UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #24

[Lincoln34]

Thanks for the reply. I was wondering as have read many comments on various platforms this afternoon but nobody said what.

I suppose in a huge case, there could be an incident where the law team incorrectly records what a defendant has stated.

However, I would imagine that law firms get their defendant to sign off against everything that's recorded so there isn't any room for this type of error? Being legal eagles as they are LOL. Anyone know?

Yes

It would make perfect sense if we were dealing with a true hoarder. But if she did just generally “collect paper”, I would have expected her house to be one where there are stacks of old magazines , newspapers, flyers all over the place dating back years , balanced so high and precariously that they might topple over at any moment and crush you .

IMO the truth is that she collected certain pieces of paper because of what was on the paper or what the paper represented.

And IMO she’s - at a level very clever - if guilty. If collecting significant bits then best to take non significant bits as well to muddy the waters.

The collection is deeply strange IMO

 

[Parker Knoll]

She will of signed off the defence case statement and FGS she’s been sat in court for 8 months and incarcerated for years, she should know her case backward.
It doesn’t wash with me …. It’s just more under the bus from Letby.
MOO

 

[katydid23]

I think Mr Johnson nailed it perfectly by his question in response:

She added: 'I'd never experienced other staff come from a different department or hospital. It was a completely new experience'.

Mr Johnson: 'Did you think that eyes from outside might work out what you'd been up to?'

Why was this crew from Alder Hay so upsetting to LL?

That was the morning that she woke up bright and chipper according to her messages to colleagues. And she entered the unit from the card swipe in the maternity unit, @ 7:12 am. Baby N had a sudden unexpected collapse @ 7:15 am--while his designated nurse was in another room.

So LL was able to start her observation notes with the description of Baby N having already been unwell and collapsing.

I think she was feeling pretty good about her 'work' that day---but then this invading crew of medical workers crashed her party?

 

[esther43]

Why was this crew from Alder Hay so upsetting to LL?

That was the morning that she woke up bright and chipper according to her messages to colleagues. And she entered the unit from the card swipe in the maternity unit, @ 7:12 am. Baby N had a sudden unexpected collapse @ 7:15 am--while his designated nurse was in another room.

So LL was able to start her observation notes with the description of Baby N having already been unwell and collapsing.

I think she was feeling pretty good about her 'work' that day---but then this invading crew of medical workers crashed her party?

I find it interesting that she was just about to go on holiday. Maybe a quick incident and a little reassurance was just the ticket before she caught her flight?
I can imagine leaving the unit that she was so 'attached' could have been quite stressful to an individual who likes to feel in control. Jmo

 

[Parker Knoll]

She would of absolutely hated the team from AH coming in and most probably panicked.

 

[katydid23]

Here is the way court ended yesterday:

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz

Court has finished for today. A summary of some of the evidence we heard this afternoon. Nick Johnson KC continued to ask Lucy Letby about baby N.

Lucy Letby is asked why she didn't write anything in the nursing notes about baby N's first collapse at 0715 when she came onto the unit. She says that she only took over care for him when her shift started at 0730.

Earlier in the trial baby N's father said that (on the day his son collapsed twice) he was at work when he was phoned by Lucy Letby who told him that the baby had been "a bit unwell" but was now ok, and he wasn't given the impression there was anything to be concerned about.

Lucy Letby now says she didn't make this phone call. Nick Johnson KC asks her why her defence team has allowed it to be 'agreed evidence' in the case. She replies "well I disagree with it now"

Nick Johnson KC: "It’s yet another account from a parent that has been agreed and you are now saying it’s untrue. Is that right?" Lucy Letby: "Yes. I have no recollection of speaking to the parents on the phone"

NJKC: "Were you sitting in court when this agreed evidence was read to the court?" LL: "Yes" NJKC: "What did you do about it?" LL: "Well with respect there’s been a lot of evidence and I’ve relied on my legal team"

NJKC: "Well we’ve seen you firing out post it notes from the dock" LL: "Which i’m entitled to do" NJKC: "Absolutely you are, that’s the point of you being here. Have you raised it as an issue? LL: "I can’t say now whether it's something i’ve raised with my legal team "

 

[Sundial]

11:54am

The neonatal schedule for June 2-3 is shown, with Letby's duties for her two designated babies from 8.30pm-8.38pm.
One of the designated babies received a 50ml NGT feed at 8.30pm as they were asleep. Letby says that feed can take '10-15 minutes or so'. She says she can't put a 'definitive number' on it.
Mr Johnson says other estimates for this kinds of feed have been 20 minutes.
Letby: "I really can't say."
Mr Johnson says Letby was texting her friends 'right through this shift'.
A sequence of messages is shown to the court. The first sent by Letby is at 7.33pm, followed by 7.35pm, 7.58pm, 7.59pm, 8pm ['We have got a baby with haemophilia'], 8pm, 8.01pm, 8.02pm, 8.03pm, 8.04pm [Ah ok I'll have to Google it later lol don't know much about it [haemophilia]], 8.06pm, 8.11pm [Complex condition, yeah 50;50 chance antenatally].
NJ: "That is where you got the answer from, Dr Google?"
LL: "No, '50:50' is something staff would know"
Messages are sent by Letby at 8.26pm [Ffs Mel asing me how to make up 12.5%],
Letby said she was "shocked" that a band 6 colleague was asking her how to make up such a solution, when she could have looked for herself.
8.29pm: 'No I've passed her folder but now asking if can run via cannula- she needs to look herself!'
Letby says she was "not happy" with Mel.
Another message is sent from Letby at 8.29pm, and at 8.31pm, and 8.31pm, at 8.32pm, 8.34pm.
Letby is asked how she can feed a baby at 8.30pm when she was also texting.
LL: "You can't."
Letby denies feeding the baby "very quickly" by putting the plunger on the end.
Another message is sent from Letby at 8.38pm [Had strange message from [doctor colleague] earlier...']
Mr Johnson asks if Letby's nursing colleague was implying Letby and the doctor were in a relationship. Letby says she does not know.
Letby's colleague sent two messages: "Did u? Saying what?
"Go commando? "
Letby is asked by Mr Johnson if she knows what the implication of 'go commando' means.
LL: "I don't know what was meant, I can't say right now."
NJ: "Do you think this was an army reference, being from Hereford?"
LL: "I don't know."
The messages are sent by Letby at 8.39pm, 8.40pm, 8.41pm, 8.43pm [Do you think he's being odd?], 8.44pm [Shut up!], 8.44pm [I don't flirt with him!].

I’m still catching up today but wow, her messaging is just insane. She might just aswell not bothered with the shift at all, this is crazy.
Moo

 

[esther43]

I’m still catching up today but wow, her messaging is just insane. She might just aswell not bothered with the shift at all, this is crazy.
Moo
[/QUOTE]
We all know how LL loves a 'door way' but if that baby received an 'espresso' on the back of her texting than that's disgusting.

 

[katydid23]

She will of signed off the defence case statement and FGS she’s been sat in court for 8 months and incarcerated for years, she should know her case backward.
It doesn’t wash with me …. It’s just more under the bus from Letby.
MOO

Here is how it went down---it does seem she threw Meyers under the bus here:


Earlier in the trial baby N's father said that (on the day his son collapsed twice) he was at work when he was phoned by Lucy Letby who told him that the baby had been "a bit unwell" but was now ok, and he wasn't given the impression there was anything to be concerned about.

Lucy Letby now says she didn't make this phone call. Nick Johnson KC asks her why her defence team has allowed it to be 'agreed evidence' in the case. She replies "well I disagree with it now"

Nick Johnson KC: "It’s yet another account from a parent that has been agreed and you are now saying it’s untrue. Is that right?" Lucy Letby: "Yes. I have no recollection of speaking to the parents on the phone"

NJKC: "Were you sitting in court when this agreed evidence was read to the court?" LL: "Yes" NJKC: "What did you do about it?" LL: "Well with respect there’s been a lot of evidence and I’ve relied on my legal team"

NJKC: "Well we’ve seen you firing out post it notes from the dock" LL: "Which i’m entitled to do" NJKC: "Absolutely you are, that’s the point of you being here. Have you raised it as an issue? LL: "I can’t say now whether it's something i’ve raised with my legal team "

 

[Parker Knoll]

The insanity continues.
MOO

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

They were ( finally sure) and hence why a police investigation was launched.
Unfortunately getting to the bottom of these issues does involve entertaining a victim centred mindset and this is the belief on which the prosecution have built their case.
We can speculate a thousand reasons why it may not be true but if those reasons have not come from LL herself we are even further away from understanding what actually happened.

I agree that you should absolutely investigate.

My comments were about being on the jury and deciding whether or not to convict someone of the charges. My point is that you have to be satisfied that the medical evidence shows a malicious third party act has been committed before you get onto the question of whether you think the accused should be found guilty , at which point , you can obviously start looking at patterns of behaviour which repeatedly appear in the cases where you have concluded that a murder or AM has been proved .

 

[katydid23]

Sundial =1st quote/ Esther= 2nd quote

I’m still catching up today but wow, her messaging is just insane. She might just aswell not bothered with the shift at all, this is crazy.
Moo

We all know how LL loves a 'door way' but if that baby received an 'espresso' on the back of her texting than that's disgusting.

This is something I have wondered about all through the trial. IF guilty, she was doing horrid things to the victims she is charged with.
But what about the other babies? Did she do little cruel things which went unnoticed?

Like this example pointed out by Johnson----where LL was so busy texting and she needed two hands for the feeding so she put it on higher speed, for her convenience? At the expense of a preemie who would have trouble with such a fast feed?

 

[Popcorn80]

Letby agrees she was 'agitated' by the need for assistance from Alder Hey, as she had not known a case before of people from another hospital coming in to assist.

NJ: "Do you remember saying 'who are these people?' 'who are these people?'"

"Yes, because I had never experienced who these people were [coming in from a different hospital.] ...It was a completely new experience."

Having worked a hospital at the same level as the Countess at the time. When the transport team arrived, you definitely didn’t question them. You worked together for the best outcome for the baby. IMO she hated this team come in and be the saviours.

 

[esther43]

I agree that you should absolutely investigate.

My comments were about being on the jury and deciding whether or not to convict someone of the charges. My point is that you have to be satisfied that the medical evidence shows a malicious third party act has been committed before you get onto the question of whether you think the accused should be found guilty , at which point , you can obviously start looking at patterns of behaviour which repeatedly appear in the cases where you have concluded that a murder or AM has been proved .

I think at this stage, it is safe to assume that there is strong evidence of murder through the medical experts.
There is still a very slim chance that this could be refuted and I suppose until we've been through that process (for arguments sake) then we can say there's still a slim chance that murder / attempted was not commited.
In his opening statement BM invites the jury to consider the merit of each case based on five guiding principles. He didn't say that each case has to contain all five features.
Looking at the evidence as it arrises and considering whether it meets the criteria makes sense is a good strategy.. who knows how deliberations will play out ..

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Which is why looking at the big picture is important. Air embolisms in newborns are extremely rare. And here we have several cases of it, with the mottled rashes and the bubbles in the post mortem x-rays, etc.


Correction, " there are 22 collapses, we know that most of them were caused by malicious actions, and only one nurse was present and allegedly involved with every incident. " So that nurse must be investigated and put on trial.IMO

Now that she is on trial, after the several years of intense investigation, we can question her about the incidents. I think her testimony has created problems for her because she has denied being near the babies during crucial times previously. But during questioning, we see that she was in fact, cot side for majority of the collapses. [if not all]


I disagree. I think you can investigate whether someone was involved with a suspicious collapse, if that person was present for all of the sudden, unexpected collapses, most of which have been described as malicious assaults.allegedly

And that is the crux of the issue for me as far as the air embolism cases are concerned.

The jury has to decide whether to accept the medical evidence of the prosecution’s experts. And when it comes to the air embolism cases (but not , to be clear , the other alleged methods of allegedly causing the collapses), I have a real problem.

Dr Evans’ reports and the whole saga regarding baby C has made me feel like I don’t trust his ability to correctly identify air embolisms. Throw in the fact that the Court of Appeal itself said that dr Evans’ reports were (to paraphrase) useless in another fairly recent case because they said he changed his opinion on the evidence to fit the facts, and you have gone well beyond creating reasonable doubt IMO at the very in relation to baby C, but potentially on all the air embolism cases.

IMO etc

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

I think at this stage, it is safe to assume that there is strong evidence of murder through the medical experts.
There is still a very slim chance that this could be refuted and I suppose until we've been through that process (for arguments sake) then we can say there's still a slim chance that murder / attempted was not commited.
In his opening statement BM invites the jury to consider the merit of each case based on five guiding principles. He didn't say that each case has to contain all five features.
Looking at the evidence as it arrises and considering whether it meets the criteria makes sense is a good strategy.. who knows how deliberations will play out ..

I wouldn’t describe it as a slim chance for some of the cases . I think the defence has already achieved it with (at least ) baby C and possibly injected sufficient doubt for all the air embolism cases.

In contrast , for the other methods of alleged injury, I think the evidence has proved that a murder or AM took place (unless Ben Myers has an expert up his sleeve ).

 

[katydid23]

And that is the crux of the issue for me as far as the air embolism cases are concerned.

The jury has to decide whether to accept the medical evidence of the prosecution’s experts. And when it comes to the air embolism cases (but not , to be clear , the other alleged methods of allegedly causing the collapses), I have a real problem.

Dr Evans’ reports and the whole saga regarding baby C has made me feel like I don’t trust his ability to correctly identify air embolisms. Throw in the fact that the Court of Appeal itself said that dr Evans’ reports were (to paraphrase) useless in another fairly recent case because they said he changed his opinion on the evidence to fit the facts, and you have gone well beyond creating reasonable doubt IMO at the very in relation to baby C, but potentially on all the air embolism cases.

IMO etc

If the only charged case were Babies A, B and C then I could agree with you wholeheartedly. But the babies kept collapsing for an entire year afterwards. And LL was also deep in the mix. Others saw visual images of the air and the bubbles in other victims. And many others saw thew mottled purplish roving rashes.

And Evans is not the only expert they relied upon. Put him aside and look at the other investigators and the suspicious circumstances. And her sketchy answers from the witness box. This case is much more than just one medical expert. JMO

 

[SusanDonim]

Sundial =1st quote/ Esther= 2nd quote



This is something I have wondered about all through the trial. IF guilty, she was doing horrid things to the victims she is charged with.
But what about the other babies? Did she do little cruel things which went unnoticed?

Like this example pointed out by Johnson----where LL was so busy texting and she needed two hands for the feeding so she put it on higher speed, for her convenience? At the expense of a preemie who would have trouble with such a fast feed?

I genuinely feel, that if guilty, LL has hurt a lot more living creatures than she is being charged for. MOO

 

[Dotta]

"Neonatal nurse Lucy Letby gossiped about a male doctor she 'fancied' in a string of WhatsApp messages around the time she is accused of killing a baby by pumping him full of air, a court heard.

The messages were exchanged around the time she made one of her alleged victims, Baby F, scream in agony by injecting air into his system."

Lucy Letby gossiped about doctor she 'fancied' in, court hears

Letby, 33, came under questioning at Manchester Crown Court today about her friendship with the registrar while being taken through a series of WhatsApp messages she swapped with a colleague.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Her refusal to acknowledge that she knows what going commando means is really interesting. I wonder if it’s because her parents are in the room? In which case, that says a lot (to me anyway) about her relationship with her parents and her upbringing. We already know they are overprotective, that she feels somewhat obligated to them (couldn’t move to NZ because of the rents), that she would often seek sympathy and validation from them (texts like we lost one last night, text telling the mum she had a needlestick even though it was ultra low risk and she knew it would cause worry). The house purchase, I highly suspect was driven by (and invested in by) the parents. No long term relationships of her own (that were reported at least, you’d have thought the press would have dug up an old boyfriend or two when the news broke initially).

It’s just, interesting. IMO.

Maybe she's literally not sure what it means and has been told to answer truthfully in absolutes - ie yes, no, don't know?

I can imagine that when put on the spot some people might realise phrases they've heard used and laughed about, they don't really know what they mean at all and don't know why they were laughing. Which is sort of embarrassing but explained by peer pressure and group dynamics.

Re boyfriend, I thought there was one ex who said she was very sweet and normal or something? JMO MOO