UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #18

[Dotta]

In other words, are they discussing their thoughts and feelings about the evidence daily, being influenced by each others' ideas, etc.?

No.
They must not discuss anything with anybody.

Only when deliberations start.

JMO

 

[notsure]

She explained: 'I often take photographs of cards
I've sent, even birthday cards'.
This kind of fits with 'Nice, Lucy' and 'spread sparkles wherever you go'

Nice Lucy who can't wait to make up the memory boxes for the grieving parents.

 

[esther43]

I think it is doodling as she is talking on the phone with someone, or tries to concentrate. Have you seen it in schoolkids, in difficult classes, for example, math? Some kids are doodling on paper as they try to maintain attention. In old time, it was irritating teachers to no end as it was distracting. Nowadays, I think, it is viewed as a form of stimming.

Some of later notes sounded like phone conversations but the first note was far more introspective - imagining they were written at different times.

 

[esther43]

Nice Lucy who can't wait to make up the memory boxes for the grieving parents.

So many sides to LL, it begs the question how do these different sides of her persona each serve her..

 

[notsure]

No, they're not allowed to discuss anything to do with the evidence until they are sent out to deliberate at the end.

I wonder if there are different rules regarding this in the US and the UK. I found this rule for UK jurors (relevant part bolded by me):

Discussing the Case: 2 Rules There are 2 RULES every juror must follow about discussing their case. One rule tells you what you can discuss about the case WHILE THE TRIAL IS GOING ON. The other rule tells you what you can discuss about the case AFTER THE TRIAL IS OVER. This is from the moment you take the juror oath until the judge finally discharges you from serving on the jury at the end of the trial. During the trial you can ONLY DISCUSS the case with the 11 OTHER JURORS on your jury and only when you are ALL TOGETHER and there is no risk of you being overheard. This means that during the trial you CANNOT DISCUSS the case with FAMILY, FRIENDS or ANYONE else. Discussing the case means writing or speaking about the case in person or on any SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES such as Facebook or Twitter or on blogs and chat rooms. Once the trial is over and you are no longer serving on the jury, you CAN DISCUSS the case with anyone. But there is ONE EXCEPTION. Even after the trial is over, you MUST NOT DISCUSS what was said or done by you or any other member of the jury while the jury was in the DELIBERATING ROOM trying to reach a verdict, unless it is for the purpose of an official investigation into the conduct of any juror.

Quoted from https://assets.publishing.service.g...oads/attachment_data/file/938496/j001-eng.pdf

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

I wonder if there are different rules regarding this in the US and the UK. I found this rule for UK jurors (relevant part bolded by me):

Discussing the Case: 2 Rules There are 2 RULES every juror must follow about discussing their case. One rule tells you what you can discuss about the case WHILE THE TRIAL IS GOING ON. The other rule tells you what you can discuss about the case AFTER THE TRIAL IS OVER. This is from the moment you take the juror oath until the judge finally discharges you from serving on the jury at the end of the trial. During the trial you can ONLY DISCUSS the case with the 11 OTHER JURORS on your jury and only when you are ALL TOGETHER and there is no risk of you being overheard. This means that during the trial you CANNOT DISCUSS the case with FAMILY, FRIENDS or ANYONE else. Discussing the case means writing or speaking about the case in person or on any SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES such as Facebook or Twitter or on blogs and chat rooms. Once the trial is over and you are no longer serving on the jury, you CAN DISCUSS the case with anyone. But there is ONE EXCEPTION. Even after the trial is over, you MUST NOT DISCUSS what was said or done by you or any other member of the jury while the jury was in the DELIBERATING ROOM trying to reach a verdict, unless it is for the purpose of an official investigation into the conduct of any juror.

Quoted from https://assets.publishing.service.g...oads/attachment_data/file/938496/j001-eng.pdf

"During the trial you can ONLY DISCUSS the case with the 11 OTHER JURORS on your jury and only when you are ALL TOGETHER and there is no risk of you being overheard. "

This would only be when you're all sent out to deliberate at the end, as you've got to have all 11 of you in one big room with nobody else, which doesn't really come happen organically unless you're deliberating lol.

Are you allowed to discuss it with fellow jurors as the trial goes on in America?

 

[notsure]

"During the trial you can ONLY DISCUSS the case with the 11 OTHER JURORS on your jury and only when you are ALL TOGETHER and there is no risk of you being overheard. "

This would only be when you're all sent out to deliberate at the end, as you've got to have all 11 of you in one big room with nobody else, which doesn't really come happen organically unless you're deliberating lol.

Are you allowed to discuss it with fellow jurors as the trial goes on in America?

But this states that they can discuss it while the trial is ongoing, for instance when they have to leave the courtroom temporarily for lunch, etc.

 

[Marantz4250b]

"During the trial you can ONLY DISCUSS the case with the 11 OTHER JURORS on your jury and only when you are ALL TOGETHER and there is no risk of you being overheard. "

This would only be when you're all sent out to deliberate at the end, as you've got to have all 11 of you in one big room with nobody else, which doesn't really come happen organically unless you're deliberating lol.

Are you allowed to discuss it with fellow jurors as the trial goes on in America?

I guess, though, from reading that it seems as though the jury could, if they wanted to, decide to hold a private meeting to go over the evidence part way through a long trial such as this?

 

[Marantz4250b]

But this states that they can discuss it while the trial is ongoing, for instance when they have to leave the courtroom temporarily for lunch, etc.

But only where there is no risk of them being overheard which would be impossible, essentially, unless they were all in a private room.

 

[notsure]

But only where there is no risk of them being overheard which would be impossible, essentially, unless they were all in a private room.

Don't they sometimes have to leave the courtroom while the lawyers discuss legal matters?

 

[Tortoise]

I wonder if there are different rules regarding this in the US and the UK. I found this rule for UK jurors (relevant part bolded by me):

Discussing the Case: 2 Rules There are 2 RULES every juror must follow about discussing their case. One rule tells you what you can discuss about the case WHILE THE TRIAL IS GOING ON. The other rule tells you what you can discuss about the case AFTER THE TRIAL IS OVER. This is from the moment you take the juror oath until the judge finally discharges you from serving on the jury at the end of the trial. During the trial you can ONLY DISCUSS the case with the 11 OTHER JURORS on your jury and only when you are ALL TOGETHER and there is no risk of you being overheard. This means that during the trial you CANNOT DISCUSS the case with FAMILY, FRIENDS or ANYONE else. Discussing the case means writing or speaking about the case in person or on any SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES such as Facebook or Twitter or on blogs and chat rooms. Once the trial is over and you are no longer serving on the jury, you CAN DISCUSS the case with anyone. But there is ONE EXCEPTION. Even after the trial is over, you MUST NOT DISCUSS what was said or done by you or any other member of the jury while the jury was in the DELIBERATING ROOM trying to reach a verdict, unless it is for the purpose of an official investigation into the conduct of any juror.

Quoted from https://assets.publishing.service.g...oads/attachment_data/file/938496/j001-eng.pdf

Interesting, thanks.

I'm not sure of the facilities at Manchester Crown Court, but certainly when I did jury service at the Old Bailey, apart from the lift which was usually also occupied with people from other cases, there wasn't anywhere available for us to speak as a group of 12, without a lot of other people being around - juries from the 12 or so trials going on in other courtrooms, plus canteen and admin staff and court ushers and all the legal staff and barristers, being around in the halls and the canteen area. Even then there's usually some of your number off buying food/drinks or who leave the building during breaks for a smoke or to get some fresh air, or queuing for the toilets before your presence back in the courtroom is announced over the tannoy. But I did not know it was legally permitted.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I agree with what's being said here. People with poor boundaries in general tend to over exert themselves and then feel that they are 'owed' something because they have exhausted themselves to death trying to achieve a particular end.
The problem becomes more obvious and distressing for them when they realise they are on a 'solo mission' and they forgot to take the rest of the team with them.
This pattern is evident in the variation between 'how LL is seeing herself' and 'how others are perceiving her'
But LL is not embracing of the 'reflective space' that people are inviting her to step into to resolve the problem.
Instead she isolates herself further from her peer group by claiming that she has different/ better standards, that have emerged from her different/better training.
It's what she tells herself, her colleagues and the Dr.
Furthermore as has been mentioned above, there has been lots of sucking up to the higher ranks. This is not a team player IMO, it's someone who rates themselves and is finding it hard balancing that in a group setting.

This is the very definition of 'codependence' and most experts believe codependence and extreme narcissism are the two sides of the same coin. That's the sense of this that I'm getting too, either way it's all about *her*.

<modsnip>, but this type of personality being revealed it's not healthy and it could possibly explain something deeper and darker sitting underneath if there was a sense of frustration growing into something far worse. JMO MOO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

She explained: 'I often take photographs of cards
I've sent, even birthday cards'.
This kind of fits with 'Nice, Lucy' and 'spread sparkles wherever you go'

I suppose if she'd elaborated it might seem more average with the birthday cards, for example one could say, I like to remember the date of people's birthdays and remind self what card and what I wrote last year. But for a baby's death? What's the purpose, it's not like it's a recurring event and also never needs review IMO.

 

[Anxala]

You leave boofle alone, he’s a dog not a teddy bear lol

I am such a poor sleuther.

Agree, it’s a very odd thing to say.

“Remember the kind words I shared.” Assuming it’s not a trophy, she might have kept it as a template for future sympathy cards. JMO.

It is odd but then she does imo come across as very self-absorbed. So many instances (particularly in her convos with DrChoc and also some of her colleagues) where she always keeps the focus on herself, despite room always being left for her to give attention to the other person. But she rarely does. It's like she lives inside her own head an awful lot of the time.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I am such a poor sleuther.



It is odd but then she does imo come across as very self-absorbed. So many instances (particularly in her convos with DrChoc and also some of her colleagues) where she always keeps the focus on herself, despite room always being left for her to give attention to the other person. But she rarely does. It's like she lives inside her own head an awful lot of the time.

proper, lives in her own bubble. Plenty of people like that, bit neurotic and introverted.

 

[Sundial]

I also thought she was a Band 6 originally, but not sure if that was an assumption or if it was reported somewhere! As you say, she doesn't seem to have been a shift lead. I think she completed her neonatal course in 2013, so it would be reasonable to apply for a Band 6 post in 2015/16 if one became available.

It’s interesting isn’t it, because *if* staffing problems are an issue as has been reported occasionally, I would have thought a band 6 post would have been/become available. It’s possible there may have been one, upcoming perhaps, and she was competing for it but then over- applying herself (if guilty) how absolutely commendable and fitting she would be for the post. There does indeed appear to be some friction amongst colleagues (bitchiness as colleagues have called it) about her suitability to work with the more sicker babies.

So it then appears as though she’s over-compensating to demonstrate why she is suitable, even by making a point of sharing the managers comments to her with her colleague; eg look what unit manager says, don’t know how to respond, oh look the manager doesn’t have a problem with me etc. Flattery at its finest, a bit like the parents who hugged and thanked her for all her work etc.

That said it could also purely be the environment and totally innocent of course; but she seems to make an obvious point of hey look at me, the parents are so grateful, we hugged and cried etc. instead of just being humble and providing good care, she’s making a deliberate point amongst her colleagues of how amazing she is.

JMO if guilty etc.

 

[Dcflag]

Ive only taken a photo of one card I’ve written in my life (I’m 32) and it was the card I wrote that went in my dads coffin. I took the photo as the card itself was precious to me, but for obvious reasons I couldn’t kept it and I couldn’t have it back after the funeral. If I had written it and just kept it, it wouldn’t have had the same meaning to me, it was always intended to go with him.

For me, if she’s taking a photo of a card she’s written, it’s because that card is important. Perhaps like me, it’s not even necessarily the content of the card but the place it’s going to that’s important (in the case, to the family. We kept every funeral card in a box for my son).

 

[Sundial]

Ive only taken a photo of one card I’ve written in my life (I’m 32) and it was the card I wrote that went in my dads coffin. I took the photo as the card itself was precious to me, but for obvious reasons I couldn’t kept it and I couldn’t have it back after the funeral. If I had written it and just kept it, it wouldn’t have had the same meaning to me, it was always intended to go with him.

For me, if she’s taking a photo of a card she’s written, it’s because that card is important. Perhaps like me, it’s not even necessarily the content of the card but the place it’s going to that’s important (in the case, to the family. We kept every funeral card in a box for my son).

I feel this is really valid re loss; I have a family member who lost her baby shortly after birth. Every card sent to her at that time was kept in the keepsake box with all the other bits and memories that they still have to this day.
They are life events, and whilst slightly different- my marriage cards from our wedding day, I have also kept.
Significant life moments and that card and what you mention here reminds me again of being part of that memory box (or at least adding to it.

JMO

 

[ColourPurple]

Ive only taken a photo of one card I’ve written in my life (I’m 32) and it was the card I wrote that went in my dads coffin. I took the photo as the card itself was precious to me, but for obvious reasons I couldn’t kept it and I couldn’t have it back after the funeral. If I had written it and just kept it, it wouldn’t have had the same meaning to me, it was always intended to go with him.

For me, if she’s taking a photo of a card she’s written, it’s because that card is important. Perhaps like me, it’s not even necessarily the content of the card but the place it’s going to that’s important (in the case, to the family. We kept every funeral card in a box for my son).

I hadn't even considered that but yes you could be right, that perhaps the thought that it would go to Baby I's home and family and be kept forever was a factor in sending the card.

 

[ColourPurple]

It’s interesting isn’t it, because *if* staffing problems are an issue as has been reported occasionally, I would have thought a band 6 post would have been/become available. It’s possible there may have been one, upcoming perhaps, and she was competing for it but then over- applying herself (if guilty) how absolutely commendable and fitting she would be for the post. There does indeed appear to be some friction amongst colleagues (bitchiness as colleagues have called it) about her suitability to work with the more sicker babies.

So it then appears as though she’s over-compensating to demonstrate why she is suitable, even by making a point of sharing the managers comments to her with her colleague; eg look what unit manager says, don’t know how to respond, oh look the manager doesn’t have a problem with me etc. Flattery at its finest, a bit like the parents who hugged and thanked her for all her work etc.

That said it could also purely be the environment and totally innocent of course; but she seems to make an obvious point of hey look at me, the parents are so grateful, we hugged and cried etc. instead of just being humble and providing good care, she’s making a deliberate point amongst her colleagues of how amazing she is.

JMO if guilty etc.

Just having a quick catch up on post so not sure if it's been mentioned but yes she told Doc Choc she'd heard she was being considered for a promotion on the ward owtte. This was long before he mentioned the practioner's training.