UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #23

[Blondiexoxo]

Aren’t narcissists typically charming and charismatic etc?

Covert narcissists aren’t noticeably charming, they tend to attention seek in less obvious ways. Covert narcissists still love attention but instead of outwardly bragging they will fish for compliments. They absolutely hate criticism and will cry and want a pity party if anyone talks bad about them. They also come across as quite shy and quiet, it’s very difficult to spot a covert narcissist but their ultimate goal of getting praise, admiration, sympathy are the same. They are usually master manipulators too.

MOO

 

[Tortoise]

In an ideal world, people would abide strictly by confidentiality rules, but people are fallible, I'm afraid.

20DOffence: disclosing jury's deliberations​

(1)It is an offence for a person intentionally—

(a)to disclose information about statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations in proceedings before a court, or

(b)to solicit or obtain such information,

subject to the exceptions in sections 20E to 20G.

(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both).

Juries Act 1974

 

[Blondiexoxo]

20DOffence: disclosing jury's deliberations​

(1)It is an offence for a person intentionally—

(a)to disclose information about statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations in proceedings before a court, or

(b)to solicit or obtain such information,

subject to the exceptions in sections 20E to 20G.

(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both).

Juries Act 1974

Think people might be confusing the rules surrounding jurors speaking out in the UK with the rules in the US which are very different. Jurors in the US are told when they are released they are free to speak to anyone about their time serving on the jury but it’s their choice, no one can make them speak. Some do especially in high profile cases where guilt or innocence is controversial.

In the UK you strictly cannot speak about anything that happened during deliberations ever, I think you’d be held in contempt of court or something if you were ever found to be doing so. I’m sure some people do but are quoted as ‘a source who did not want to be named’

MOO

 

[notsure]

20DOffence: disclosing jury's deliberations​

(1)It is an offence for a person intentionally—

(a)to disclose information about statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations in proceedings before a court, or

(b)to solicit or obtain such information,

subject to the exceptions in sections 20E to 20G.

(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both).

Juries Act 1974

I know what the rules are, but thanks for looking that up

 

[Tortoise]

Think people might be confusing the rules surrounding jurors speaking out in the UK with the rules in the US which are very different. Jurors in the US are told when they are released they are free to speak to anyone about their time serving on the jury but it’s their choice, no one can make them speak. Some do especially in high profile cases where guilt or innocence is controversial.

In the UK you strictly cannot speak about anything that happened during deliberations ever, I think you’d be held in contempt of court or something if you were ever found to be doing so. I’m sure some people do but are quoted as ‘a source who did not want to be named’

MOO

Yes, I don't think it's at all likely that criminal barristers and jury bailiffs have discussions about jury deliberations, in the pub or anywhere.

 

[Kemug]

Baby K died in agony, swollen like little balloon.
Died in parents' arms

Oh no, I had forgotten that!

 

[WaxLyrical]

Was Joanne Williams ever asked if she saw LL present during/after the alleged attack?

She said she doesn’t remember asking anyone to look after Baby K. Confirms the baby was ‘active’. But Dr J said JW told him LL was babysitting.

JW also says Dr J had a conversation with her afterwards at the nursing station about how the breathing tube got dislodged. He says that didn’t happen as he’d have no reason to ask her because she wasn’t there.

Is it literally LL’s word against Dr J’s?

 

[Tortoise]

Was Joanne Williams ever asked if she saw LL present during/after the alleged attack?

She said she doesn’t remember asking anyone to look after Baby K. Confirms the baby was ‘active’. But Dr J said JW told him LL was babysitting.

JW also says Dr J had a conversation with her afterwards at the nursing station about how the breathing tube got dislodged. He says that didn’t happen as he’d have no reason to ask her because she wasn’t there.

Is it literally LL’s word against Dr J’s?

I think what happened with Dr Jayaram saying 'why would I ask her that, she wasn't there' was because of the way Mr Myers put the question to him - 'you asked JW what happened'. The prosecution clarified with JW that she'd said to police Dr J had asked how the tube became dislodged, or wtte.

 

[Becci]

Baby-K desaturates at 3.50 am and Dr J suspects LL dislodged ET tube - he removed the ET to administer rescue breaths.
- Was this tubes position checked via X-Ray after being fitted/prior to removal?

Or was he referring to the newly fitted ETT after the desaturations were corrected.

At 6.15 baby-K desaturates again, it appears the ETT was removed again, and replaced - so, did he mean the position of this ETT was X-rayed?

I note above that, at some later point it was established that the ET tube was ineffective due to being placed too low.

However, I assume this relates to the 3rd tube, if an ET was fitted prior to 3.50 AM (e.g., tube 1) and replaced post collapse (e.g., tube 2) then removed again post after the 6.15 collapse before being re ventilated (e.g., req. a 3rd ETT)

So, if 3 tubes were used - I am not sure which tube Dr J is referring to that he X-Rayed, or if he means all?

The one of significance of course would be the first ETT - which he has accused LL of dislodging. Which, if dislodged at all….could have rationally occurred due to a non-sedated baby moving IMO.

The added fact that baby K, experienced later desaturations without any argument of a dislodged tube is IMO significant.

I read it as the 3rd tube xray.
It would be good to know if 3 xrays were done because it's basically his word with no other evidence to back it up.
This doesn't help either :

Snippet

Dr Jayaram says he cannot recall how long Joanne Williams had been away before the sudden deterioration had taken place.

He tells the court the transport team and the parents were updated, but he does not believe they were updated about "this event".

 

[IDK]

Slightly off topic, and I am new to this case and trying to get up to speed— I appreciate all the great information and observations on this thread!

I am curious about why some of the doctors and nurses are not directly named due to confidentiality/legal reasons whereas others have their full names and position publicized. Were they given a choice? I think I would definitely want to have my privacy protected if I were one of the witnesses!

 

[marynnu]

I read it as the 3rd tube xray.
It would be good to know if 3 xrays were done because it's basically his word with no other evidence to back it up.
This doesn't help either :

Snippet

Dr Jayaram says he cannot recall how long Joanne Williams had been away before the sudden deterioration had taken place.

He tells the court the transport team and the parents were updated, but he does not believe they were updated about "this event".

I would just say that it's standard practice everywhere to Xray after intubation.

 

[Becci]

I would just say that it's standard practice everywhere to Xray after intubation.

Ty

 

[WaxLyrical]

I think what happened with Dr Jayaram saying 'why would I ask her that, she wasn't there' was because of the way Mr Myers put the question to him - 'you asked JW what happened'. The prosecution clarified with JW that she'd said to police Dr J had asked how the tube became dislodged, or wtte.

It can’t see how it would matter what way BM put the question to him. She remembers Dr J asking her about how the tube became dislodged, he’s saying he doesn’t remember that and would have no reason to ask her that in any event.

 

[Tortoise]

It can’t see how it would matter what way BM put the question to him. She remembers Dr J asking her about how the tube became dislodged, he’s saying he doesn’t remember that and would have no reason to ask her that in any event.

It matters because he wouldn't have understood why he would have asked her such a general question of what happened. Putting the wrong quote to him doesn't elicit a proper response. He might have had the opportunity then to say 'that's possible but I don't recall it', rather than not recalling at all a question he was unlikely to ask and didn't ask. IMO

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, February 28

Mr Myers asks about the alarm going off, and a conversation with Dr Ravi Jayaram.
Ms Williams says the conversation took place not in nursery room 1.
He asked her, Ms Williams had said in her police interview, what had happened, and she had replied she did not know as she was not in the room, having gone to see the parents.
Mr Myers asks to clarify about what Ms Williams had said moments earlier: 'I thought the ET Tube was secure, but I was not there'. Ms Williams agrees.

The prosecution rise to ask Ms Williams further questions.

Mr Astbury asks about the conversation Ms Williams had with Dr Jayaram.
Ms Williams is asked if Dr Jayaram asked her: "How did the tube move?" Ms Williams agrees.

--

Mr Myers asks if a conversation took place with Ms Williams after the desaturation.
Dr Jayaram says he does not recall the conversation. He says: "Why would I ask her what happened in the room when she wasn't there?"

 

[Anxala]

In an ideal world, people would abide strictly by confidentiality rules, but people are fallible, I'm afraid.

Agree. I don't know why this is proving so hard to believe or take on board.

It mirrors the very annoying and frustrating 'medic as saint' narrative that did the rounds on earlier threads, non-medical people claiming nurses/docs would never do XYZ, countered, thankfully, by the wonderfully informative medics on here saying 'well yes, they would', sensibly acknowledging that medics are human and normal and prone at times to the same fallibilities as everyone else.

Obviously, I'm referring to what most sensible and objective people would regard as benign code of practice breaches, not the handful of more disturbing ones associated with the particular medic on trial here.

 

[Tortoise]

Slightly off topic, and I am new to this case and trying to get up to speed— I appreciate all the great information and observations on this thread!

I am curious about why some of the doctors and nurses are not directly named due to confidentiality/legal reasons whereas others have their full names and position publicized. Were they given a choice? I think I would definitely want to have my privacy protected if I were one of the witnesses!

Yes they were all given anonymity if they wanted it. The Mail podcast said it was an unusual order by the judge to obtain the best evidence, and because the parents were also included in that anonymity order, that is why the babies can't be named, as it could lead to identification of the parents.

 

[IDK]

Yes they were all given anonymity if they wanted it. The Mail podcast said it was an unusual order by the judge to obtain the best evidence, and because the parents were also included in that anonymity order, that is why the babies can't be named, as it could lead to identification of the parents.

Thank you!

 

[Bakers]

What do people think of Dr. J's testimony re. finding LL next to Baby K's incubator? For me, of all the memories which you could argue have blurred over time, I fail to see how anyone could mis-remember this event. It's so specific and stands out to me because of his reason to enter Nursery 1. If another nurse had been in there he would never have gone in. I just cannot fathom why LL is disputing this, not least of all because "standing doing nothing" by the incubator is easily explicable.
All JMO.

What do people think of Dr. J's testimony re. finding LL next to Baby K's incubator? For me, of all the memories which you could argue have blurred over time, I fail to see how anyone could mis-remember this event. It's so specific and stands out to me because of his reason to enter Nursery 1. If another nurse had been in there he would never have gone in. I just cannot fathom why LL is disputing this, not least of all because "standing doing nothing" by the incubator is easily explicable.
All JMO.

Did Dr j report this ?

 

[Tortoise]

Episode 35, The Gang of Four

www.mailplus.co.uk

The Trial of Lucy Letby: Episode 35, The Gang of Four​

In this episode Caroline and Liz explain what happened in court when the prosecution began questioning Lucy Letby for the first time.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

This is intriguing.

If I'm understanding this correctly, jury bailiffs, more than one, who have taken an oath to protect the jury from outside interference, and are fully aware of the law, listen in on jury deliberations which are forbidden from ever being discussed, and then talk about those deliberations to the barristers in the pub.

You learn something new every day.

Court officials are protecting the jury from outside interference. I specifically said that any informal conversations which took place did so after the trial had concluded. I never said that the court officials were passing on information about jury deliberations to the barristers while the trial was ongoing.

Nor did I say that they were “listening in” to jury discussions. Of course they aren’t sneaking about in corridors and holding a glass up to their ear and the door to hear what is being discussed. But it is unavoidable that they do overhear discussions from time to time, including when they go into the room, and the conversation is still going on. And that’s before you even mention the fact that the jury often has a whiteboard in the jury room on which they are writing their thoughts on pieces of evidence, which is in full view when the court official walks into the room.

Yes, court officials are, strictly speaking, not supposed to divulge anything they hear or see to other parties. But the reality is that informal conversations do take place after the trial is over. It is also not uncommon for the barristers to talk amongst themselves after a case has concluded. The criminal law, particularly at KC level, is a small world, and they all know each other and move in similar circles. They have post match chats from time to time.

I’m certain it’s no different to many other professions which include a duty of confidentiality (including the medical profession).

I’m not sure why you are seemingly deliberately misquoting me. If you are trying to start an argument, I’m not your guy , as I have no interest in squabbling online over such subject matter, so I will leave things there.