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

[Kemug]

I wonder if any of her former workmates have ever visited her in prison? Nurses or doctors?

 

[Phoenix Lazarus]

This is the only trial I can think of where there will be as much commotion whether the defendant is convicted or acquitted.

 

[Marantz4250b]

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.

I agree. I've never thought the note was indicative of anything either way. It's too contradictory.

The note, in my opinion, is being incorrectly taken as "one" document. Yes, it's obviously one physical document but it clearly wasn't written at one sitting. It's just a random collection of ramblings written in various moods recorded over a period. If you mentally separate the arious statements in it and imagine them written on different pieces of paper they would have a erh different impact to most people.

If she's convicted I think we will forever hear the talking heads on the inevitable innumerable TV docs stating how it's a clear indication of guilt because its an easy thing to say and who is going to contradict them? I think they'd be wrong, though.

 

[esther43]

So what is the explanation for

“I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough"
"I am evil I did this"

If she knew what the investigation was about, and that it included investigation into the deaths of her patients, why write something so incriminating ?

The only person who can explain it is her and though it's unlikely that she will take the stand, from an outsiders point of view I think it looks bad if all these doctors have been publicly interrogated and she remains silent. I know people will disagree with that and that she will be advised not to take the stand and explain herself. I would hold that against her, personally.
'my head was a mess' is not a very satisfactory explanation for 'i did this' 'i am evil' ' I killed them on purpose because I am not good enough to care for them'

 

[Dotta]

So
The management of this time no longer exists, right?
One took early retirement!, somebody else left.
The unit was downgraded.

Scenery after the storm.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

I agree. I've never thought the note was indicative of anything either way. It's too contradictory.

The note, in my opinion, is being incorrectly taken as "one" document. Yes, it's obviously one physical document but it clearly wasn't written at one sitting. It's just a random collection of ramblings written in various moods recorded over a period. If you mentally separate the arious statements in it and imagine them written on different pieces of paper they would have a erh different impact to most people.

If she's convicted I think we will forever hear the talking heads on the inevitable innumerable TV docs stating how it's a clear indication of guilt because its an easy thing to say and who is going to contradict them? I think they'd be wrong, though.

I think some of it is pretty damning.

Writing things like " there is no evidence" " I didn't do anything wrong" etc, is to be expected. And I agree those words are not indicative of anything either way. Anyone could write that because it is what they want others to believe, but whether it is true or false, we don't know.

But the more damning words which sound like alleged confessions----those seem more incriminating because it is hard to understand why someone would write that if it was not accurate. Especially if there was an ongoing investigation into the situation. WHY write something like that?

 

[Dotta]

The only person who can explain it is her and though it's unlikely that she will take the stand, from an outsiders point of view I think it looks bad if all these doctors have been publicly interrogated and she remains silent. I know people will disagree with that and that she will be advised not to take the stand and explain herself. I would hold that against her, personally.
'my head was a mess' is not a very satisfactory explanation for 'i did this' 'i am evil' ' I killed them on purpose because I am not good enough to care for them'

But what can she really explain?

She claims to be innocent.

And the Jury and the public already know her claim.

Judging by her Police questioning, the Jury might hear:
"I don't remember/recall".
"I have no idea".
"I don't know".

JMO

 

[esther43]

Whether guilty or innocent, you'd have to be in a poor mental state to write those things with such little regard for being either framed/ caught out.
I think it's plausible that different post it notes were written on different days but I think given how small these pieces of paper are, its unlikely that she added new sentences to the same piece of paper in a different sitting. Unless she's extremely environmentally friendly!

 

[DianaWW]

I think some of it is pretty damning.

Writing things like " there is no evidence" " I didn't do anything wrong" etc, is to be expected. And I agree those words are not indicative of anything either way. Anyone could write that because it is what they want others to believe, but whether it is true or false, we don't know.

But the more damning words which sound like alleged confessions----those seem more incriminating because it is hard to understand why someone would write that if it was not accurate. Especially if there was an ongoing investigation into the situation. WHY write something like that?

I agree those are those most damning words, and I think this is why it’s really important to find out what she had been told up to this point.

If she didn’t know she was being investigated for deliberate harm it makes writing those words much harder to understand IMO.

I really hope we find out soon.

 

[Kemug]

But the more damning words which sound like alleged confessions----those seem more incriminating because it is hard to understand why someone would write that if it was not accurate. Especially if there was an ongoing investigation into the situation. WHY write something like that?

It seems to me that there are only 2 possible reasons - either it is a true confession that she deliberately harmed the babies, or she is completely b-s crazy. Which if she is, I should think it would be impossible to hide.

 

[esther43]

But what can she really explain?

She claims to be innocent.

And the Jury and the public already know her claim.

Judging by her Police questioning, the Jury might hear:
"I don't remember/recall".
"I have no idea".
"I don't know".

JMO

True. But my thoughts would go to the parents of the babies who are sat there watching, hearing about this note ' I killed them on purpose' etc.

But what can she really explain?

She claims to be innocent.

And the Jury and the public already know her claim.

Judging by her Police questioning, the Jury might hear:
"I don't remember/recall".
"I have no idea".
"I don't know".

JMO

I cannot offer a reasonable explanation for how it would be in the interests of the defendant to testify. Only looking at it from the perspective of how a juror might see it and I think their empathy would be more likely be directed towards the parents who just want to know what happened.
LL taking the stand and personally addressing the situation would possibly be considered 'the right thing to do'

 

[DinerMite]

The only person who can explain it is her and though it's unlikely that she will take the stand, from an outsiders point of view I think it looks bad if all these doctors have been publicly interrogated and she remains silent. I know people will disagree with that and that she will be advised not to take the stand and explain herself. I would hold that against her, personally.
'my head was a mess' is not a very satisfactory explanation for 'i did this' 'i am evil' ' I killed them on purpose because I am not good enough to care for them'

Imo, it's always more of a risk to take the stand regardless of innocence. Once you're in that line of fire the prosecution will have you jumping hoops and anyone could get tongue tied in that situation. The jury aren't allowed to hold "silence" against her. Also, this is why she has Myers to represent and he stated in his opening it was written in anguish and despair and we won't get answers from the woman sat there today - coupled with her not guilty plee there isn't anything worth taking stand for, the jury aren't going to learn anything. It would be daft to do so IMO regardless if someone is G/NG.

Everyone has their own opinions though so I understand yours

 

[esther43]

Imo, it's always more of a risk to take the stand regardless of innocence. Once you're in that line of fire the prosecution will have you jumping hoops and anyone could get tongue tied in that situation. The jury aren't allowed to hold "silence" against her. Also, this is why she has Myers to represent and he stated in his opening it was written in anguish and despair and we won't get answers from the woman sat there today - coupled with her not guilty plee there isn't anything worth taking stand for, the jury aren't going to learn anything. It would be daft to do so IMO regardless if someone is G/NG.

Everyone has their own opinions though so I understand yours

Not sure what the laws are elsewhere but in the UK it can be held against you.

Choosing not to give evidence - the adverse inference

In most cases, if the defendant does not give evidence the jury will be told by the judge that they are entitled to hold this against them (an adverse inference) when they consider whether or not the defendant is guilty of the offence charged.

In summing-up the case to the jury, the judge will say that if the jury conclude that the defendant did not give evidence because they had no answer to the prosecution case or none that would stand up to cross-examination, this can provide some support for the prosecution case, although it cannot be used as the only or main reason for finding a defendant guilty. "

Crown Court Trial - Defence Case — Defence-Barrister.co.uk

Understand the Crown Court defence case, including presentation, defence statements and giving evidence. Visit Defence-Barrister.co.uk for detailed guidance.

www.defence-barrister.co.uk

 

[marynnu]

DBM

 

[marynnu]

I wonder if any of her former workmates have ever visited her in prison? Nurses or doctors?

Personally, I 'd be surprised. You really wouldn't want to stick your head over that parapet.

 

[Dcflag]

Not sure what the laws are elsewhere but in the UK it can be held against you.

Choosing not to give evidence - the adverse inference

In most cases, if the defendant does not give evidence the jury will be told by the judge that they are entitled to hold this against them (an adverse inference) when they consider whether or not the defendant is guilty of the offence charged.

In summing-up the case to the jury, the judge will say that if the jury conclude that the defendant did not give evidence because they had no answer to the prosecution case or none that would stand up to cross-examination, this can provide some support for the prosecution case, although it cannot be used as the only or main reason for finding a defendant guilty. "

Crown Court Trial - Defence Case — Defence-Barrister.co.uk

Understand the Crown Court defence case, including presentation, defence statements and giving evidence. Visit Defence-Barrister.co.uk for detailed guidance.

www.defence-barrister.co.uk

I genuinely did know this. It seems crazy to me. I think a lot of the time as well it’s advised not to take the stand because you then have to only answer questions satisfactorily but you also give off an impression to the jury. If you’re a social awkward person, or if you just come off as unlikable, if you for example come across abrupt, short or rude, if you are over emotional/not emotional enough etc etc, it’s just not the greatest idea and the preference to that would be to not testify.

I don’t know exactly if it’s similar in the uk, but when watching the staircase you can see he had lessons to make himself a more likeable person, almost like acting lessons.

 

[Dotta]

This is the only trial I can think of where there will be as much commotion whether the defendant is convicted or acquitted.

Whatever the verdict

The image forever burnt in my mind will be

Of the tiniest Babies dying in agony, screaming horrendously, bloodied and swollen.

Called "rubbish".

In a hospital in 21st century.

 

[thisismyusernamealso]

"Dr Brearey said there were "no more events" after Letby left the neo-natal unit.

He said: "It was the same staff doing the same job and there were no sudden collapses."

The consultant told Simon Driver, prosecuting, that between the deaths of Child D and Child O he was unaware that two other babies had returned blood results which showed abnormally high insulin levels."

Doctor asked for Lucy Letby to be taken off shift, court hears

Letby, 33, denies the murders of seven babies and the attempted murders of 10 others between June 2015 and June 2016

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk

Does this refer to the babies we already know about? Or 2 others?

Would also be interesting to see what the report from the Liverpool specialist said

 

[esther43]

I genuinely did know this. It seems crazy to me. I think a lot of the time as well it’s advised not to take the stand because you then have to only answer questions satisfactorily but you also give off an impression to the jury. If you’re a social awkward person, or if you just come off as unlikable, if you for example come across abrupt, short or rude, if you are over emotional/not emotional enough etc etc, it’s just not the greatest idea and the preference to that would be to not testify.

I don’t know exactly if it’s similar in the uk, but when watching the staircase you can see he had lessons to make himself a more likeable person, almost like acting lessons.

It is quite brutal if you are innocent, right?!!

But just like you can't buy your way out of prison in the UK, you can't pay someone and inadvertantly 'purchase your own silence' by having someone speak succinctly on your behalf.
All these NHS workers have had to face brutal cross examination, their careers and integrity being ripped to shreds in court.

So it's not 'enough' for LL to pay another individual to do a good job of presenting a case.

It's one thing to tell a story I guess and it's another to apply honesty, truth and integrity to it to make it credible and believable in the eyes of the jury.

 

[marynnu]

Sums it up for me, from the staff perspective. So very sad all round.

"Dr Brearey said: ‘Actually, the senior nursing staff on the unit didn’t believe this could be true up until the point and beyond when the triplets (Child O and P) died.

‘None of us (the consultants) wanted to believe it either. This all became very exceptional and it took a step back to think about it. The nature of these collapses, the unexpected nature of them, the lack of response to resuscitation, the unusual rash noted on a number of occasions and each time the association with nurse Letby.’

Dr Brearey said there were ‘no more events’ after Ms Letby left the neonatal unit."