UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #35

[marynnu]

I have never previously heard that the line had snapped either.
Sounds like I am in the minority on whether I would convict or not if I was on the jury.
Jmo

It was the other baby, I misunderstood!

 

[Parker Knoll]

I feel with this case when you hear hooves think horses not zebras.
Jmo

 

[bbsaz]

I genuinely am so surprised that people find the evidence weak for Baby K. I've always seen it as one of the strongest:

1) Another 'unusual' kill for the collection (a VIP 25weeker which they don't usually see and the ward staff are intrigued and messaging about her)
2) Dr Jaryam walking in on her doing nothing
3) Alarm not sounding and likely turned off
4) Baby that weak highly unlikely to be able to dislodge own tube, yet it does dislodge 3x, whilst baby is sedated
5) Facebook searching for the family 2yrs later, despite not caring for that baby and only being on the ward hours
6) As per usual, the dedicated nurse has just left the ward, and noone else in the room except Lucy
7) in the middle of a 12mth killing spree

That's more than enough for a guilty from me. Was surprised they struggled last time too, tbh.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Agree totally.

 

[ChatteringBirds]

I genuinely am so surprised that people find the evidence weak for Baby K. I've always seen it as one of the strongest

Hopefully the presentation is made as clearly in the courtroom as you're making it.

 

[marynnu]

I genuinely am so surprised that people find the evidence weak for Baby K. I've always seen it as one of the strongest:

I personally feel she may well be culpable. But believing it is not the same as having compelling evidence. All those things can have an innocent explanation.

 

[katydid23]

I think looking at the case on its own, which the jury have to do (without the knowledge of previous “similar” patterns, events surrounding babies collapsing as soon as someone leaves etc)
I don’t believe there’s enough evidence to convict.
If I was on the jury in her previous trial though I would have found her guilty of this because how realistic is it to assume this is just an innocent coincidence?
It’s not likely when taken in context to everything else we knew from her original trial.
The jury doesn’t know everything else and only know about baby k.

Im not sure I could honestly, hand on my heart say, if I was on the jury here i would be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

Doesn't the jury know she has been convicted of previous murders though?

I know they don't know the details, but they know who she is, don't they?

 

[katydid23]

I'm not seeing how a few extra minutes is sufficient reason to retry something like this, though. I mean dislodging a tube must take mere seconds so it's surely basically irrelevant how long she had to do it?

True, it would only take seconds. But I think that it is important to show that she was there, for a ten minute period, alone with the child. And that ten minute period is right before the medical incident happened to Baby K.


NJ: "Did you wait for Joanne Williams to leave the unit before you decided to go into nursery 1?"

LL: "No." Letby adds she does not remember going into room 1.

Mr Johnson refers to the 3.41am transport team note from a conversation with Dr Ravi Jayaram. Letby agrees there are telephones at a nursing station outside the room, as well as one inside room 1.

Letby is asked if she accepts Joanne Williams coming into the neonatal unit at 3.47am. She replies she does.

Mr Johnson asks if the event must have happened before 3.47am. Letby says it does, given Joanne Williams' statement.

Letby says she will agree Dr Jayaram was on the phone, but not sure which one.



Also, I thought this was suspicious:

Letby denies wanting to be part of the care for Child K, as she says she was not the most senior member of nursing staff, and would not be suitable for a baby of Child K's gestational age.

A nursing observational chart for Child K is shown. Letby confirms the 2.45am readings are hers. Asked why she has not signed for it, Letby says: "That is an oversight on my part."

Letby says it would be a "team approach" when Child K arrived on the unit.

Asked again why she did not sign on the chart, LL: "Sometimes things do get missed."

Letby denies she did not sign the 2.45am observation so she could avoid being tied to Child K in the event of any events for her.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, June 24 - Letby gives evidence

The retrial of Lucy Letby, who stands accused of attempting to murder baby girl Child K, continues at Manchester Crown Court today (Monday, June 24).

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[katydid23]

I personally feel she may well be culpable. But believing it is not the same as having compelling evidence. All those things can have an innocent explanation.

That is true that 'each' of those things can have an innocent explanation. But when you stack them all together, how unlucky would a nurse be to have ALL of those incriminating circumstances, in ALL of those cases, and they are all just innocent coincidences?

There was a strong consistent pattern, in the assault incidents, where the designated nurses would step away to another unit, or their break----and then an inexplicable desaturation would happen, and Nurse Letby would be the last one to be in that nursery or giving the last meds or treatment.

If you look at each incident separately, you could say it was coincidental. But when stacked together, Nurse Letby becomes the one common denominator. IMO

 

[Parker Knoll]

The constant malevolent presence was her … practically the first line of the prosecutions opening way back when.
Jmo

 

[Jazmania]

I genuinely am so surprised that people find the evidence weak for Baby K. I've always seen it as one of the strongest:

1) Another 'unusual' kill for the collection (a VIP 25weeker which they don't usually see and the ward staff are intrigued and messaging about her)
2) Dr Jaryam walking in on her doing nothing
3) Alarm not sounding and likely turned off
4) Baby that weak highly unlikely to be able to dislodge own tube, yet it does dislodge 3x, whilst baby is sedated
5) Facebook searching for the family 2yrs later, despite not caring for that baby and only being on the ward hours
6) As per usual, the dedicated nurse has just left the ward, and noone else in the room except Lucy
7) in the middle of a 12mth killing spree

That's more than enough for a guilty from me. Was surprised they struggled last time too, tbh.

I so agree with you. But the jury won't have the benefit of knowing some of these points. They haven't (yet) been told that Letby specifically targeted unusual babies (twins, triplets, babies on their 100 day birthdays). They also haven't been told that most of the other cases occurred after the dedicated nurse left the ward. It would have been really useful to have independent doctors as witnesses to testify as to how unusual it is for a 25 weeker to dislodge their own tube. It seems pretty unlikely to me. It really comes down to who you believe. In the last trial LL was totally discredited as she was shown to lie so many times. Johnson had her over the handover notes and confession notes and she had no credible answer to his questions. But that hasn't happened yet in this cross examination. The jury know she has been convicted of murder, but they won't know the extensive evidence that was based upon.

 

[JosieJo]

Defence done !

 

[Parker Knoll]

Well without sounding spoiled … that was quick !

 

[bbsaz]

I so agree with you. But the jury won't have the benefit of knowing some of these points. They haven't (yet) been told that Letby specifically targeted unusual babies (twins, triplets, babies on their 100 day birthdays). They also haven't been told that most of the other cases occurred after the dedicated nurse left the ward. It would have been really useful to have independent doctors as witnesses to testify as to how unusual it is for a 25 weeker to dislodge their own tube. It seems pretty unlikely to me. It really comes down to who you believe. In the last trial LL was totally discredited as she was shown to lie so many times. Johnson had her over the handover notes and confession notes and she had no credible answer to his questions. But that hasn't happened yet in this cross examination. The jury know she has been convicted of murder, but they won't know the extensive evidence that was based upon.

Very good points, hadn't thought of that. Oof. Baby Ks parents deserve justice too, and I really hope they get it

 

[katydid23]

Mr Myers refers to Letby's 2018 police interview, in which Letby said she did not recall why she was there in room 1.

BM: "Is that you accepting you were there?"

LL: "No."

The morphine prescription is presented in that police interview and Letby was asked if that helped her remember. LL: "Not really, no."

Mr Myers asks if that was Letby accepting she was there. LL: "No."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, June 25 - Letby cross-examination

The retrial of Lucy Letby, who stands accused of attempting to murder baby girl Child K, continues at Manchester Crown Court today (Tuesday, June…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

"Letby said she did not recall why she was there in room 1."

Well, IMO, that statement does seem to accept she was there---by saying 'I don't remember WHY I was there' you are seeming to indicate that 'you were there.'

Having the lawyer say "it does not mean that she was there" does not ring true, IMO.

 

[Dotta]

Another new sketch

Lucy Letby denies further targeting baby to mislead staff - BBC News

The former nurse is accused of attempting to murder the baby girl and trying to cover her tracks.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Sweeper2000]

as much as I stand by the original verdicts, the evidence in this trial is simply not enough to convict her.

I have no idea why they thought retrying this case on its own was a good idea. I get the parents might have wanted it, but how are they going to feel now if a not guilty verdict comes in. It will inevitably give rise to the miscarriage of justice conspiracy theorists that are already going wild. A not guilty verdict here will make them go through the roof.

Bad decision all round I’m sorry.

I don't know anyone else's thoughts on it but I think a parent may find some relief in an acknowledgement that their child had passed through natural causes rather than malevolent action. I know I would. It would go from "I have Been wronged in a most heinous and evil way" to "my poor baby didn't get to a good start and was too much for them".

 

[Parker Knoll]

Agreed sweep.

 

[Sweeper2000]

It's interesting that the evidence presented doesn't include an account by Dr j that the mute button was visually checked and found to be activated. By marynnu account and common sense it would seem that's an easy thing to check and notice. How much of this case rests on what the jury think of that info?

I find it highly suspect tbh. 25 weeks and very fragile baby, would you really wait for a "self correction"? It's also true that we see allot of indirect actions in her prior convictions where she didn't utilise direct and aggressive action such as smothering or something that quite clearly would kill. Aside seemingly from baby e and the ae cases. More like she wanted to push the victim towards the line but not necessarily push the victim over it, imo.

 

[Anxala]

I have to say that I really hope that this whole things ends after this retrial, regardless of the outcome.

Yes, it's important that justice is done, and is done properly, but I think that further legal proceedings are just going to turn into some sort of farce - and an expensive one at that. I cannot see what benefit to anyone there could be in pursuing any of this further and I think that would apply even to any other suspected crimes she may have committed. She's never getting out so what's the point?

Do we know if the families of the murdered/attempted murder babies have sued the hospital Trust?