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

[Sundial]

What's the play here from the defence? I'm struggling to understand. In my view they can either go for:
- Experts are wrong and bad luck/probability is a factor
- LL is a scapegoat for hospital failings
- There is just no way LL could have done these crimes, i.e. other plausible explanations

LL's answers don't appear to have a consistent strategy to point towards any of the above. Unless they are going for 'everyone at the hospital is in on a grand conspiracy and jointly secretly agreed to scapegoat LL'. Which doesn't seem likely.

It begs the question of what conversation did Myers and LL have prior to the decision to let her take the stand? Did she insist? Is she communicating properly with her lawyer? Did the defence decide to put her up based on an agreed version of events which she is now unexpectedly deviating from?

Any way I look at this it smells funny. In truth the prosecution's questions aren't especially challenging, but LL is putting a stick in her own wheels...

MOO

Touching on the scapegoat theory, let’s not forget the parents all saying similar things. They must be in cahoots with her colleagues aswell then. She makes no sense whatsoever.

Everyone is mistaken but herself. Even her colleague friend- it must have been her allegedly, or words to that affect she said on the stand.

Gotten quite meaty.
IMO

 

[katydid23]

What's the play here from the defence? I'm struggling to understand. In my view they can either go for:
- Experts are wrong and bad luck/probability is a factor
- LL is a scapegoat for hospital failings
- There is just no way LL could have done these crimes, i.e. other plausible explanations

LL's answers don't appear to have a consistent strategy to point towards any of the above. Unless they are going for 'everyone at the hospital is in on a grand conspiracy and jointly secretly agreed to scapegoat LL'. Which doesn't seem likely.

It begs the question of what conversation did Myers and LL have prior to the decision to let her take the stand? Did she insist? Is she communicating properly with her lawyer? Did the defence decide to put her up based on an agreed version of events which she is now unexpectedly deviating from?

Any way I look at this it smells funny. In truth the prosecution's questions aren't especially challenging, but LL is putting a stick in her own wheels...

MOO

Good well thought out post.

I think LL is kind of going for all 3 of those defence stances. And that won't work, IMO.

But it seems she is most invested in the scapegoat defense. If she only pointed to one enemy trying to blame her, it would be more realistic and believable. But if she goes with 4 consultants, and the senior nurse who lied against her and a co-worker that put air into Baby A's lines, then it won't be reasonable or successful IMO.

 

[ShireChe]

What's the play here from the defence? I'm struggling to understand. In my view they can either go for:
- Experts are wrong and bad luck/probability is a factor
- LL is a scapegoat for hospital failings
- There is just no way LL could have done these crimes, i.e. other plausible explanations

LL's answers don't appear to have a consistent strategy to point towards any of the above. Unless they are going for 'everyone at the hospital is in on a grand conspiracy and jointly secretly agreed to scapegoat LL'. Which doesn't seem likely.

It begs the question of what conversation did Myers and LL have prior to the decision to let her take the stand? Did she insist? Is she communicating properly with her lawyer? Did the defence decide to put her up based on an agreed version of events which she is now unexpectedly deviating from?

Any way I look at this it smells funny. In truth the prosecution's questions aren't especially challenging, but LL is putting a stick in her own wheels...

MOO

I think we can probably guarantee she hasn't been 'coached' because some of the things she is allowing the prosecution to lead her into are just so unhelpful to her.

The fact she agreed to it being 'a conspiracy' was a very bad decision that will play poorly with the jury.

ETA: there are multiple different ways she could have said she didn't agree with the Dr without claiming a conspiracy.

As many expected they are trying her in all sorts of knots. Mr Myers needs to introduce some incredibly competent experts to even stand a chance

 

[ColourPurple]

Touching on the scapegoat theory, let’s not forget the parents all saying similar things. They must be in cahoots with her colleagues aswell then. She makes no sense whatsoever.

Everyone is mistaken but herself. Even her colleague friend- it must have been her allegedly, or words to that affect she said on the stand.

Gotten quite meaty.
IMO

I bet Mel Taylor nearly choked on her coffee reading the updates today!

 

[Sweeper2000]

Exactly. How would she even know whether they were targeted or not?

It’s there in the evidence. Multiple contaminated bags which are not specific to any child aside from the tpn.

 

[Sundial]

Good well thought out post.

I think LL is kind of going for all 3 of those defence stances. And that won't work, IMO.

But it seems she is most invested in the scapegoat defense. If she only pointed to one enemy trying to blame her, it would be more realistic and believable. But if she goes with 4 consultants, and the senior nurse who lied against her and a co-worker that put air into Baby A's lines, then it won't be reasonable or successful IMO.

Either way she must be the most unluckiest person in the world I have ever known of.

Maybe she should have bought more cats, or a black one, a lucky heather, horse shoe, lucky underpants to work. Either that or she was just genuinely destined for doom and lives under a permanent black cloud, I’ve never known anything quite like this really.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

I'd say the answers we're hearing are LL's strategy not her defence teams. While she's on the stand, she's on her own!

JMO

Her defense team's strategy during direct examination seemed to be consistent with Meyers earlier cross examinations of the witnesses. He has been laying out evidence of suboptimal hospital care, medical mistakes by her colleagues, poorly babies who shouldn't have been in COCH, AND he is pointing out instances where she was reportedly not on the unit during certain allegations, and not near the victims in other instances.

She probably should have stuck with that overall strategy. JMO

 

[Tortoise]

One of the other consultants also said the rash wasn’t remarkable, and only changed their statement after gaining more experience away from COCH and then realising it actually WAS unusual.

I think it was this testimony - not to do with the rash but to do with sudden collapses

"Mr Myers refers to Dr Harkness's statement to police in 2018, in which he said for September 7, 2015, at 9am: [Child G] had a deterioration - which is not uncommon'
Dr Harkness says in his years of subsequent experience, he has seen considerably fewer sudden collapses.

Dr Harkness says with further years, he has seen it "less and less", and would no longer hold that view.
He says at the time, he felt it was relatively common, from his time in Chester."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, December 12

 

[katydid23]

It’s there in the evidence. Multiple contaminated bags which are not specific to any child aside from the tpn.

There is concrete evidence of multiple contaminated bags?

 

[Blondiexoxo]

Mr Johnson asks if Letby has ever seen an arrhythmia in a neonate. Letby: "No, I don't think so, no."
Mr Johnson says air bubbles were found in Child A afterwards.
"Did you inject [Child A] with air?"
"No."
Mr Johnson asks if Letby was "keen" to get back to room 1 after this event.
Letby says from her experience at Liverpool Women's, she was taught to get back and carry on as soon as possible.
Letby had been asked what the dangers of air embolus were, and she had not known.
"Were you playing daft?"
"No - every nurse knows the dangers."
Letby said she did not know how an air embolous would progress, but knew the ultimate risk was death.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, May 18 - prosecution cross-examines Letby

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

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

This is huge IMO, now we can safely assume that LL didn’t inject air accidentally. If the jury were to find that LL was the one to cause the AE in any of the babies, then it’s a pretty safe bet that she did so purposely, with malice and knowing that it could kill them. She doesn’t even say there’s a possibility of her accidentally administering air whilst giving medication or a feed. She absolutely outright denies injecting air atall.

Personally, IMO I think we are seeing a pathological liar in action. One who does not recognise how outlandish their lies sound to others.

 

[May72031]

I wonder what the prosecution were getting at when talking about whether LL was texting while a resus was happening? The prosecution asked her whether she could see where they were going with regard to this line of questioning. Prosecutor then remarks, "we will come to it". I wonder if they are going to come back to this...?

 

[Sweeper2000]

I think she's already said stuff to that effect ages ago. The initial reports suggested she didn't know what an AE was. That was clarified much later to meaning that she didn't know what the specific symptoms might be.

This isn't a new admission by her, I don't think.

in Police interview she said she didn’t know ”exactly“ what a AE is. We’ve been over this many times I think. At least this part has remained continuous.

 

[ColourPurple]

I wonder what the prosecution were getting at when talking about whether LL was texting while a resus was happening? The prosecution asked her whether she could see where they were going with regard to this line of questioning. Prosecutor then remarks, "we will come to it". I wonder if they are going to come back to this...?

Of course they will. And LL has made sure he knows that the feed could be given within a half hour timeframe, and he seems unperturbed by that.

 

[ColourPurple]

Letby denies she thinks staffing issues caused Child B's collapse

Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC is now questioning Lucy Letby on Child B, a girl, the elder twin of Child A.

The prosecution alleges Child B survived a murder attempt by Letby just over a day after her brother died in June 2015, which she denies.

Letby tells the court she had "very little" independent memory of Child B before her police interview in July 2018.

"Is it your case that staffing levels contributed to Child B’s collapse?" Mr Johnson asks.

"No, I don't know what caused the collapse," Letby replies.

She repeats the answer when questioned if it's her belief that medical incompetence was a factor.

"Do you remember the devastation Child A's death caused his family?" Mr Johnson asks the nurse.

"Yes," she says.

"Do you remember Child A's dad lying on the floor after his death?"

"I don't recall anyone lying on the floor, no."

Mr Johnson pulls up a text sent from Letby to a colleague on 9 June 2015 in which she explains she had previously told senior staff she hadn't felt she could look after Child B after what happened with Child A.

"Dad was on the floor crying," she texted.

Lucy Letby trial: Facebook searches of nurse accused of murdering babies read out in court

Lucy Letby, a former neonatal nurse, has been back in court for another day of cross-examination by the prosecution on Friday. She is accused of the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of 10 others, and denies all the charges.

news.sky.com

 

[esther43]

She says she does not recall Child B's father lying on the floor following Child B's collapse.

A text message from Letby includes:...'Dad was on the foor crying saying please don't take out baby away when I took him to the mortuary, it's just heartbreaking.".

just WOW.

 

[Sweeper2000]

There is concrete evidence of multiple contaminated bags?

Didn’t the prosecution say that at least three bags of glucose were contaminated? Coz the readings stay the same.

 

[Tortoise]

2:01pm

The trial is now resuming. Nicholas Johnson KC says there is one thing he overlooked from the morning's evidence.
He asks Lucy Letby why she said "blotchiness" rather than "mottling" in part of her police statement.
"I think they are interchangeable," Letby tells the court.

2:06pm

Asked if staffing levels or mistakes had contributed to the collapse of Child B, Letby says she does not know what caused Child B's collapse.
She says she does not recall Child B's father lying on the floor following Child B's collapse.
A text message from Letby includes:...'Dad was on the foor crying saying please don't take out baby away when I took him to the mortuary, it's just heartbreaking."
Letby says she does not recall that.
Letby says in this case, she did not want to care for Child B so soon after the death of Child A, as unlike the Liverpool example she had been taught of 'getting back on the horse' (Mr Johnson's words) and being back in nursery room 1, this was with the same family.
Letby accepts Child B did well on the day shift of June 9.

2:11pm

Letby is asked if Child B's parents 'stood guard' in the unit following the death of twin, Child A.
Letby: "They were very much present on the unit and we allowed for that."
A diagram for the night shift of June 9-10 shows Letby was in nursery room 3 for that night shift, looking after two babies. Child B was in room 1.
Letby says she "got on well" with all her nursing colleagues.
Letby recalls evidence from court by a nurse colleague on March 21, in which Letby had said working in nurseries 3 and 4 was "boring".
Letby tells the court: "I have never been bored [at work], I would never describe my work as boring."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, May 18 - prosecution cross-examines Letby

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

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Tortoise]

Posted at 14:0414:04

Hearing begins again​

The judge and the jury are in court too now so we can begin.
Nick Johnson KC is back on his feet.
He asks Lucy Letby if she wants to amend anything she said during the morning's evidence.
She says no.

Posted at 14:0714:07

Letby asked if she remembers the death of baby A​

Nick Johnson KC moves on to ask the nurse about baby B - a girl, and the twin sister of baby A. It's alleged that Lucy Letby attempted to murder her after she had murdered her brother, in early June 2015.
Lucy Letby is asked if she remembers how devastated the twins' parents were after the death of baby A. She does.
She's asked if she remembers their father lying on the floor in grief. She says she does not remember this.
The court is shown a text message from Lucy Letby to a colleague on the day after baby A died.

In it she wrote: "Dad was on the floor crying saying 'please don’t take our baby away' when I took him to the mortuary, it's just heartbreaking."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65602988

 

[katydid23]

This is huge IMO, now we can safely assume that LL didn’t inject air accidentally. If the jury were to find that LL was the one to cause the AE in any of the babies, then it’s a pretty safe bet that she did so purposely, with malice and knowing that it could kill them. She doesn’t even say there’s a possibility of her accidentally administering air whilst giving medication or a feed. She absolutely outright denies injecting air atall.

Personally, IMO I think we are seeing a pathological liar in action. One who does not recognise how outlandish their lies sound to others.

YES...she makes up this believable sounding statements----like " junior nurses don't get handover sheets" or " the lights are always on pretty high in the babies rooms" or " we often stand and wait if a tiny preemie desaturates because they may self recover"

And those were actually self serving statements that were not true. She just throws them out there in a confident tone ---kind of like gas lighting in my opinion.

 

[ColourPurple]

Letby asked whether she found caring for healthier babies 'boring'
Court documents show Lucy Letby was caring for children in the neonatal unit's nursery three on the night shift of 9-10 June 2015, while Child B was in intensive care nursery one.

"You had two children in nursery three is that right?" asks prosecutor Nick Johnson KC - Letby agrees.

"You didn't like being there, did you?"

Letby says "that's not accurate at all" and denies a suggestion by Mr Johnson that she was "bored".

"I've never been bored at work, I've never described my work as boring."

Lucy Letby trial: Facebook searches of nurse accused of murdering babies read out in court

Lucy Letby, a former neonatal nurse, has been back in court for another day of cross-examination by the prosecution on Friday. She is accused of the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of 10 others, and denies all the charges.

news.sky.com