UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #19

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

Well, this part is SUPPOSED to be about her, to be fair! It's HER opportunity to give HER side. Her barrister is supposed to be making it about her.

It's all very well saying that she should be in bits about the babies in this case but, being brutally honest about it, if it were me in that situation and I were innocent I'd be well beyond giving a toss about anything or anyone other than me by this point, quite frankly.

Besides, it's a situation she could never be on the right side of; if she spent the last hour in tears about deceased children then it would only be said that she's putting it on to curry favour with the jury.

Exactly right.

The deaths of the babies, as heart breaking, harrowing and horrible as they are, did not happen in a vaccum.

Just because something incredibly sad has happened to one set of people, does not mean we cannot empathise with a person who is going through something else, even if we deem their circumstance to be less sad.

Worth also bearing in mind for certain people, that Ms Letby is technically innocent at this point. She should be afforded the same attitudes to any other not guilty person. JMO

 

[ShireChe]

No, I am open to hearing what the defense case will be. But I didn't like the way it opened so far, because it seemed like they are going with her as the victim here. It rubs me the wrong way.

If she was to be innocent, then she would be a victim. The defence are saying she is innocent and setting the scene, easing her into the testimony. The key part will be when they go through the cases

 

[Blondiexoxo]

Well, this part is SUPPOSED to be about her, to be fair! It's HER opportunity to give HER side. Her barrister is supposed to be making it about her.

It's all very well saying that she should be in bits about the babies in this case but, being brutally honest about it, if it were me in that situation and I were innocent I'd be well beyond giving a toss about anything or anyone other than me by this point, quite frankly.

Besides, it's a situation she could never be on the right side of; if she spent the last hour in tears about deceased children then it would only be said that she's putting it on to curry favour with the jury.

It’s very self serving IMO, however trial by tweet is very difficult to follow and we know nothing of how she is coming across. But if you think of how she’s sat through the entire prosecution case and heard harrowing details of what she’s been accused of, the parents heartbreaking statements etc, yet the only tears she had were when she heard doc choc’s voice and when she saw a picture of her own room. Zero tears for the tiny babies she herself saw die. Now she cries yet again for herself. It may come across that she has little empathy for the victims and families in these cases IMO. But of course we all have our own views and are entitled to them, if we all agreed it would make for boring discussion. All MOO

 

[Sundial]

A barrister cannot allow his client to lie under oath. If he knew that none of that was true then he'd have to bring it to the attention of the judge.

As I say, it's dead easy for the prosecution to disprove if it's not true.

Is that not their role? That even if guilty and the evidence stacks up against someone and glaring them in the face; their barrister is “for” their client in winning their case?

 

[Marantz4250b]

12:57pm

One of the searches was for a fundraising challenge, which Letby says would have been to raise money for hospital equipment, or for the new neonatal unit.
In July 2015, the total number of Facebook searches was 70. In August 2015, it was 175. The number of searches in September 2015 is 209.


This, to me, puts a whole different context to her FB searching parents of babies in the indictment. This makes it far more difficult to argue that the searches of families of babies in the charges is anything nefarious, IMO.

Over two hundred searches in one month alone!!!!

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, May 2 - defence begins

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Little Nicki]

Are we to take her at her word that her sleep cycle was interrupted because she was suffering from PTSD? We don't know what she was treated for and why she needed what she needed. So far we only have her word for it.

In my experience, prisons do not hand out sleeping tablets on a long term basis unless thorough checks are done and they are absolutely necessary. Prisoners can be checked regularly through the night and it would be noted if they were asleep or not. You couldn't just say "Oh I'm not sleeping because of X,Y,Z, can I have some sleeping tablets please?". They wouldn't hand them over that easily and on a long term basis even if you weren't in prison, never mind if you are. Sleeping tablets would be a sought after currency in prison so they have strict controls over who gets them.

 

[Marantz4250b]

No, because she can tell the prison doctor whatever she wants. If she wants to tell them she cannot sleep because she feels so bad about the false accusations and she has PTSD symptoms because of that horrible situation then she will be diagnosed with PTSD and given meds. Just like Leticias Stauch just did before her trial. Doesn't necessarily make it all true though.

Yes, but I think the original point was that she hasn't been diagnosed or put in medication and was lying about it.

Might be me taking it the wrong way, though.

 

[Sweeper2000]

12:57pm

One of the searches was for a fundraising challenge, which Letby says would have been to raise money for hospital equipment, or for the new neonatal unit.
In July 2015, the total number of Facebook searches was 70. In August 2015, it was 175. The number of searches in September 2015 is 209.


This, to me, puts a whole different context to her FB searching parents of babies in the indictment. This makes it far more difficult to argue that the searches of families of babies in the charges is anything nefarious, IMO.

Over two hundred searches in one month alone!!!!

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, May 2 - defence begins

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

I’ve got a bet on with myself that these searches all took about thirty seconds each. She’s just scrolling fb as a past time. Fleeting and short fb searches, suggesting no in depth interest.

 

[esther43]

I have no doubt she's been prescribed them and diagnosed with it. That doesn't mean it's related to whether shes guilty or innocent, if she does actually have it.

IMO

To be honest, if she was writing things like ' maybe I did kill them, I don't know' this sounds like more than PTSD. It sounds like she was out of her mind and literally didn't know truth from reality. IMO.

 

[Marantz4250b]

It’s very self serving IMO, however trial by tweet is very difficult to follow and we know nothing of how she is coming across. But if you think of how she’s sat through the entire prosecution case and heard harrowing details of what she’s been accused of, the parents heartbreaking statements etc, yet the only tears she had were when she heard doc choc’s voice and when she saw a picture of her own room. Zero tears for the tiny babies she herself saw die. Now she cries yet again for herself. It may come across that she has little empathy for the victims and families in these cases IMO. But of course we all have our own views and are entitled to them, if we all agreed it would make for boring discussion. All MOO

I entirely appreciate what you're saying but, again, she's been on remand for two years, under suspicion since 2016 and arrested not once but three times and underwent thirty police interviews. Were it me I'd have been beyond caring about anything other than myself long ago.

Sorry, but if she's 100% not guilty then I totally appreciate why she's more concerned for herself at this point and I don't think that giving that impression is necessarily wrong or carries an implication of guilt.

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

In my experience, prisons do not hand out sleeping tablets on a long term basis unless thorough checks are done and they are absolutely necessary. Prisoners can be checked regularly through the night and it would be noted if they were asleep or not. You couldn't just say "Oh I'm not sleeping because of X,Y,Z, can I have some sleeping tablets please?". They wouldn't hand them over that easily and on a long term basis even if you weren't in prison, never mind if you are. Sleeping tablets would be a sought after currency in prison so they have strict controls over who gets them.

The image of prisoners attempted to simply sleep through their entire sentence has tickled me!

 

[Marantz4250b]

Is that not their role? That even if guilty and the evidence stacks up against someone and glaring them in the face; their barrister is “for” their client in winning their case?

As far as I understand it a barrister/KC is under an equal duty to the court as they are to their client. If they know that someone is not telling the truth then they are duty bound to do something about it.

 

[katydid23]

Her entire defence is that she’s been scapegoated, and therefore the victim. So this is exactly what we expect to hear.

I expected to hear HOW she was scapegoated, not starting with how badly she feels about it.

HOW did they narrow it down to her specifically?

 

[Sundial]

12:57pm

One of the searches was for a fundraising challenge, which Letby says would have been to raise money for hospital equipment, or for the new neonatal unit.
In July 2015, the total number of Facebook searches was 70. In August 2015, it was 175. The number of searches in September 2015 is 209.


This, to me, puts a whole different context to her FB searching parents of babies in the indictment. This makes it far more difficult to argue that the searches of families of babies in the charges is anything nefarious, IMO.

Over two hundred searches in one month alone!!!!

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, May 2 - defence begins

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Yet equally we could still ask *why* even if not part of the indictment I would have a real issue of my colleague nurse searching all these families- who are patients. This is actually frowned upon in many healthcare settings.
Moo

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

If she was to be innocent, then she would be a victim. The defence are saying she is innocent and setting the scene, easing her into the testimony. The key part will be when they go through the cases

A victim of what? If she's found innocent it doesn't mean she was set up and used as a scapegoat.

 

[WaxLyrical]

I entirely appreciate what you're saying but, again, she's been on remand for two years, under suspicion since 2016 and arrested not once but three times and underwent thirty police interviews. Were it me I'd have been beyond caring about anything other than myself long ago.

Sorry, but if she's 100% not guilty then I totally appreciate why she's more concerned for herself at this point and I don't think that giving that impression is necessarily wrong or carries an implication of guilt.

I agree. If she’s not guilty, then a) she’s already cried for these babies, the other nurses have testified to that, and b) the babies are not considered by her to be murder victims, they sadly died during the course of her normal work despite best efforts, as other patients have. Furthermore, I’d be expecting sheer resentment to have set in given the length of time she’s been jailed and the irreparable damage that’s been caused to her life.

That’s all if she’s not guilty.

If she is indeed guilty, then not crying for the babies is an insignificant issue in the grand scheme of such horrendous crimes. And putting on a show of crying for them would be disgusting and not something the parents would want to endure.

JMO.

 

[Lammergeier]

The healthcare professionals I’ve known have been incredibly hard-hearted and tough-minded about their jobs, because they have to be. I wouldn’t expect a nurse to cry while hearing details of patients who died any more than I’d expect a soldier to cry while hearing details of war. I think it’s also worth remembering Lucy was young while this was all going on - it’s normal to be egotistical and think you’re hot shizz and take photos and sound awkward in cards and so on in your twenties. Whichever way this goes, her life as she thought it would be is ruined, so no wonder she’s pitying herself! I don’t judge her based on any of that.

I do think she sidestepped the “on purpose” bit, which is surely the main event here - why did she ‘confess’ if she is innocent? But surely she’ll be pressed on it soon…

 

[katydid23]

Yes, but I think the original point was that she hasn't been diagnosed or put in medication and was lying about it.

Might be me taking it the wrong way, though.

I probably didn't express it clearly. My point has always been that we don't know the real reason she gave for needing the meds. Maybe she couldn't sleep because she is so nervous about the trial? Or can't get the images of dead babies out of her mind---guilty or innocent?

We don't know what her mental health issues really are. Maybe it is because she is an innocent victim of police railroading her for 7 murders? Or maybe she feels a lot of remorse? Who knows but we might never know.

I was just pushing back about your initial post saying she is nothing like BA because she was given meds by the prison doctor.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Yet equally we could still ask *why* even if not part of the indictment I would have a real issue of my colleague nurse searching all these families- who are patients. This is actually frowned upon in many healthcare settings.
Moo

Yes, I totally understand that. Being unprofessional in that regard is not evidence of murder, though.

The sheer number of searches, to me, seriously undermines the assertion that they constitute evidence of these crimes. The implication by the prosecution, surely, was that she did them for some sort of personal gain, thrill or need to feed off people's grief. The implication is that that is something highly unusual. The fact that one month alone contained over 200 searches and other months were well over 100 seems to show that FB searching people was a very common activity for her and absolutely nothing out of the ordinary.

 

[ColourPurple]

The image of prisoners attempted to simply sleep through their entire sentence has tickled me!

Nobody has suggested that.