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

[Sundial]

I disagree with the premise that the prosecution 'hasn't proven anything with them.' They may not have proven exactly what they meant to her or why she was so engrossed by them---but I think they successfully showed that she had a strange obsession with the handover sheets to the extent that she ferried them around, from pockets to bags and folders, and from house to next house, moving them around in spite of breaking strict protocol to do so.

I totally disagree that the evidence points to her 'not attaching any significance' to them. The first handover, being pristine and kept in a flowered memento box, being treasured and moved from pillar to post destroys that notion.

I don't see how the fact that they were not destroyed is then used as 'evidence' they were not something she was attached to. If she wasn't attached to them they would not have been in her possession in the first place and moved with her here and there. JMO

Not forgetting she potentially took one which her colleague had out of the confidential waste it appears.

 

[katydid23]

I’m kind of saying her not giving them a seconds thought is what made her ferry them around. It was such a normal thing for her she didn’t think about it

like making sure all windows are shut before you go to sleep, sometimes you forget to do it.

im really curious about this conspiracy talk. It jumped out a bit and I didn’t think it was particularly well thought out. Hence the bs wording. sounded off to me.


enough to assume a strange attitude towards the notes definitely, not quite an obsession IMO. I would like more information but to me 150 over five years doesn’t even approach an obsession.

you have enough to assume that the one handover in he rose box is a memento, if the others were in it as well and ordered in some way again you would have enough to assume they were seen as important enough to organise. The one in the box is the only one you can attach importance too, it’s obviously a keepsake but it’s also easy enough to forget about. I would excuse her taking that one home, the others definitely need attention. The other Handovers you have to take into account the lack of organisation, the condition of the notes, the dates they range from, if there are clusters many other things as well but jmo

the others not being destroyed can suggest they weren’t seen as important as she would understand the risks of them being found if guilty, only suggests it though, also just stored haphazardly in the folder easy enough to forget about and not even notice on a house move. The haphazard bit is a guess. I reckon they are all over the place, upside down, back to front, not chronologically arranged, some folded, some torn, etc etc


I also think her not seeing them as important might explain why they got ferried around

How did she even manage to 'accidentally' bring 257 of the sheets home with her?

She says this job is the most important thing in the world to her. She knows it is against major protocol to take confidential paperwork out of the clinic. So how does she manage to do so so many times? And once she finds one in her pocket, why not deal with it immediately? If her career was so important to her, why break the rules with such impunity?

I can see how it can accidentally happen now and then. But she was doing nothing to stop it from happening and then doing nothing to properly dispose of the contents.

I guess that ^^^ fits with her constant texting while in the clinic and on duty. As Johnson said to her, she liked to point out the flaws in others but didn't work on her own flaws.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Besides the swipe card they have clinical observations and nurses signing off on meds, and witness testimonies from coworkers and family members. Those things would put others in the areas during the collapses if it was applicable.

And the chart they used is based upon the formal paid hours of the staff. It is not based upon LL coming and going off hours.

I agree; but all the things you have mentioned exclude LL from being on duty when the second bag was changed for baby F (and I think the curve ball thrown up during the trial regarding the second bag for baby F is behind the prosecution now introducing the notion that LL was coming and going without leaving a digital footprint when she wasn’t on shift).

In order to account for the second bag being poisoned allegedly by LL in a plausible way, the prosecution has introduced the idea of her coming and going undetected outside of her working hours . Because otherwise, the big implication is that someone else poisoned the second bag, not LL. And if the jury start to accept that someone else poisoned the second bag , that not only sinks the charge for baby F, it potentially sinks the whole trial ( because the jury will likely conclude that someone else is responsible for all the events, as the prospect of there being 2 killers is minute ).

(Side note : I think the prosecution should have immediately got up after the second bag revelation and put forward the argument that the bag wasn’t changed. I know this would mean casting doubt on the standards of the hospital and potentially the credibility of some of the witnesses, but oversights will happen in hospitals and I think it would have been better for the prosecution to just accept then and there that the bag wasn’t changed rather than leaving the jury with that lasting impression that the bag was changed ).

The whole point of the prosecution introducing this idea has to be because they are going to suggest that LL was on the unit carrying out certain acts to account for some of the collapses but there is are no witnesses / paperwork/ to show that she was there. But that cuts both ways. If they are going to say that LL was able to come and go without leaving a digital footprint and without her presence being a particularly remarkable event out of hours (since she seemed to spend most of her life at the hospital), then that cuts both ways. The defence can equally say that someone else was moving about inconspicuously and carrying out the acts ( and that there aren’t any witnesses who recall seeing anything and the person wasn’t signing off on any meds or doing observations to leave a trace).

 

[katydid23]

I agree; but all the things you have mentioned exclude LL from being on duty when the second bag was changed for baby F (and I think the curve ball thrown up during the trial regarding the second bag for baby F is behind the prosecution now introducing the notion that LL was coming and going without leaving a digital footprint when she wasn’t on shift).

In order to account for the second bag being poisoned allegedly by LL in a plausible way, the prosecution has introduced the idea of her coming and going undetected outside of her working hours . Because otherwise, the big implication is that someone else poisoned the second bag, not LL. And if the jury start to accept that someone else poisoned the second bag , that not only sinks the charge for baby F, it potentially sinks the whole trial ( because the jury will likely conclude that someone else is responsible for all the events, as the prospect of there being 2 killers is minute ).

(Side note : I think the prosecution should have immediately got up after the second bag revelation and put forward the argument that the bag wasn’t changed. I know this would mean casting doubt on the standards of the hospital and potentially the credibility of some of the witnesses, but oversights will happen in hospitals and I think it would have been better for the prosecution to just accept then and there that the bag wasn’t changed rather than leaving the jury with that lasting impression that the bag was changed ).

The whole point of the prosecution introducing this idea has to be because they are going to suggest that LL was on the unit carrying out certain acts to account for some of the collapses but there is are no witnesses / paperwork/ to show that she was there. But that cuts both ways. If they are going to say that LL was able to come and go without leaving a digital footprint and without her presence being a particularly remarkable event out of hours (since she seemed to spend most of her life at the hospital), then that cuts both ways. The defence can equally say that someone else was moving about inconspicuously and carrying out the acts ( and that there aren’t any witnesses who recall seeing anything and the person wasn’t signing off on any meds or doing observations to leave a trace).

Yes, the defense can try and say that another rogue nurse was the real culprit. But I don't think the jury will accept that easily because they will have already heard the defendant in direct and cross, testifying about each one of the 17 babies and 22 charges.

And there are so many anecdotal moments that are red flags, showing LL to be somehow connected. So many times that she was standing by the cot, or the first one to call for help or the last one known to give meds, right before the collapse.

There just is not room for some other rogue killer to take all the attention from LL. Too many odd coincidences that will prevent that from being a believable option, imo.

And I totally agree with you on the side note---that the pros should have put forth the scenario of the original TPN bag being rehung. They did kind of allude to it previously but not strongly enough, imo. JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

hah the coincidences keep piling up. Not only does this house have the same perching stool as ll I think, a collection of paperwork that weighs about ten kg, an assortment of personal cards one dates from 1990, but now I’ve just seen a framed picture collection of past pets, three cats and I’m going to ask if they are called tigger and smudge. The house belongs to a very elderly lady. She’s 94 and lived through the blitz. does that say something about ll?

eta

yes there are also crutches here as well, seeming scattered about the place. She is 94.

 

[Kasmeer]

<modsnip - quoted post diagnosing the accused and response to it were removed>


There's quite obviously (IMO) some sort of compulsion with the hoarding of handover sheets (and I'm in agreement with Marantz that it may well not be directly relevant to these cases, even if she is guilty), and oh boy is she not helping herself by not admitting to any of it... yet, I can relate to that as well, there's a lot of ingrained "pretend to be normal" that makes it hard to admit to anything "weird", even when it really matters.

Her responses to other things today just made my head explode though; talk about self-sabotage, at least keep it vaguely consistent and maybe not throw everyone else under the bus! No wonder half the responses here are accusing her of being a compulsive liar... I do wonder if all of it is actually intentional lies though, as I've got myself in a total twist under pressure many times - I even screwed up an optician eye test once by saying yes to a question and only realising after I'd left that I'd got in a complete muddle and really meant no, *sigh*.

I'm so torn on this case; I apparently do have some internal bias which pulls one way, while my logical self realises the evidence pulls the other. I'd hoped the defence case would clarify things, and maybe that is what's happening, but not in the way I'd hoped. Still stuck on the fence for now...

 

[katydid23]

<modsnip - quoted post diagnosing the accused was removed>
She really likes to make things all about her---even in the wake of a child's death, the way she inserted herself into the family's privacy, until she'd have to be asked to leave.

Also, her gaslighting behaviour, which we have seen on display during her cross examinations. Deflecting, distorting, twisting things, blaming others, being purposely misleading...

 

[Cluedoneit]

<modsnip - quoted post diagnosing the accused was removed> She really likes to make things all about her---even in the wake of a child's death, the way she inserted herself into the family's privacy, until she'd have to be asked to leave.

Also, her gaslighting behaviour, which we have seen on display during her cross examinations. Deflecting, distorting, twisting things, blaming others, being purposely misleading...

It was her texts with Jennifer JK that really got me. It was the one where J JK was venting about a colleague continually praising Letby in her absence about her flexibility and willingness to do overtime. J JK says it’s upset all of the other staff as they too were doing the same thing, but Letby is oblivious and instead fixates on how at least this colleague appreciates her, when other staff don’t. It’s completely self centred and tone-deaf as to JJK’s feelings, even though J JK is being extremely blunt about how upset she and other staff are. IMO it’s like the people in her life are just tools to help her achieve her goals, and even extremely close friends ( and JJK clearly is or was a close friend) don’t matter.

 

[katydid23]

It was her texts with Jennifer JK that really got me. It was the one where J JK was venting about a colleague continually praising Letby in her absence about her flexibility and willingness to do overtime. J JK says it’s upset all of the other staff as they too were doing the same thing, but Letby is oblivious and instead fixates on how at least this colleague appreciates her, when other staff don’t. It’s completely self centred and tone-deaf as to JJK’s feelings, even though J JK is being extremely blunt about how upset she and other staff are. IMO it’s like the people in her life are just tools to help her achieve her goals, and even extremely close friends ( and JJK clearly is or was a close friend) don’t matter.

Yes. And if we follow those texts to the tragic conclusion:

"Letby had initially messaged her about wanting to be in room 1, but a colleague had said no. Nurse Jones-Key replied she agreed with the colleague.
Letby is asked, following a disagreement between her and nurse Jones-Key at 11.05pm, whether those messages had led to her taking any action on Child C minutes later. Letby denies that was the case.
Mr Myers: "Do those messages have anything to do with [Child C]?"
Letby: "Not at all."


The court hears Sophie Ellis's statement saying when she entered room 1, Letby was by Child C's cotside, saying: "He's just dropped..his heart rate/saturations" or words to that effect.
The court is shown the neonatal schedule for the night shift of June 13-14, 2015. Letby is shown recording observations for her designated babies, and made medication prescriptions for babies not in room 1.
Letby says the medications for those babies would have been drawn up in room 1. "They could not have been done in a special care nursery".
Letby says if Sophie Ellis has documented correctly, there would have been no air in Child C's stomach after an aspiration was made for the baby's feed.
Letby denies taking, in Mr Johnson's words: "an opportunity to sabotage [Child C]."


In police interview, it is put to Letby that Child C collapsed six minutes after she sent the last of her text messages.
Letby: "I don't recall where I was at the time" - Letby says she may have been in a nursing station before going into room 1.
Letby said she did not recall being cotside, but accepted Sophie Ellis's account at the time it was put to her by police.
"The death of [Child C] was very memorable, wasn't it?"
"Yes."

Sky News - Lucy Letby murder trial latest: 'Killer' nurse becomes emotional as she is accused of enjoying baby dying


Essentially, LL was hurt and upset at her friends and frustrated that SE was now the up and coming pretty young nurse, being mentored in the critical care room one. She asked to be allowed to work in there that shift but was denied.

When SE left room one, the child was settled and seemed fine. Six minutes later he was in a sudden collapse and SE was now asking LL to take over the emergency resuscitation efforts.

 

[Sundial]

It was her texts with Jennifer JK that really got me. It was the one where J JK was venting about a colleague continually praising Letby in her absence about her flexibility and willingness to do overtime. J JK says it’s upset all of the other staff as they too were doing the same thing, but Letby is oblivious and instead fixates on how at least this colleague appreciates her, when other staff don’t. It’s completely self centred and tone-deaf as to JJK’s feelings, even though J JK is being extremely blunt about how upset she and other staff are. IMO it’s like the people in her life are just tools to help her achieve her goals, and even extremely close friends ( and JJK clearly is or was a close friend) don’t matter.

Interesting point actually, it was mentioned yesterday (I think it was JJK still then too), where ll said in text something along the lines of no-one could understand/knew the baby that died or how she was feeling etc. JJK appeared abrupt at this saying something like “bit unfair, we’ve all been there”, her response was quite short but I do quite agree with this.
JMO

 

[Kasmeer]

<modsnip - quoted post diagnosing the accused and response to it were removed>

It was her texts with Jennifer JK that really got me. It was the one where J JK was venting about a colleague continually praising Letby in her absence about her flexibility and willingness to do overtime. J JK says it’s upset all of the other staff as they too were doing the same thing, but Letby is oblivious and instead fixates on how at least this colleague appreciates her, when other staff don’t. It’s completely self centred and tone-deaf as to JJK’s feelings, even though J JK is being extremely blunt about how upset she and other staff are. IMO it’s like the people in her life are just tools to help her achieve her goals, and even extremely close friends ( and JJK clearly is or was a close friend) don’t matter.

Meanwhile I saw the same obliviousness and related it to how I don't always realise how people feel about things unless it's pointed out to me (although it did indeed seem like the pointing out was being done at that point; I don't think I'm quite that blind); it's not that I don't care about other people's feelings, I just don't always see it, especially if I'd feel differently in the same position.

Evidently my poor reading of other people also applies to my views of LL, as in I relate her behaviour to my own in a way I understand, without considering other possibilities enough!

 

[esther43]

Well it's the prosecution that's making it relevant and bringing this 'txting while working' issue up in order to paint LL in a negative light so LL imo is perfectly within her rights to say that it was common practice. That's not throwing anyone under a bus, that's just LL telling it like it very likely was at the time.

She's within her rights to say it but it doesn't look good that in the same sitting she insisted that she didn't use her phone in clinical areas.
For me, this really brings into question LL's actual ability to discern fear from truth.
For example she fears being caught out so in her mind, in that moment, it did not happen.
Same with the notes IMO, she didn't know whether she mudered them, she fluctuated between 'i killed them or purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them' to 'i haven't done anything wrong'
The Dad was on the floor crying, then he wasn't.
(Another example of fear and denial and 'it did not happen')
She has even, herself clarified that previously
' I don't know if I did this, maybe this is all down to me' before crossing it out.
Which is 'just something she does'
Her testimony shows more holes than a sizable block of Swiss cheese!

 

[esther43]

We have no idea what the make-up of the jury is though. There could be medics amongst them, expert and otherwise, but essentially and equally people of all walks of life, more than capable of understanding and processing medical-related facts that eg. us non-medical people struggle with. That's a possibility too.

I've seen this previously on the threads, the suggestion that the jury somehow might be less 'capable' and less able to process info that we, on here, seem to think we have some kind of superior upper hand on and insight into, despite them having way more detailed info to work with than we do.

It's arrogant and it's insulting to them.

They are totally likely to have the information and the intelligence. But they can't discuss it, take notes home or read through articles in their own time. I guess that will work better for some people's learning styles than others! Ultimately in deliberations they will get this chance though and that's what matters.

 

[ShireChe]

We have no idea what the make-up of the jury is though. There could be medics amongst them, expert and otherwise, but essentially and equally people of all walks of life, more than capable of understanding and processing medical-related facts that eg. us non-medical people struggle with. That's a possibility too.

I've seen this previously on the threads, the suggestion that the jury somehow might be less 'capable' and less able to process info that we, on here, seem to think we have some kind of superior upper hand on and insight into, despite them having way more detailed info to work with than we do.

It's arrogant and it's insulting to them.

Not at all. I have in no way said the jury are less capable than anyone else. The majority of people on here will also not be medical experts. There may come a point if the defence introduce their own experts that the jury will have to choose between competing accounts of experts. When making their decision they will look at all the other evidence too.

ETA: and in fact, while the debate on here is fascinating, it means nothing. It may give an indication or an idea about what a group of randomly selected people may potentially think, but the jury are the only ones that will be deciding and as you say they have access to far more information.

 

[marynnu]

I wonder about her discussion of handling the deceased babies at the Women’s, where she has said she 'lost one baby then immediately had to watch another die' [or words to that effect.]

It seems like there was a real fascination with that tragic incident. I'd like to know more about it.

So would I. It seems a very odd approach by Liverpool to me, that this is a good idea to deal with such a sad event by going through it all over again. JMO

 

[Kemug]

So is it possible that LL had no real wish to hurt babies and/or their parents, ie that was not her motivation? And that her actions may have been (almost) entirely due to jealousy of other nurses who were getting the "limelight" at the hospital, when she thought it should be hers. So she made sure she got the limelight again.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I might be remembering wrong but didn't the nurses that worked on the unit split into 2 groups? There was LL and JJK and today a text mentioned someone called Liz, who seemed to like each other. Sophie and Melanie don't seem to have been in their gang. I think something to this effect was mentioned by the nurse emigrating to NZ - didn't she say something on the lines of all the ones who don't fit in should go together?

Didn't some of the very early press reports refer to LL being part of the "geeky" clique, the ones who weren't mad on constantly getting hammered every weekend and suchlike?

Although that doesn't really chime with holidays in Ibiza, tbh.

 

[ColourPurple]

Yes. And if we follow those texts to the tragic conclusion:

"Letby had initially messaged her about wanting to be in room 1, but a colleague had said no. Nurse Jones-Key replied she agreed with the colleague.
Letby is asked, following a disagreement between her and nurse Jones-Key at 11.05pm, whether those messages had led to her taking any action on Child C minutes later. Letby denies that was the case.
Mr Myers: "Do those messages have anything to do with [Child C]?"
Letby: "Not at all."


The court hears Sophie Ellis's statement saying when she entered room 1, Letby was by Child C's cotside, saying: "He's just dropped..his heart rate/saturations" or words to that effect.
The court is shown the neonatal schedule for the night shift of June 13-14, 2015. Letby is shown recording observations for her designated babies, and made medication prescriptions for babies not in room 1.
Letby says the medications for those babies would have been drawn up in room 1. "They could not have been done in a special care nursery".
Letby says if Sophie Ellis has documented correctly, there would have been no air in Child C's stomach after an aspiration was made for the baby's feed.
Letby denies taking, in Mr Johnson's words: "an opportunity to sabotage [Child C]."


In police interview, it is put to Letby that Child C collapsed six minutes after she sent the last of her text messages.
Letby: "I don't recall where I was at the time" - Letby says she may have been in a nursing station before going into room 1.
Letby said she did not recall being cotside, but accepted Sophie Ellis's account at the time it was put to her by police.
"The death of [Child C] was very memorable, wasn't it?"
"Yes."

Sky News - Lucy Letby murder trial latest: 'Killer' nurse becomes emotional as she is accused of enjoying baby dying


Essentially, LL was hurt and upset at her friends and frustrated that SE was now the up and coming pretty young nurse, being mentored in the critical care room one. She asked to be allowed to work in there that shift but was denied.

When SE left room one, the child was settled and seemed fine. Six minutes later he was in a sudden collapse and SE was now asking LL to take over the emergency resuscitation efforts.

Yes to me, if guilty , this is the case that perfectly fits the "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough" line. ie You think I'm not good enough to be in room 1? Well we'll see about that!

Not only had she not been allowed to go in room 1 but somebody she considered less experienced than her had been allowed to go in there instead. Then next thing you know, literally minutes later that nurse's baby has collapsed while only LL was in the room(according to Sophie Ellis).

JMO, if guilty

 

[esther43]

So is it possible that LL had no real wish to hurt babies and/or their parents, ie that was not her motivation? And that her actions may have been (almost) entirely due to jealousy of other nurses who were getting the "limelight" at the hospital, when she thought it should be hers. So she made sure she got the limelight again.

It is possible IMO.
If this were the case though then once the media ban is lifted, I think we would eventually come to learn that she had some problems from an early age.

 

[ColourPurple]

They are not the same thing. Nurseries are in clinical areas but there are other rooms in clinical areas that are not nurseries.

LL originally said she never used her phone in the clinical areas, thus she only would use it in the break room or rest room, etc.

But then Johnson challenged her on that and she changed it to say she meant she never used it in the nurseries, not the clinical areas.

But she finally admitted she used it in the nurseries as well, including in the NICU. And then claimed that everyone else did so too.

And she did the same with the swipe in detail. When Johnson asked her about being on the NNU off shift and raised the possibility that she could be there with no record of her actually being there, she argued that the swipe in history would show when she was there. It's only when he pointed out that there was no swipe history for the night her text messages proved that she was visiting Baby G off shift, that she admitted it WAS possible to get onto the ward without a swipe in being recorded. And it's things like this the jury will pick up on IMO.

JMO