Very strong statement from someone who knew her well for a long time. Is in my mind strong evidence.




Yip you are correct, there doesn’t seem to be much if any fishing for attention as of yet certainly nothing out of the usual. If that was the motive there’s nothing to suggest it. I agree that does seem to be the prosecution’s position currently without evidential substance. I’m sure the prosecution would have said something at the start but can’t say for sure about LL being a devil or such and such. Does that mean they don’t have much? do we think?

Fair enough, no issues were raised by that witness over her “character”.

But, as I’ve mentioned, serial killers can appear completely ‘normal’ to those around them. I’m not sure the evidence (if there’s no more to come re her character prior to these deaths) is as “strong” as you suggest.

It’s not far away from “she just doesn’t seem the type”.

 

[gc105]

Also to add, so far I feel the defence has been weak tbh. With each of the cases presented thus far, he just seems to be going down the same route of - can’t prove LL was there, could have been another cause of death/collapse (e.g. sepsis/NEC/UVC line insertion etc), trying to emphasise NNU workload/staff issue/inexperience of designated nurse.

So far I feel the prosecution have presented a much stronger case (with 2 independent medical experts, and witness testimony from medical/nursing staff within the unit).

All MOO of course.

 

[BuzzC]

Also to add, so far I feel the defence has been weak tbh. With each of the cases presented thus far, he just seems to be going down the same route of - can’t prove LL was there, could have been another cause of death/collapse (e.g. sepsis/NEC/UVC line insertion etc), trying to emphasise NNU workload/staff issue/inexperience of designated nurse.

So far I feel the prosecution have presented a much stronger case (with 2 independent medical experts, and witness testimony from medical/nursing staff within the unit).

All MOO of course.

I think the prosecution have started well. It requires quite a few ‘leaps’ to discount everything they’ve put forward - and with 19 more babies still to discuss, I do expect it to become harder for the defence.

 

[Ruby12345]

From The Standard live trial updates:

2:10pm

Mr Myers: "It was a very busy shift, wasn't it?"
Ms Taylor: "Yes."
Mr Myers says Ms Taylor was not sure she was in the room when the collapse happened.
"The only person you remember [being there] was Lucy?"
Ms Taylor agrees. She adds she assumed Sophie Ellis was also present.
Mr Myers: "It is from your account, Lucy is there, no-one else is present, maybe Sophie?"
Ms Taylor: "Yes."
Mr Myers: "I am going to suggest, you were in the nursery when this happened?"
Ms Taylor says she doesn't believe so.
Mr Myers: "That it was Sophie Ellis who called you?"
Ms Taylor: "It might have been."
Mr Myers: "That Lucy Letby was not there at the start of this?"
Ms Taylor: "I disagree."


2:14pm

Mr Myers says Ms Taylor, in her police statement, said she was "pretty sure" she was "already in nursery room 1", feeding another baby, at the time of the collapse.
Ms Taylor says her memory has deteriorated since then, and what is in her police statement is correct.
Mr Myers says Ms Taylor's police statement said she was called over by Sophie Ellis, and there is no mention of Lucy Letby.
Ms Taylor: "No, but she was there."


2:19pm

Ms Taylor said she read her police statement for the first time this morning and had not memorised everything from it.
She added: "I didn't say Lucy Letby called me over.
"I likely wasn't asked [by police] if Lucy Letby was there.
"Now I have been shown that [statement], I can remember Sophie called me over.
"Years have passed since this has happened."
Ms Taylor said she has not changed her mind about who was present there.
"I tell you now, when I approached the incubator, she [Lucy Letby] was there on the other side."
She added she remembered how "cool and calm" Lucy Letby looked at the time.
Ms Taylor said she hadn't said Lucy Letby was not in room 1 at the time of the collapse.


2:20pm

Ms Taylor tells the court said she didn't think it was necessary at the time to include that information [of Letby's presence] to police.

****

I find this witness testimony from LLs nursing colleague very interesting. Ms Taylor has stood in court today and placed her colleague LL in the room at the time of the incident. By her own admission - she has said she can’t recall who called her over & has said given it’s a number of years her memory of the events has deteriorated. However she is absolutely in her cross-examination today (under oath remember) that LL WAS at the incubator when she arrived.

I find it rather interesting that her colleagues are giving witness accounts that are seemingly helping the prosecution case (ie Ms Taylor saying in court today that LL was 100% at the incubator of Child C at the time of collapse, when possibly not mentioned in initial police onterview). Suggests to me some of her colleagues may also have their suspicions regarding LL.

If they had their suspicions wouldn't they think it was important to mention to the police that she was there at the scene of the crime.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Another thing gleaned from her messages is while apparently seeking sympathy/attention from her mum and colleagues about the death of Baby C, she didn’t mention to any of them that she was the only person in the room when this baby collapsed, which is a pretty important detail to omit. So that’s another reason why her personal messages provide important context. It’s not about judging people who don’t fit social norms.

(Although aside from her odd behaviour surrounding the babies, I’ve seen no evidence that Letby is anything other than a very typical, functioning, sociable young woman with a decent number of friends).

Just catching up on stuff as been manic today!

I don't see that that follows. It doesn't seem like something you'd mention, to be honest. If it was a legitimate collapse that she hadn't caused then why mention it? The time she was in the room alone may have been only very brief before others came in in response. It just doesn't seem like something that you'd mention and doing so would seem "iffy" to me. Like you were fishing for a reaction.

I completely agree with your last bit. To be honest, this is precisely the reason I became interested in all of this. The pictures lifted from her FB were all over the news reports and they were pictures of someone who presents as completely normal for her age. In fact, I'd say that they present her very much the opposite of the attention seeking, "me-me" type that lots of people seem to be implying of her. This is why I'm so fascinated by this case.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I also struggle with what possible motivation LL could have had to want to (allegedly) murder all these babies. What could she have had against innocent babies? Or their parents? (I am presuming she didn't know the parents beforehand, and had something against them, or we would have heard.) If she had been nursing in a nursing home, would more than usual numbers of old people have died? Or likewise in a general hospital? Were her (alleged) victims babies because of her location, not because they were babies?

I struggle with this too. The prosecution is under no obligation to show any motive but without one it makes it much more difficult, to my mind, to make their case that she did it. People very, very rarely kill without motive - do they ever?

 

[Marantz4250b]

I understand that some killers are attracted to working in a certain environment because it gives them access to their potential victims.

But to go to the extent of studying hard to get a nursing degree... The dedication required to get to her level... Her reputation as a nurse would benefit from saving lives, not taking them. It's so hard to imagine any motivation that would allow her to throw away all her training and expertise.

Agreed entirely. People constantly draw comparisons with Beverly Allitt but she never had any previous intention of being a nurse and basically fell into it through a friend because she had nowt else to do. Also Allitt barely scraped through her basic nursing training and had an absence rate so bad if she'd have taken a couple of days off she'd have been kicked off the course.

By contrast, Lucy Letby was apparently extremely dedicated, was constantly studying and progressing in her career and by the age of 24-25 was fairly highly qualified, at certain time being the second most qualified nurse on shift. If your reason for being a nurse in order to kill children (or anyone) you can do that with a basic nursing qualification, you don't need to devote your life to becoming more qualified.

 

[Marantz4250b]

There are parents who’s recollection of strange behaviour has been brought into (agreed) evidence.

I'm not sure how much we should let this affect judgement in this case. Yes, both sides have accepted it as "agreed" evidence but it's still simply eye witness statements given years after the events. Events which were, by anyone's standards, immensely traumatic for all involved so it's incredibly difficult, to my mind, to read much into it. Also, what really is the point of the defence questioning it? Questioning the statement of the mother of a dead baby which in any event won't get you very far, evidentially, is never going to end well for your client.

 

[arrogantcat]

(Although aside from her odd behaviour surrounding the babies, I’ve seen no evidence that Letby is anything other than a very typical, functioning, sociable young woman with a decent number of friends).

RSBM.

For clarity, I’d like to restate that my earlier comments were not intended as any sort of speculation about the Accused.

It was a personal response to this type of evidence being presented, and what it shows us about how general society still perceives so-called “odd” behaviour. In this case her behaviours may or may not transpire to be significant, so I cannot and would not attempt to speak to the specifics of the Accused.

Additionally, the above comment seems to imply that neurodiverse people are not usually sociable, functioning and/or do not have a decent number of friends. This is a hurtful and ableist stereotype and I can assure you is manifestly untrue. I say this as a Speech and Language Therapist who specialises in autism!

 

[Sweeper2000]

I'm not sure how much we should let this affect judgement in this case. Yes, both sides have accepted it as "agreed" evidence but it's still simply eye witness statements given years after the events. Events which were, by anyone's standards, immensely traumatic for all involved so it's incredibly difficult, to my mind, to read much into it. Also, what really is the point of the defence questioning it? Questioning the statement of the mother of a dead baby which in any event won't get you very far, evidentially, is never going to end well for your client.

I would presume the defence will question all accounts made by the parents tbh. There approach may be something like “how did Lucy interact with you”? “Did you see anything that would make you question the standard of care your baby received”? “Before the police asked you for a statement did you suspect anything”? If these all come back in the positive for LL then it says something, also creates doubt about how accurate peoples recollections are perhaps generally speaking. Isn’t that the defences job? Either disprove evidence or make the jury doubt it and the prosecutions case as a whole?

 

[Powermjp]

I think the character thing will have a very minor impact on the case, even if she has some people come forward and say she was brilliant. I think it will have very little benefit.

And we have to take into consideration the parents and her strange behaviour around them, that the jury would have heard.

Some of the worst crimes have been done by those with "good" public characters and being normal at work, maybe a little quirky but nothing out of ordinary. Shipman had protesters from his surgery saying he was a lovely man.

It's quite easy for certain people to be quite fake and mask intentions.

No one really knows her here, just the superficial outset of hard working dedicated nurse. I mean nearly every nurse is that to be fair.
The growing evidence in my opinion is what doesn't look good for her.

 

[squish]

RSBM.

For clarity, I’d like to restate that my earlier comments were not intended as any sort of speculation about the Accused.

It was a personal response to this type of evidence being presented, and what it shows us about how general society still perceives so-called “odd” behaviour. In this case her behaviours may or may not transpire to be significant, so I cannot and would not attempt to speak to the specifics of the Accused.

Additionally, the above comment seems to imply that neurodiverse people are not usually sociable, functioning and/or do not have a decent number of friends. This is a hurtful and ableist stereotype and I can assure you is manifestly untrue. I say this as a Speech and Language Therapist who specialises in autism!

As someone diagnosed with Asperger’s, I am very offended by your last comment. I don’t need to be told about the realities of autism. Myself and my peers have significant difficulties in making and maintaining friendships, and cannot live independently. People like us make up the majority of people with autism. Denying our reality is ableist.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I was thinking that if a person doesn’t have the psychological profile of someone capable of acts like that then it is provable and substantial evidence in court. If you had a doctorate in psychology and profiling and 30+ years of experience I think the jury would take you seriously especially as you would have previous experience in court and maybe in the criminal system. As I say not everyone is capable of killing for ones own benefit generally speaking and killing many babies for ones own benefit that isn’t munchausen is I think more or less unheard of and then as a neonatal nurse killing many babies for ones own psychological gain is as far as I know completely by itself.

 

[BuzzC]

I think a few of my posts are being taken out of context here.

I mentioned another nurse killing babies because it was suggested that those in the caring profession couldn’t harm others. Not because I felt the cases were similar in any other way.

I mentioned the references made by the parents because it was stated there was “nothing” to suggest bad character. I maintain this isn’t true - although I also accept that the parents views are not enough to paint a picture of someone capable of such crimes.

I followed that up by pointing out that many, very famous, serial killers are known for their “positive” traits or outward appearance anyway, so the thoughts of her friends/colleagues/others aren’t really pivotal anyway.

I have no idea if she is guilty (based on what I’ve heard so far). I just cannot rule out the possibility she might be based on the fact: she’s a nurse; she’s doesn’t look like the type; or that we can’t pin down a motive based on what we’ve heard so far.

Who knows, there may have been something that triggered her? Pregnancy loss, finding out she can’t have children, killing a child by accident and realising you took some enjoyment out of it. Who knows? I certainly don’t - there’s a million possible reasons she may have done this. One may be put forward, one may be not.

I do fully appreciate the counter points - it’s made me more broad minded in this case, certainly. I hope I’m offering some counter balance to that.

 

[notsure]

I think a few of my posts are being taken out of context here.

I mentioned another nurse killing babies because it was suggested that those in the caring profession couldn’t harm others. Not because I felt the cases were similar in any other way.

I mentioned the references made by the parents because it was stated there was “nothing” to suggest bad character. I maintain this isn’t true - although I also accept that the parents views are not enough to paint a picture of someone capable of such crimes.

I followed that up by pointing out that many, very famous, serial killers are known for their “positive” traits or outward appearance anyway, so the thoughts of her friends/colleagues/others aren’t really pivotal anyway.

I have no idea if she is guilty (based on what I’ve heard so far). I just cannot rule out the possibility she might be based on the fact: she’s a nurse; she’s doesn’t look like the type; or that we can’t pin down a motive based on what we’ve heard so far.

Who knows, there may have been something that triggered her? Pregnancy loss, finding out she can’t have children, killing a child by accident and realising you took some enjoyment out of it. Who knows? I certainly don’t - there’s a million possible reasons she may have done this. One may be put forward, one may be not.

I do fully appreciate the counter points - it’s made me more broad minded in this case, certainly. I hope I’m offering some counter balance to that.

It's interesting that some people are looking at the situation from the point of view of finding evidence to support her guilt, which I suppose is fine for an onlooker of the case. I've seen a lot of people doing that.

Unless I'm mistaken, the jury are supposed to assume innocence and regard every shred of evidence presented by the prosecution with cynicism. I'm trying to do that as well.

 

[Charlot123]

I don’t buy this. I trust the parents’ perceptions. There is a difference between the bog standard situation of a well-meaning person not knowing what to say. Versus a person behaving strangely due to trying and failing to fake empathy to parents whose baby has just died. I trust that the parents’ perceptions of LL’s inappropriate and callous behaviour were not them being intolerant of mere social awkwardness.

We all have a Facebook stalk now and then. In itself LL’s searches are not unusual. The timings of some of her searches however, paint a certain picture, and most importantly, the fact she was totally unable to explain her searches when questioned by police. She couldn’t even begin to think of an innocent explanation.

But there might be explanations that no one would ever acknowledge.

I would feel very awkward at admitting that I am returning to someone’s FB because I find the man attractive, especially if he were married, and god forbid he were a professional contact in any way. But maybe it happened to LL? What if she found one member of the couple attractive, and was visiting the FB times and again for this very reason? That simple of an explanation? It doesn’t matter how the person looked, because what we find attractive is so subjective.

And of course, she could never admit it when being interrogated about the kids’ deaths, because then someone would think, aha, here is her motive…

But it could be that simple. And it is not the proof of someone being a criminal - yet!

 

[BuzzC]

It's interesting that some people are looking at the situation from the point of view of finding evidence to support her guilt, which I suppose is fine for an onlooker of the case. I've seen a lot of people doing that.

Unless I'm mistaken, the jury are supposed to assume innocence and regard every shred of evidence presented by the prosecution with cynicism. I'm trying to do that as well.

I’m not sure I’ve ever implied guilt myself, but I’m not ruling it out.

I think the jury will be expected to look at the evidence objectively and fairly. I believe there’s a subtle difference to that than trying to find any possible way to discredit it, even if it’s nonsensical.

 

[notsure]

I’m not sure I’ve ever implied guilt myself, but I’m not ruling it out.

I think the jury will be expected to look at the evidence objectively and fairly. I believe there’s a subtle difference to that than trying to find any possible way to discredit it, even if it’s nonsensical.

My reply was based an article I read on the meaning of "reasonable doubt". I think it varies from country to country.

 

[Dotta]

But there might be explanations that no one would ever acknowledge.

I would feel very awkward at admitting that I am returning to someone’s FB because I find the man attractive, especially if he were married, and god forbid he were a professional contact in any way. But maybe it happened to LL? What if she found one member of the couple attractive, and was visiting the FB times and again for this very reason? That simple of an explanation? It doesn’t matter how the person looked, because what we find attractive is so subjective.

And of course, she could never admit it when being interrogated about the kids’ deaths, because then someone would think, aha, here is her motive…

But it could be that simple. And it is not the proof of someone being a criminal - yet!

Umm...
Do you mean "fatal attraction"??

Didn't she follow several families' FBs?

Moo

 

[Marantz4250b]

Shipman had financial motivations though, correct? There’s no suggestion of anything like that here as far as we know, so quite different if so.

There are of course other cases of medical murder, and all seem to have been able to ascribe a motive in due course. If LL is guilty then I hope the same will be true here.

Shipman was a deeply messed up and unpleasant person. He clearly had a personality disorder and was known to have been objectionable from early in his life.

Contrary to popular myth, he was not well liked and most people tried to avoid him. He had a history of serious misconduct and was a known Heroin addict to the point of being professionally reprimanded for it and, I think, had a criminal conviction in relation to it. Opinion seems to say that he would have been struck off had that happened today.

You are right, LL is nothing remotely like Shipman, as far as anything in the reports has said.