UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #14

[Imogenia]

Can I just say that whatever your view of LL, IMO some if the expressions she used are of no significance. To watch like a hawk just means being extra vigilant. A student glued to her, babies looking rubbish/being angels/naughty/misbehaving etc., to me are just things you hear all the time. And on NNUs people say much worse things, trust me!

Some of the expressions may well be insignificant. Language is complicated, people may innocently say much worse things on NNUs all the time.

If a person is murdering, and escalating this behaviour, they will be stressed, trying not to be caught. They may be perceptive enough to realise that A/ things are getting out of control and B/ things are coming to an end.

If guilty, some of this conflict will be reflected in some aspects of a person’s behaviour, body language, linguistic choices.

MOO

 

[Sweeper2000]

A ghoul, that's who. IMO

Tbh I’m surprised we haven’t been given more context around the fb searches. I think it would be much Clearer if we knew what she looked for at the same time. I would say it’s extremely damning if they were on their own. If it’s one within a hundred searches in ten minutes they would be more ambiguous IMO.

 

[Tortoise]

Remember the actual quote. “They have no evidence so why have I to hide away”. that entire sentence speaks more of someone who has been informed about the situation and isn’t based on “I know they have no evidence because I left no breadcrumbs“.

I would be much more concerned with a phrase like “they can’t have any evidence“.

I agree it speaks to knowledge but I wouldn't assume she's been told that by anyone. That would be absurd considering evidence must refer to a crime, and she wasn't accused of a crime before she was arrested.

JMO

 

[Imogenia]

True. but I do think it is interesting, even if it was unintentional on her part.

The possible relevance could be strengthened by whatever allegedly happened after the everyday expression was used.

MOO

 

[scottishgal]

Having thought about this theory that she may have had a mental illness/medical condition that meant she made the babies sicker to get sympathy and compassion and attention, it doesnt line up unless she is enjoying all this negative attention of being in court as well.

I know a mum in our neighourhood makes a great fuss of her daughter being wheat intolerant (more so than is warranted I have coeliac's in my home too) - and I have always wondered if she makes mothering her two more of full 24/7 job than it has to be to not have to hold a job even part time and presumably collects unemployment benefits etc too. We all know about mum's like rapper Eminem's who famously made her kids pretend they were sick to collect benefits. I can see sympathy and free stuff, attention and center of drama being factors here too

But LL must have known that killing babies could very fleetingly only bring in any kindness and positive attention - followed almost surely by extremely serious consequences ?

very confounded .....I am wondering if prosecution did search for any character witnesses who could attest to 'ghoulish' behaviour apart from the actual alleged incidents - and couldnt find any ? They only had 7 years of her outside of high school to look back on , shes so young.

 

[Kemug]

Just still totally struggling with motive. I often think if she was capable of it, her parents would know. There would be signs in her as a child, like hurting animals, harming younger children, extremely manipulative behaviour, so as to deflect attention away from 'being bad'
I just want to know if her own mother saw that same look on her face as it is alleged RJ saw, when he walked in on her with child K.
Do you think as a parent, you'd know?

I think a parent, particularly a mother, would not necessarily know, but would certainly wonder about a child whose behaviour was worrying. And would desperately try not to believe it. And later on try to convince herself that the child had "grown out of it". I did wonder here many moons ago if LL had perhaps harmed animals, even drowned kittens for example. And did LL ever say to her mother "It wasn't me!" when it obviously was. But I doubt very much if any mother in that situation would say a word about it. JMO

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

I believe I'd be more likely to write "What are they talking about? What on earth? As if I would ever do something like that!" Not talk about evidence.

I’m not sure about that. That would certainly be most people’s initial response, but I think it had moved beyond that.

I think I’ve seen references before to LL being involved in some sort of grievance Process at work, presumably her launching a complaint to try and get her old job back.

If you are entering into that kind of process, you are unlikely to win just by expressing shock and outrage that anyone could think that you would do something like that. You would have to find out whatever evidence the hospital had based its decision to remove you from your job, and engage with that information and dispute its accuracy.

So wondering aloud (or on paper, in this case) what evidence they have makes sense in the context of LL being upset at the situation in which she finds herself, and she’s trying to figure out how to turn her situation around.

Personally, I don’t find that Post-it note useful as either an indication of guilt or protestation of innocence because it is internally contradictory.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I agree it speaks to knowledge but I wouldn't assume she's been told that by anyone. That would be absurd considering evidence must refer to a crime, and she wasn't accused of a crime before she was arrested.

JMO

How do you read that then?

I would have thought a member of staff being put on clerical pending investigation would let anyone with half a brain know they are potentially in serious trouble. I would be concernd I know that much. I would be thinking I know I haven’t deliberately done anything but have i made mistakes or something? Then naturally you are led to ask “what makes them think I have done something”? Then you ask “do they have evidence and if they don’t I shouldn’t be being treated like this” then maybe you raise the grievance procedure, maybe.

 

[ColourPurple]

I think a parent, particularly a mother, would not necessarily know, but would certainly wonder about a child whose behaviour was worrying. And would desperately try not to believe it. And later on try to convince herself that the child had "grown out of it". I did wonder here many moons ago if LL had perhaps harmed animals, even drowned kittens for example. And did LL ever say to her mother "It wasn't me!" when it obviously was. But I doubt very much if any mother in that situation would say a word about it. JMO

Plus, if guilty then she wasn't just a manipulator, she was a really bloody good one! Even Dr B said "not nice Lucy", so I wouldn't be surprised if she was so convincing, that nobody was ever aware of her alleged dark side.

But yes, if guilty, maybe there will be stories of pets she looked after dying unexpectedly, or babies that she babysat suddenly becoming ill, that only in hindsight, seem relevant.

all IMO, if guilty etc.

 

[Tortoise]

Having thought about this theory that she may have had a mental illness/medical condition that meant she made the babies sicker to get sympathy and compassion and attention, it doesnt line up unless she is enjoying all this negative attention of being in court as well.

I know a mum in our neighourhood makes a great fuss of her daughter being wheat intolerant (more so than is warranted I have coeliac's in my home too) - and I have always wondered if she makes mothering her two more of full 24/7 job than it has to be to not have to hold a job even part time and presumably collects unemployment benefits etc too. We all know about mum's like rapper Eminem's who famously made her kids pretend they were sick to collect benefits. I can see sympathy and free stuff, attention and center of drama being factors here too

But LL must have known that killing babies could very fleetingly only bring in any kindness and positive attention - followed almost surely by extremely serious consequences ?

very confounded .....I am wondering if prosecution did search for any character witnesses who could attest to 'ghoulish' behaviour apart from the actual alleged incidents - and couldnt find any ? They only had 7 years of her outside of high school to look back on , shes so young.

I believe admissibility of 'bad character' evidence in a criminal trial, is only automatically admissible if it is a previous conviction of a substantially similar offence (I will note this as my opinion rather than fact because I'm not a lawyer, but that is my understanding).

I have looked up Section 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which says that "evidence of the defendant's bad character" is only admissible if all parties agree to the evidence being admissible.

Criminal Justice Act 2003

 

[DianaWW]

How do you read that then?

I would have thought a member of staff being put on clerical pending investigation would let anyone with half a brain know they are potentially in serious trouble. I would be concernd I know that much. I would be thinking I know I haven’t deliberately done anything but have i made mistakes or something? Then naturally you are led to ask “what makes them think I have done something”? Then you ask “do they have evidence and if they don’t I shouldn’t be being treated like this” then maybe you raise the grievance procedure, maybe.

I think we are missing context here (and with the infamous note).

Was she aware at this time, bearing in mind it was before she was ever arrested and formally accused of a crime, that she was being investigated for anything deliberate?

We don’t know that yet. If she was not aware, and was under the impression that it was her performance that was being investigated rather than any deliberate harm, then I think the talk of ‘evidence’, and ‘killing them on purpose’ is suspicious.

However if she did know what she was being investigated for, then perhaps a bit less so. MOO.

 

[esther43]

I think a parent, particularly a mother, would not necessarily know, but would certainly wonder about a child whose behaviour was worrying. And would desperately try not to believe it. And later on try to convince herself that the child had "grown out of it". I did wonder here many moons ago if LL had perhaps harmed animals, even drowned kittens for example. And did LL ever say to her mother "It wasn't me!" when it obviously was. But I doubt very much if any mother in that situation would say a word about it. JMO

It just

I’m not sure about that. That would certainly be most people’s initial response, but I think it had moved beyond that.

I think I’ve seen references before to LL being involved in some sort of grievance Process at work, presumably her launching a complaint to try and get her old job back.

If you are entering into that kind of process, you are unlikely to win just by expressing shock and outrage that anyone could think that you would do something like that. You would have to find out whatever evidence the hospital had based its decision to remove you from your job, and engage with that information and dispute its accuracy.

So wondering aloud (or on paper, in this case) what evidence they have makes sense in the context of LL being upset at the situation in which she finds herself, and she’s trying to figure out how to turn her situation around.

Personally, I don’t find that Post-it note useful as either an indication of guilt or protestation of innocence because it is internally contradictory.

There does seem to be some dispute around whether the notes relate to the grievance procedure or the acts themselves. I suppose it would depend if these were written at the same time as 'i killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them '
If so, it suggests that the context was more likely relate to the alleged act of murder rather than being moved to admin.

 

[ColourPurple]

I’m not sure about that. That would certainly be most people’s initial response, but I think it had moved beyond that.

I think I’ve seen references before to LL being involved in some sort of grievance Process at work, presumably her launching a complaint to try and get her old job back.

If you are entering into that kind of process, you are unlikely to win just by expressing shock and outrage that anyone could think that you would do something like that. You would have to find out whatever evidence the hospital had based its decision to remove you from your job, and engage with that information and dispute its accuracy.

So wondering aloud (or on paper, in this case) what evidence they have makes sense in the context of LL being upset at the situation in which she finds herself, and she’s trying to figure out how to turn her situation around.

Yes, I think we need to hear more about what reason they gave her for moving her to clerical duties, and what the exact grievance was that she raised. The reason she'd been given for the initial removal may not have been "You've been present at a number of unexpected collapses and deaths" and might just have been in relation to her actions relating to Baby Q or one of the triplets. So some notes may be in relation to the grievance rather than the police investigation.

 

[esther43]

I think we are missing context here (and with the infamous note).

Was she aware at this time, bearing in mind it was before she was ever arrested and formally accused of a crime, that she was being investigated for anything deliberate?

We don’t know that yet. If she was not aware, and was under the impression that it was her performance that was being investigated rather than any deliberate harm, then I think the talk of ‘evidence’, and ‘killing them on purpose’ is suspicious.

However if she did know what she was being investigated for, then perhaps a bit less so. MOO.

You read my mind!

 

[Tortoise]

How do you read that then?

I would have thought a member of staff being put on clerical pending investigation would let anyone with half a brain know they are potentially in serious trouble. I would be concernd I know that much. I would be thinking I know I haven’t deliberately done anything but have i made mistakes or something? Then naturally you are led to ask “what makes them think I have done something”? Then you ask “do they have evidence and if they don’t I shouldn’t be being treated like this” then maybe you raise the grievance procedure, maybe.

I really do not think she sat in a clerical job after anyone at all mentioning she may have murdered and deliberately harmed babies. I also don't think it would occur to her that there would be no evidence of mistakes.

MOO

 

[Tortoise]

Personally, I don’t find that Post-it note useful as either an indication of guilt or protestation of innocence because it is internally contradictory.

This wasn't part of that post-it note.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I really do not think she sat in a clerical job after anyone at all mentioning she may have murdered and deliberately harmed babies. I also don't think it would occur to her that there would be no evidence of mistakes.

MOO

Why not? That’s her livelihood and seemingly life on the line. That’s worth fighting for.

 

[esther43]

I believe admissibility of 'bad character' evidence in a criminal trial, is only automatically admissible if it is a previous conviction of a substantially similar offence (I will note this as my opinion rather than fact because I'm not a lawyer, but that is my understanding).

I have looked up Section 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which says that "evidence of the defendant's bad character" is only admissible if all parties agree to the evidence being admissible.

Criminal Justice Act 2003

I think it's interesting to explore the differences between attention and power as motive.
Attention would suggest that the defendant enjoyed having everyone look at her, that she wanted everyone to clap their hands and celebrate her awesomeness. Whether that means 'taking control at the scene' or being 'the kind face' among it all.
Power might suggest that she enjoyed the orchestration of it. That watching her own alleged 'prep work' unfold before her very eyes giving her a sense of power and control. In this scenario the acts themselves never impacted her potentially because she's a narcissist and a psychopath so is there for self serving and not capable of empathy for others.
Jmo

 

[Kemug]

You know, if this was a novel or a movie, then we would eventually have the answers to all our questions. Guilt or innocence, mental condition, childhood behaviour, etc, etc. As it is, we just have to wait and see, and chew over the few crumbs we are given. And try not to forget that this is not for our entertainment, but an actual still-unfolding tragedy.

 

[esther43]

Why not? That’s her livelihood and seemingly life on the line. That’s worth fighting for.

This is the part that I don't get. The defence say:

"She was "going through a grievance procedure" with the NHS at the time, the court hears, and knew what was being said about her before her arrest.

The allegations were "destructive", the court hears.

The note is headed 'not good enough'. The defence notes it does not say 'guilty'.

So the defence are arguing that, she did know about the allegations and this prompted her write.

'i killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them'

He then goes on to say 'it does not say guilty'

No .. it just says 'I DID THIS' ??