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

[Blondiexoxo]

I've not used facebook for years. Is this much searching normal for an average user?

Seems defence are using the same arguments for facebook as they did with the handover notes - she had handover notes for nearly all the babies in the indictment but also lots of others, so this negates their importance.

She said Doc Choc was just a friend so how will she explain the "He knew I loved him" comment?

This is something I was wondering too. Her notes clearly show that it wasn’t just a friendship. So why say it was just that on the stand? Unless doc choc genuinely didn’t like her that way, maybe he ‘friend zoned’ her. Perhaps his kindness that we perceived as being flirty was actually him just trying to be a nice guy and a friend and confidant.
Her testifying that they were just friends has really confused me!

 

[DinerMite]

So at least we know what some of the written names are but the one I'm interested in the most is Tiny Boy - has Myers asked about all but that one?

 

[ConcernedThirdParty]

<modsnip - rude>

Of course it's not gross misconduct or even particularly abnormal to look people up on Facebook. You may not do this, but the majority of active Facebook users do to greater or lesser extent. The vast majority of these searches seems to be people she knew and was likely friends with, so the numbers don't seem significant, we're averaging single digits per day, mostly friends. And it's no more gross misconduct to visit someone's Facebook page than their twitter or instagram pages, you only see what they've chosen to share publicly. There's no interaction. You're not breaching any GDPR rules.

The "searches" vs "visits" etc may be a red herring - if you search for someone and you've visited their profile before, they'll be suggested and only a true madman (or woman) would finish typing the name and click search rather than clicking the convenient link in the suggestions. Sounds like the reporting or recording of this data in the trial has not been that specific.

As far as hoarding handover sheets - my cupboard behind me has about three boxes of paperwork that includes university lecture notes, birth certificate, bank statements, pay letters, utility bills, birthday cards, wedding invitations, all sorts - anything I can't just put straight into the recycling without thinking. I put stuff into a pile when I get it and sometimes shove it to one side rather than sort through what I need to keep, what can go in the bin and what needs to be shredded - I have a shredder now, but use to save up stuff for an opportunity to burn it. I have some stuff dating back 18 years because every time I move, there ends up being a point where I just have to shove random stuff in a box and deal with it later. It's not accumulating to a hoarding level, but again plenty of people do have this sort of filing system that follows them from place to place and they never find the time to sit down and sort through it to the end. Most people's email inboxes look the same.

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

I noticed that but, again, this is trial reporting by tweet so we may not be getting the full context.

Even if she did then it's not particularly unusual if she was asked in relation to the names of actual people as well. It's just the way people speak, it's not always perfectly phrased.

My comment was tongue-in-cheek. Perfectly normal for people to lump together a dog with other people and refer to them in group form as people. Against the seriousness of it all, it just tickled me.

JMO

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

Asked whether she had ever wanted to hurt a baby, Letby replies: "No that’s completely against what being a nurse is, I only wanted to help and to care for them"

She ‘only ever wanted to help and to care for them’ she didn’t follow this up with ‘and that’s what I did’ or even say ‘I only ever cared for them’ but that she wanted to. Wanting to do something and doing it are two completely different things IMO. If guilty, maybe she wanted to care for them, but sinister urges took over which meant she didn’t, if guilty. MOO

We are at risk of splitting hairs here.

Yes, language is key. However, the overarching sentinment behind her answer is that she was doing her best and only doing what she felt was good work. If at any point she harmed a child it was purely accidental, would be what I take from this, as to her meaning anyway.

JMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

This is something I was wondering too. Her notes clearly show that it wasn’t just a friendship. So why say it was just that on the stand? Unless doc choc genuinely didn’t like her that way, maybe he ‘friend zoned’ her. Perhaps his kindness that we perceived as being flirty was actually him just trying to be a nice guy and a friend and confidant.
Her testifying that they were just friends has really confused me!

She was asked if it was anything more than a friendship. She replied "no".

She might have absolutely loved to pants off him but if it didn't go anywhere past a friendship then she was telling the truth.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

Myers is purposely avoiding asking some questions which is to be expected for the defence. He’s not going to ask things for which there is no explanation or point out something that makes her look guilty. I expect him to brush over quite a few things, I do think he needs to mention the ‘today is your birthday’ part of the note though. As I’m sure the prosecution will bring that up.

Bear in mind LL has had years to think of what to say on the stand. And months over the span of this trial to work out which questions need answering. I am still shocked she took the stand as usually counsel don’t advise it as it opens her up to a whole lot of scrutiny from the prosecution.
All MOO

 

[ConcernedThirdParty]

I'm not sure how well the crying at looking at photos of her house will go down with the jury to be honest. Impossible to tell as we're not watching, only reading text - but imagine being a parent who lost a baby in an extremely traumatic way. And then being told your baby had unexplained injuries similar to that of a car accident. And that there is no medical reason for why your baby died. And you're sat there opposite the person accused of this crime, and they're crying looking at photos of their bedroom.
Now I think it is understandable that LL would be upset at this, as the life she knew it and had hoped for is definitely over. But I just don't think the jury will sympathise particularly. I'm not sure how helpful this is for her tbh.

Crying is typically an involuntary reaction. Hopefully there's at least a few people on the jury with a brain and a bit of empathy who can understand why she's crying or see through it if it's an act and then appropriately count it for or against her or disregard it.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Bear in mind LL has had years to think of what to say on the stand. And months over the span of this trial to work out which questions need answering. I am still shocked she took the stand as usually counsel don’t advise it as it opens her up to a whole lot of scrutiny from the prosecution.
All MOO

I'm pretty stunned that she has. I'm on record as being quite confident that she wouldn't.

Now that she has I can understand why; she's not afraid of standing up for herself, as far as I can tell and has been through thirty police interviews answering questions in all of them. She's very good, IMO, at giving a good account of herself. It'll be interesting to see the result when the prosecution get their go at her, though!

 

[esther43]

3:03pm

Notes of social engagements are shown to the court - including a meet-up at the Stretton Fox pub with colleagues, salsa in Buckley, a meal at Zizzis and a concert to see Ellie Goulding.
The notes are in different inks. Letby says blue ink would usually be used for work-related commitments.
Mr Myers, making reference to Letby's house move: "How big a thing was it to have this house?"
Letby: "Oh it was huge, a big milestone."

3:05pm

Asked why the name of a particular baby is featured on one of the days in the diary, Letby replies: "Something has stood out for that baby...it was for my own reflection."

3:10pm

A diary entry for April 12, 2016 is for meeting friends at her new home, including one of her work colleagues.
Shifts for April 15-17 were changed from 'N' to 'LD'.
Further social engagements are noted for Tatton Park, Las Iguanas, salsa in Mold.
Notes on May 2016 show, in blue ink on an 'LD' shift, the first names of two babies not on the indictment.
Letby says those names were written as something notable had happened. A note on May 14 also has the name of a student nurse, which Letby says was 'documented' as it was important at work when mentoring took place.
.

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

Wonder if this was the same student nurse that she reported to Dr choc was 'glued to her' ?

 

[Blondiexoxo]

Still on the yellow note, and the fact she'd written about the triplet babies, Letby is asked why she had written "today is your birthday, but you aren’t here, and I’m so sorry for that". Myers asks what made her sorry.

She replies: "I think this was on their anniversary and I was thinking of them."

So he addressed it…
But the prosecution are going to ask ‘were you thinking of them because you killed them’ LL’s answers doesn’t explain anything about why she was thinking of o and p, how did she know it was their anniversary?

And was it their birthday or anniversary of their death? I’m sure that o and p arrived while LL was on holiday so they didn’t die the day they were born did they? The note says ‘today is your birthday’ but LL says it was their anniversary, is that meant as the anniversary of their death?

I’ll add to this post instead of posting again..

A lot of LL’s answers seem to be very short and don’t give any detail. There’s a lot of her doing things ‘for her own reflection’ or ‘something significant must have happened’ or ‘I do this all the time’ ‘I was upset’ but then there’s no extra detail. The prosecution are going to keep following up with further questions about why she was doing this or that, why was she thinking of babies o and p enough to write a note apologising to them, and saying she didn’t know if anyone else would be thinking of them. The prosecution will push for much more detail than she’s giving, maybe this is a purposeful move by the defence, having her give short and vague answers so that when it’s the prosecutions turn she doesn’t forget what she’s said or make a mistake.
All MOO

 

[JosieJo]

<modsnip - rude>

Of course it's not gross misconduct or even particularly abnormal to look people up on Facebook. You may not do this, but the majority of active Facebook users do to greater or lesser extent. The vast majority of these searches seems to be people she knew and was likely friends with, so the numbers don't seem significant, we're averaging single digits per day, mostly friends. And it's no more gross misconduct to visit someone's Facebook page than their twitter or instagram pages, you only see what they've chosen to share publicly. There's no interaction. You're not breaching any GDPR rules.

The "searches" vs "visits" etc may be a red herring - if you search for someone and you've visited their profile before, they'll be suggested and only a true madman (or woman) would finish typing the name and click search rather than clicking the convenient link in the suggestions. Sounds like the reporting or recording of this data in the trial has not been that specific.

As far as hoarding handover sheets - my cupboard behind me has about three boxes of paperwork that includes university lecture notes, birth certificate, bank statements, pay letters, utility bills, birthday cards, wedding invitations, all sorts - anything I can't just put straight into the recycling without thinking. I put stuff into a pile when I get it and sometimes shove it to one side rather than sort through what I need to keep, what can go in the bin and what needs to be shredded - I have a shredder now, but use to save up stuff for an opportunity to burn it. I have some stuff dating back 18 years because every time I move, there ends up being a point where I just have to shove random stuff in a box and deal with it later. It's not accumulating to a hoarding level, but again plenty of people do have this sort of filing system that follows them from place to place and they never find the time to sit down and sort through it to the end. Most people's email inboxes look the same.

To be honest the morals of these searches are not relevant
What is relevant is amongst all the colleagues/ social searches that according to her "popped" into her mind ..why were these particular babies parents popping into her mind ...there doesn't seem to be a great number of non case related babies parents

 

[JosieJo]

Apologies if already posted sky also doing a live feed

Lucy Letby trial latest: Defendant now facing prosecution lawyer after tears in court

The cross-examination of the neonatal nurse, 33, enters its first full day today. Yesterday saw prosecutor Nick Johnson KC ask Letby why she only cries for herself and not the babies she is alleged to have killed. She denied this was the case.

news.sky.com

 

[ColourPurple]

Gonna be offline for a bit if anybody wants to take over the updates from this link

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

 

[gc105]

Searching for parents of children involved in the charges in amongst hundreds of other searches (other parents, colleagues, social searches) may seem innocuous. It is definitely a breach of professional conduct, but does it point to guilt given the context provided today? No.

However, searching for parents of children involved in the charges on Christmas Day, on anniversaries, searching several in quick succession months down the line has a more sinister feel to it IMO…

Again, all MOO!

 

[Blondiexoxo]

To be honest the morals of these searches are not relevant
What is relevant is amongst all the colleagues/ social searches that according to her "popped" into her mind ..why were these particular babies parents popping into her mind ...there doesn't seem to be a great number of non case related babies parents

Took the words right out of my mouth, I just posted this. There’s no detail to any answers even the important ones. Prosecution will push for more detail, they will follow up with ‘why were you thinking of them, was it because you had killed them’ etc…

I wonder if she’s not giving any detail on purpose so that when she is questioned by the prosecution she doesn’t forget what she’s already testified to and slip up by saying something different. By giving basic answers now, when the prosecution ask her more direct questions she can give more detail without worrying about them saying ‘that isn’t what you testified to earlier’ IMO

 

[gc105]

3:38pm

Letby says she did not know how many handover notes she had kept at her home. She says they were not all in one place.
She said they would stay in the pocket of her uniform, where it would be on shift, and she would not dispose of it prior to leaving.
"It would just get put somewhere"
"Anywhere in particular?" "No."
The number of handover sheets totalled 257.
Mr Myers: "Did you ever think to yourself, blimey, I have got a lot of handover sheets, I had better get rid of them?"
Letby: "No."
Letby says the notes had no purpose at home and she did not think of them.
Mr Myers says a shredder was found at Letby's home. Letby had previously told police in interview she did not have a shredder. Asked about this, Letby says it was an "oversight", and the shredder had come into her possession quite recently.

********

Hmm, so she did have a shredder, but said in police interview she didn’t. LL has now said it was an oversight and the shredder had come into her possession recently? Some of the handover sheets were found in the shredder box, so casts doubt over how recent it came into her possession IMO. Again, I find this difficult to get my head around IMO.

 

[esther43]

Fair point but much of it relates to work and I think it's work that this compulsive behavior revolves around.

In fact does it all actually relate to this case? There were 257 hand-over sheets only a small number of them relate directly to the charges at hand. Yes, they were from roughly that one year period, but most of them don't actually directly relate to the case at all, when you think about it.

I can see that perspective but if LL was a poisoner at work as the prosecution allege, it is also possible that these documents were used as a tool to help aid and facilite the alleged offences. Given that extra shifts were often opportunistic, they could have been gathered for this purpose.

 

[gc105]

3:42pm

A photo of a Morrisons bag is shown to the court. It was recovered from Letby's home. It was Letby's 'work bag'.
An 'Ibiza bag' replaced the Morrisons bag for Letby. It was used for taking her uniform to work, her lunchbox, work documents and shoes.
The Morrisons bag had 31 handover notes, 17 relating to babies in the indictment.
Letby says she did not know when, how they came to be in her bag. She says they came in "by mistake" as part of her general pattern of behaviour.

********

So this suggests she did take her uniform into work and get changed in her workplace? Handover sheets found in her work bag, which also contained her uniform, lunchbox etc. You’d think she’d notice the handover sheets when emptying out her uniform, lunch box etc at home at the end of shifts…

Again casts doubt over her accidentally taking the handover sheets home for me. Again MOO!

 

[Phoenix Lazarus]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I bet her distress was embarrassment!