UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #21

[Dotta]

They will definitely have spoken to people who know her, absolutely no doubt in my mind. They've had years to find people and will likely have downloaded the entire public contents of her FB and that of everyone who knew her. When you think about the photos which have been published of her, the nature of them suggests that they were posted on FB by friends of hers rather than her herself. I'm guessing they have hundreds of pics of her and will have been waving cheque books under the noses of anyone who knew her for ages.

The problem we have as to what we'll learn, though, is two fold; if she's acquitted then we'll actually learn very little unless she decides to talk. Privacy rights and not wanting to be sued into the next century may hold the papers off publishing much and the police and CPS wont release anything for the same reasons.

If she's convicted then I have no doubt that all sorts of stuff will be published about her, it will be an absolute information deluge for years; papers, magazines, books, documentaries and films are inevitable. The problem there, though, is that no-one will know what to believe. As a convicted serial killer of helpless babies anyone will be able to say anything they like about her with no fear of being sued. It's essentially impossible to defame someone convicted of those crimes so who is going to sue?

Why do you think people would lie?

 

[Anxala]

Quite a curious comment in the podcast this week -

"This podcast will go further than the headlines and news reports, but at times you might wonder why we aren't bringing you more detail. That's because we can only tell you what the jury have heard, and that's to preserve the integrity of a fair trial."

That's kind of implying that the 'more detail' they're privy to would not be in LL's favour...

Which, if the case, is rather disengenuous of them imo.

Wonder why they felt the need to say this? Maybe they're just trying to up their listener numbers.

 

[ColourPurple]

Quite a curious comment in the podcast this week -

"This podcast will go further than the headlines and news reports, but at times you might wonder why we aren't bringing you more detail. That's because we can only tell you what the jury have heard, and that's to preserve the integrity of a fair trial."

I wonder if listeners have been emailing asking for more information about LL's version of events and why it differed from her police statement. Of course we know that it's because the prosecution haven't had the chance to question her to get that detail yet, in other words...the jury haven't heard that yet.

 

[ColourPurple]

They will definitely have spoken to people who know her, absolutely no doubt in my mind. They've had years to find people and will likely have downloaded the entire public contents of her FB and that of everyone who knew her. When you think about the photos which have been published of her, the nature of them suggests that they were posted on FB by friends of hers rather than her herself. I'm guessing they have hundreds of pics of her and will have been waving cheque books under the noses of anyone who knew her for ages.

The problem we have as to what we'll learn, though, is two fold; if she's acquitted then we'll actually learn very little unless she decides to talk. Privacy rights and not wanting to be sued into the next century may hold the papers off publishing much and the police and CPS wont release anything for the same reasons.

If she's convicted then I have no doubt that all sorts of stuff will be published about her, it will be an absolute information deluge for years; papers, magazines, books, documentaries and films are inevitable. The problem there, though, is that no-one will know what to believe. As a convicted serial killer of helpless babies anyone will be able to say anything they like about her with no fear of being sued. It's essentially impossible to defame someone convicted of those crimes so who is going to sue?

If she's found guilty, due to the age of her alleged victims and the location of the alleged offences, I really don't think we'll hear a great deal about alleged previous questionable behaviour, in the way that we usually would. There are no alleged adult victims or witnesses. If guilty, her alleged victims were babies (who can't talk or remember) and they were allegedly targeted when there were either no witnesses around, or when any potential witnesses were distracted. And if there were any other mothers who had similar stories of LL being around when their babies deteriorated, presumably they would go to the police not the papers.

All JMO

 

[katydid23]

"Then LL sent numerous text messages asking about baby G following further incidents where she almost died. She throws out possible reasons for her collapses…
LL: “Hmm, what can cause that.” “Is it that she is an extreme premature who had long-term inotrope and vent dependency and now she is older and doing more for herself...it just takes a little...something to tip her over.”


I have always thought this wording-----"it just takes a little...something to tip her over.”------is really distressing to hear.

It feels like that might be leakage from her subconscious, and that is how she looks at the collapses? It just takes 'a little something' to 'tip them over' and so she does so.

 

[ColourPurple]

"Then LL sent numerous text messages asking about baby G following further incidents where she almost died. She throws out possible reasons for her collapses…
LL: “Hmm, what can cause that.” “Is it that she is an extreme premature who had long-term inotrope and vent dependency and now she is older and doing more for herself...it just takes a little...something to tip her over.”


I have always thought this wording-----"it just takes a little...something to tip her over.”------is really distressing to hear.

It feels like that might be leakage from her subconscious, and that is how she looks at the collapses? It just takes 'a little something' to 'tip them over' and so she does so.

Whether innocent or guilty, that text sounds so clunky and out of sync with the rest of the convo IMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

If she's found guilty, due to the age of her alleged victims and the location of the alleged offences, I really don't think we'll hear a great deal about alleged previous questionable behaviour, in the way that we usually would. There are no alleged adult victims or witnesses. If guilty, her alleged victims were babies (who can't talk or remember) and they were allegedly targeted when there were either no witnesses around, or when any potential witnesses were distracted. And if there were any other mothers who had similar stories of LL being around when their babies deteriorated, presumably they would go to the police not the papers.

All JMO

I'm talking more about people who know/knew her personally rather than in relation to the specific crimes themselves.

If she's convicted it will be very difficult to get much factual detail on what she was like before them as there will be very little incentive for anyone not to overly exaggerate anything in her life previous to those crimes.

Someone could say absolutely anything about her but even if it was completely untrue there is essentially no way to prove it and no comeback for her. She'd never win a defamation claim.

Because of that, we, as the pubic with an interest in the case and the background to it, may have to wade through all manner of exaggeration and outright fabrication to get at the actual truth.

 

[ColourPurple]

I'm talking more about people who know/knew her personally rather than in relation to the specific crimes themselves.

If she's convicted it will be very difficult to get much factual detail on what she was like before them as there will be very little incentive for anyone not to overly exaggerate anything in her life previous to those crimes.

Someone could say absolutely anything about her but even if it was completely untrue there is essentially no way to prove it and no comeback for her. She'd never win a defamation claim.

Because of that, we, as the pubic with an interest in the case and the background to it, may have to wade through all manner of exaggeration and outright fabrication to get at the actual truth.

I know what you mean. I still think because of the nature of the alleged crimes, we won't hear as much as we would if it were another type of murder. Yes, there's the whole thing about a convicted murderer essentially having no reputation to lose, but these alleged crimes were in such a specific area with such specific victims that, if she is found guilty, I'm not expecting to see the same kind of stories as we've seen with previous convicted killers. JMO. Guess we'll find out, if and when it happens.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Here’s dr Ravi’s opinion on current subject matter.
<modsnip>
Best Xmas admission - allergic reaction to reindeer dust

But all sorted and home on Xmas morning

Facebook

www.facebook.com

 

[Jazmania]

Quite a curious comment in the podcast this week -

"This podcast will go further than the headlines and news reports, but at times you might wonder why we aren't bringing you more detail. That's because we can only tell you what the jury have heard, and that's to preserve the integrity of a fair trial."

That's a really odd thing to write. I wonder what detail they mean? We HAVE heard detail about the notes she wrote, the kept handover notes, what she says she was doing around the times of each incident.

For me that means that there have been legal discussions in court to do with some aspect of LL that the jury aren't privy to, that would potentially bias the jury against her, and that journalists have heard but can't print. This secret information in the journalist's mind is newsworthy and sensationalist enough for them to hint at the presence of it. In my opinion, of course.

 

[notsure]

That's a really odd thing to write. I wonder what detail they mean? We HAVE heard detail about the notes she wrote, the kept handover notes, what she says she was doing around the times of each incident.

For me that means that there have been legal discussions in court to do with some aspect of LL that the jury aren't privy to, that would potentially bias the jury against her, and that journalists have heard but can't print. This secret information in the journalist's mind is newsworthy and sensationalist enough for them to hint at the presence of it. In my opinion, of course.

That's interesting! So the press get to hear stuff that the jury can't?

 

[Dotta]

The Jury hear stuff only connected to charges.
Nothing that happened outside them.

JMO

 

[Dotta]

I bet the Press have really interesting info and they are tapping their feet impatiently to release all -
if LL is guilty.

If the verdict is NG - I guess the folders will be shredded

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

I bet the Press have really interesting info and they are tapping their feet impatiently to release all -
if LL is guilty.

If the verdict is NG - I guess the folders will be shredded

JMO

Dont be so silly, they will be stored ina Morrison’s bag under the bed.

 

[Anxala]

I'm talking more about people who know/knew her personally rather than in relation to the specific crimes themselves.

If she's convicted it will be very difficult to get much factual detail on what she was like before them as there will be very little incentive for anyone not to overly exaggerate anything in her life previous to those crimes.

Someone could say absolutely anything about her but even if it was completely untrue there is essentially no way to prove it and no comeback for her. She'd never win a defamation claim.

Because of that, we, as the pubic with an interest in the case and the background to it, may have to wade through all manner of exaggeration and outright fabrication to get at the actual truth.

If guilty and convicted, we'll likely never get to the actual truth since LL is the only one that can tell the actual truth. Anything emerging post-trial would still just be subjective and speculative noise since no one can know what went on inside the guilty head of LL.

The only way imo we'll ever get to know anything more about LL is if she's innocent, cleared of all charges, freed and chooses in the aftermath to talk publicly about her 6yr ordeal.

I know which outcome I'd prefer.

 

[Tortoise]

One thing that really struck me from listening to the latest podcast, detailing her answers to questions from her barrister for the six babies A to F, all in one day, was the cumulative effect of hearing very similar details for each baby's collapse. I guess hearing it rather than reading it was much more impactful, for me anyway. With the prosecution's case we've heard the evidence for the 17 babies A to Q spread over six months, whereas six babies in one day makes the similarities really apparent IMO. I can only imagine that is going to be compounded over another few days of evidence from her for the 11 remaining babies, and then going through it all again in cross-examination.

 

[esther43]

One thing that really struck me from listening to the latest podcast, detailing her answers to questions from her barrister for the six babies A to F, all in one day, was the cumulative effect of hearing very similar details for each baby's collapse. I guess hearing it rather than reading it was much more impactful, for me anyway. With the prosecution's case we've heard the evidence for the 17 babies A to Q spread over six months, whereas six babies in one day makes the similarities really apparent IMO. I can only imagine that is going to be compounded over another few days of evidence from her for the 11 remaining babies, and then going through it all again in cross-examination.

I know right! And then when we are going through it all over again with the prosecution, do we have to go through the intelligence anaylisis again?!
If they add in medical experts, do we then get to hear the intelligence analysis again after that? If so, that will mean we hear the course of events for each baby 4 times each in total. Not that I'm complaining. These little souls deserve justice.

 

[Tortoise]

Surprised me today to
I know right! And then when we are going through it all over again with the prosecution, do we have to go through the intelligence anaylisis again?!
If they add in medical experts, do we then get to hear the intelligence analysis again after that? If so, that will mean we hear the course of events for each baby 4 times each in total. Not that I'm complaining. These little souls deserve justice.

No the intelligence analysts have already completed their evidence, entering all the electronic records into evidence. It doesn't need to be repeated.

 

[esther43]

No the intelligence analysts have already completed their evidence, entering all the electronic records into evidence. It doesn't need to be repeated.

Ah yes, I know their evidence is completed, just wondered if it will be repeatedly drawn upon like it has been by Myers in questioning LL.
My thinking is, by the time we are back round to child A with the prosecution's cross, we will go through the whole thing again, this time it will be Andrews who draws upon the anaylisis and so on and so forth with any others bought to the stand by the defence ?

 

[Dotta]

with any others bought to the stand by the defence ?

"Bought" by Defence?

Ummm....
Geez!