Gulp!!Letby says she has never used her phone in a clinical area.
Gulp!!Letby says she has never used her phone in a clinical area.
Even on the occasions where she said she was there off shift finishing filling out documents?
I worked nights for 25 years and never stayed over that amount of time..the most ever was around an hour because a colleague didn't arrive to take over.And what normal person would do a 12 hour night shift, ending at 7.30am (if i remember rightly), leave at 10am staying an extra 2.5 hours and then come back that same night when they weren't even working!!!
If I had paperwork to finish I would have stayed till I got it done or come in early the following shift.
Yes, but this is a slightly different scenario in that she's actually accused and on trial for murder. It's not an "out of the blue" type answer.Mr Johnson says if the jury conclude a baby was attacked, then it would be the attacker who was the common link
Letby: "Just because I was on shift doesn't mean I have done anything."
This is a red flag in forensic linguistics - answering a question that wasn't asked. For example, if a child is missing and police ask the mother when she last saw her child, and she answers "I didn't kill her".
You can't really blame her for answering that way - It was perfectly obvious what he was implying by his question.Mr Johnson says if the jury conclude a baby was attacked, then it would be the attacker who was the common link
Letby: "Just because I was on shift doesn't mean I have done anything."
This is a red flag in forensic linguistics - answering a question that wasn't asked. For example, if a child is missing and police ask the mother when she last saw her child, and she answers "I didn't kill her".
Agreed. It's a long way from any sort of "Speckled Jim" moment, as far as I can tell.You can't really blame her for answering that way - It was perfectly obvious what he was implying by his question.
She's outright alleging conspiracy against her.
This looks hugely problematic to me."Do you believe that somebody gave it to him unlawfully?"
"Yes."
"Do you believe that someone targeted him?"
"No."
"It was a random act?"
"Yes...I don't know where the insulin came from."
"Do you agree [Child L] was poisoned with insulin?"
"From the blood results, yes."
"Do you agree that someone targeted him specifically?"
"No...I don't know how the insulin got there."
Wasn’t the doctor who said she was excited about a memory box also an unnamed doctor?Wow and she's including Doc Choc ?
I'm gonna run out of wows today![]()
Is she not trying to imply that whomever did it simply randomly poisoned bags with no specific intent to target any particular patient?This looks hugely problematic to me.
Why would she deny both babies were targeted while admitting insulin was given to them?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.