UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #20

[ColourPurple]

Somebody asked if we had been made aware of any changes in LL's life in June 2015. In addition to her having completed the long line training in May 2015, she also moved back into Ash House (hospital accomodation) on 1st June 2015, after having moved out to live in a flat in town for around six months.

For a time, Letby says she moved to a flat 'in town' in 2015, before moving back into Ash House 'towards the end of 2015'.

A page from Letby's 2015 diary is shown. A note, '*Ash House*', is on June 1, 2015. It is clarified that Letby had moved back to Ash House in June 2015, having moved out for 'about six months'.

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

 

[Dotta]

Aren 't you guys watching Coronation?

I am
On Royal Family Channel!

Wish you all great celebrations

 

[ColourPurple]

Aren 't you guys watching Coronation?

I am
On Royal Family Channel!

Wish you all great celebrations

No. I'll give it a miss thanks lol

 

[marynnu]

Aren 't you guys watching Coronation?

I am
On Royal Family Channel!

Wish you all great celebrations

Is there a coronation? Can't say I've noticed.

 

[Dotta]

Is there a coronation? Can't say I've noticed.

Cheers!!!

 

[Lammergeier]

It seems like the mother had a decent enough period of time to properly observe the baby and wouldn’t make a mistake about the blood, the phone record is there, and it would be bizarre for the parents to make up the whole thing or be mistaken about something so serious. This is the first time I’ve really thought she’s barefacedly lying and displaying a really insensitive side, almost like anger at the parents. There’s so much she “can’t recall” but here she’s SURE the mother is wrong…

Coronation shmoronation

 

[Sweeper2000]

I think he’s talking about LL’s alleged phone call to the SHO, and whether there would be a record of that. Not the mum’s call to her husband.

Yeh I thought ll might slip up on the call to the sho. Not the moms testimony onthe9pm call.

 

[Penny68]

It's also the 'screaming' she heard when approaching the room which breaks my heart. More objectively, taken with the blood around the mouth and subsequent haemorrhage it all fits with inflicted harm IMO. You know, lots of people focus on the insulin poisonings, which I do understand, but for me personally Baby E has always been the standout case.

I know of course the other nurses in the unit would have been caring for their designated babies, but surely the nurses in the rooms closest would also have heard Baby E screaming, as the mother did walking down the corridor approaching the room.

LL, as was stated denied Baby E's mum even went there at 9pm with her expressed milk. But had any other staff looked into Baby E's room, wondering what the baby was screaming for they would have seen the mum there and LL, knowing the time was around 9pm than as LL suggested it was 10pm.

 

[katydid23]

Yeh I thought ll might slip up on the call to the sho. Not the moms testimony onthe9pm call.

Yah, LL says she is not sure if she called the SHO or talked in person to them---but somehow certain they agreed to omit the 9 pm feed? But SHO has no memory of that. And never made notes of that supposed discussion and decision.

And no one ever told the mom that the 9 pm feed was omitted. So that version of the story by LL is very suspect.

Why would she need to call out the parents as liars ? Seems kind of a reckless and desperate move, imo.

 

[ColourPurple]

I know of course the other nurses in the unit would have been caring for their designated babies, but surely the nurses in the rooms closest would also have heard Baby E screaming, as the mother did walking down the corridor approaching the room.

LL, as was stated denied Baby E's mum even went there at 9pm with her expressed milk. But had any other staff looked into Baby E's room, wondering what the baby was screaming for they would have seen the mum there and LL, knowing the time was around 9pm than as LL suggested it was 10pm.

I'd think that any other nurse did hear screaming would just assume it was a baby having to go through a particularly painful medical procedure.

 

[katydid23]

I know of course the other nurses in the unit would have been caring for their designated babies, but surely the nurses in the rooms closest would also have heard Baby E screaming, as the mother did walking down the corridor approaching the room.

LL, as was stated denied Baby E's mum even went there at 9pm with her expressed milk. But had any other staff looked into Baby E's room, wondering what the baby was screaming for they would have seen the mum there and LL, knowing the time was around 9pm than as LL suggested it was 10pm.

Apparently there were not many staff around at that time on night shift. I am not sure anyone would have noticed or taken time to investigate crying if they saw a nurse was already in the room. No one would have any reason to take notice of a mom on the unit.

No one would be asked to remember if mom was telling the truth until years later when the investigation into LL began. By then, who'd remember?

 

[Marantz4250b]

"She doesn't accept baby Es mums version on events" ... I almost burst with anger whilst catching up ...poor mum ...jmo but that's not going to go down well with the jury

Maybe it's the truth? We simply don't know.

 

[Marantz4250b]

It isn’t circumstantial: if it was the CPS wouldn’t have had enough to charge her on, and refuse bail.

What on earth???

Of course it's circumstantial. One of the main pieces of evidence, one of the things that is the very foundation of the prosecution's case, is that she was on shift for each event. That is the very definition of circumstantial evidence!

And the CPS does not "refuse bail" - the court does!

 

[JosieJo]

Maybe it's the truth? We simply don't know.

I'd say there is little if any doubt of Baby Es mums testimony..there is enough to back it up
I can only see it as a desperate cruel attempt to distance herself from the moment she allegedly attacked baby E
IMO unless the jury have heard something we haven't..and having heard the testimony of the parents being cross examined on the stand I do not think for a minute the Jury will have a problem knowing what they believe

 

[katydid23]

Maybe it's the truth? We simply don't know.

I know that the parents are telling the truth. It seems very obvious, as they have corroborating facts and corroborating witnesses and LL has none of that. If I had to assign credibility I would say the parents were credible witnesses. I could not say the same for the defendant in this particular incident. JMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

They’re sealed.

IF some random person decided to inject the bags with insulin they would have leaked…

Besides that, if said random person injected them with insulin how would they know only LL would use them?

No, someone has already corrected you on that, they wouldn't leak.

Who said they would know that only LL would use them?

 

[marynnu]

I know of course the other nurses in the unit would have been caring for their designated babies, but surely the nurses in the rooms closest would also have heard Baby E screaming, as the mother did walking down the corridor approaching the room.

LL, as was stated denied Baby E's mum even went there at 9pm with her expressed milk. But had any other staff looked into Baby E's room, wondering what the baby was screaming for they would have seen the mum there and LL, knowing the time was around 9pm than as LL suggested it was 10pm.

I remember this discussion from way back, and if I remember rightly the layout of the unit was very relevant re. the location of the rooms and the corridor the mother would have approached from. You would need to delve deep to find it though!
Also, the doors to the rooms would be fire doors which muffle sound a lot. Where I worked you couldn't hear a thing from the room next door.

 

[ShireChe]

What on earth???

Of course it's circumstantial. One of the main pieces of evidence, one of the things that is the very foundation of the prosecution's case, is that she was on shift for each event. That is the very definition of circumstantial evidence!

And the CPS does not "refuse bail" - the court does!

I think people are getting too caught up in 'circumstantial' evidence. The majority of convictions are based on circumstantial evidence. The key is how strong that circumstantial evidence is and how plausible another alternative is.

My opinion on this case & problem the defence have is providing a plausible alternative. Now I know strictly speaking the defence doesn't have to prove anything and that's the job of the prosecution, but with so many charges and expert witness testimony I think the defence have to present some expert testimony to show how these deaths did or may have occured. Just saying 'lack of care' will not be enough, they need specifics and experts to state it.

It'll be interesting to see how long the jury deliberation is. A quick decision and I'm sure it's guilty on all or most counts...a long deliberation and they are very much undecided.

And I have no idea what will happen if they can't reach a decision. Could they really have a retrial in such a long and complicated case?

 

[Becky53]

Aren 't you guys watching Coronation?

I am
On Royal Family Channel!

Wish you all great celebrations

Couldn’t give a damn about this dynasty of Royals but eldest son is doing live coverage from Cardiff so I’ll probably dib in at some point as I’m his N°1 fan - he calls me Annie Wilkes from Misery.

 

[Tortoise]

Re baby A:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...th-twin-baby-boy-came-complete-shock-her.html

"Her barrister then asked what it felt like to be the subject of such an allegation.

She replied: 'It's awful. I wasn't even supposed to be working that night. It was such a shock to walk into that situation'."

Murder-accused nurse `stunned´ at death of first alleged victim

Asked how she felt after the death of Child A, Letby said: “Stunned. It was a complete shock to all of us. “I felt like we had walked through the doors into this awful situation. The first time I had met (Child A), the first time I had met his parents. “It was a huge shock.”

Mr Myers said: “It is alleged of course that you did this – did you?” Letby said: “No.

Mr Myers said: “What’s it like to have that allegation made?” Letby said: “It’s awful. That day I was not even supposed to be working that night. “It was just a shock to walk into that situation.”
Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
23h

Mr Myers puts it to Ms Letby that she is accused of killing the boy, he asks if she did 'no' she responds

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
23h

Asked what it is like to have those accusations against her, she says 'it's awful, obviously that day I wasn’t even supposed to be working that night'.

----

He asked her what it felt like to be accused of baby A's murder. I've sought out live and non-live reports, just to make sure this wasn't journo error.

I don't think she was prepared for that question, but it seems she did have some kind of a rehearsed script that didn't fit IMO. It mirrors her texts sent just afterwards too:

"In the same conversation between Letby and her colleague, Letby said: "I was not supposed to be in either - [boss] swapped my nights as unit busy - but these things happen unfortunately." Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, October 18

Breaking down her answer, IMO, I'd say she's implied that this would have had to have been planned, and targeted at baby A specifically, and because she only had 12 hours notice from that morning that she would be working the night-shift, she couldn't have planned this because she didn't know which baby she would be getting, but of course that's nonsensical because it's not the identity of the baby that is key to the allegation. And she didn't walk into it, she was there over an hour before he collapsed, she didn't turn up to work and walk into a resuscitation.

Additionally she did know that they had premature twins born the night before and a third 30-weeker in room 1, and that's why they had asked her to work.

My takeaway is that implying a denial that she had time to plan this, and hugely emphasising walking into it, she has drawn attention to the very opposite.

And so what about what her barrister did actually ask her? What is it like to be accused of murder? Here was her opportunity to say 'I was stunned, I felt disbelief, it's outrageous, I feel scared, worried, it makes me angry, it's just not true' etc, these are the things I would expect to hear about her response to being accused, if she felt them. I have to assume she wasn't at all surprised.

JMO