UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #25

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #641
I think whether she pled guilty or was found guilty by a jury the sentence would be the same - a whole life tariff. So she may as well plead not guilty from that perspective. Also, from the evidence of the notes, I believe part of her really believes in some way that she is innocent. The deepest part of her admits she isn't (IMO).
Yes, and I think she has been lying, successfully, to her family and her friends, some of whom still believe in her. As long as she has a few who stand by her, she is going to continue the charade.
 
  • #642
I completely agree it’s not for the jury to determine motive. I still think it may be a topic of conversation.

I don’t think the jury are going to try and agree a motive in order to reach a verdict. I do think discussion may arise around the topic though given that it was introduced.

I agree it’s a distraction and counterproductive hence why I said it could delay a verdict.

JMO
The alleged motive is for psychiatrists to ponder upon - certainly not common people.

How can normal people guess what motivated an alleged unhinged person?

Especially if this person herself is not probably aware of the cause of compulsions.

JMO
 
  • #643
We’d be here for weeks trying to list them all there were so many contradictions, some about the most petty things IMO..
The shredder she said in her police interviews she’d forgot she had one then on the stand she used it to shred bank statements. She then said in her police interview she’d only bought it recently, NJ pointed out she bought the shredder in April 2016, I imagine her police interview would have been in 2018 around the time of her first arrest so not exactly recent.. she also said again in her police interview it may have been her parents shredder.

Another moment that sticks out is her not knowing what an air embolism was in her police interview, on the stand NJ revealed she filed a Datix a couple of days after she had been asked not to come into work after the collapse of baby Q, in the Datix she claimed a port on one of the victims had been left open and that it was a risk of ‘accidental air embolism’ she also text a colleague about it being a risk of air embolism too. She had also recently done her intensive care training just prior to the death of baby A and this training would have involved the risks of AE.

She claimed on direct examination that she had PTSD caused in part by being arrested and ‘taken from her home in her pyjamas’, NJ told her she was wearing a blue lee cooper tracksuit when taken from her home and offered to show the video, she then said it was her first arrest when she was taken in her pyjamas, NJ offered to show the video and LL refused to answer.

LL claimed that she hadn’t altered medical notes, NJ showed examples where she had changed the times of certain events on the victims notes, she also wrote a note about a doctor visiting to check a baby over as they’d showed signs of decline, NJ told her that the doctor said they had made no such visit.

LL answered ‘I don’t recall’ multiple times whenever NJ pointed out a discrepancy and evidence that she had lied about something, this happened quite a few times sometimes over small trivial issues. She accused almost all of her colleagues of either lying or making mistakes, then would eventually say something like ‘that might be how they remember it but I don’t recall that’. Such as Dr J who came into the room and found LL standing over baby K who was collapsing with their tube dislodged, doing nothing.

She accused a gang of 4 colleagues of a conspiracy against her, but provided no evidence of conspiracy.

She denied texting in the nurseries and NJ put it to her multiple times she was texting while she was in clinical areas, a spree of texts were sent during the time she had recorded that she’d been feeding a baby that would have taken as she said ‘15-20 minutes’.

BM had claimed in his opening statement that sub optimal care, staffing issues and incompetence were factors in the babies collapses and deaths, NJ asked LL before he began questioning her about each baby if ‘staffing levels, medical mistakes or sub optimal care were a factor in the collapse or death’ of each baby. LL would in some instances go on to suggest that the unit was over staffed, colleagues didn’t know what they were doing at times and insinuate that another colleague had made mistakes, after having ruled these things out for that case already.

LL told the jury that she had PTSD and had been isolated from family and friends and lived a life of despair between the time of her redeployment and arrest. NJ presented photos of LL on days and nights out with friends and a certain doctor colleague who she claims she wasn’t romantically involved with but went on an away day to London and other outings with, doctor colleague was married.

LL claimed to have forgotten she had any taken any handover sheets home, she denies keeping them on purpose even though there were 257 stored in her home under her bed, in bags she was taking to and from work every day, in a box marked ‘keep’ and one ‘pristine’ handover note from 2010 in a keepsake box with roses on the lid.

LL claimed not to remember some of the babies, can’t remember certain collapses, but can remember she wasn’t in the room when they collapsed. She also searched for many of the parents on Facebook for up to around 2 years after the collapse/death of their child. She claims she searched for the parents of twins baby E & F after the death of baby E ‘to see how F was doing’ NJ pointed out that baby F was still on the unit at this time.

She claimed not to have been present at one baby’s collapse because she was caring for another child, NJ pointed out that this child has not even been born yet at the time she says she was looking after them.

There were lots more IMO. I’m not sure what days some of these things were said on, I’m sure they’re all somewhere on the Chester standard updates though. Some things were reported by Sky or Dan on twitter too, There were times where things were included by some reporters that weren’t mentioned by others MOO

All MOO
IMO
JMO

An amazing summary! NJ should use it in his closing!!!
 
  • #644
Yes, and I think she has been lying, successfully, to her family and her friends, some of whom still believe in her. As long as she has a few who stand by her, she is going to continue the charade.

I wonder if it was these family/ friends who may have persuaded her to take the stand to prove her innocence. IMO JMO
 
  • #645
How ironic that this disgusting case finishes with "raw sewage" on part of the Defence.

The final chuckle of "Fate".

JMO

An actual sheet show
 
  • #646
The alleged motive is for psychiatrists to ponder upon - certainly not common people.

How can normal people guess what motivated an alleged unhinged person?

Especially if this person herself is not probably aware of the cause of compulsions.

JMO
I completely agree and yet some people following the case are offering an armchair diagnosis.

So far on this thread alone I’ve seen at least narcissism, ocd and bpd suggested. I think it’s human nature to look for the why. I’m not saying its right and I completely agree only qualified personnel should make a diagnosis.

JMO
 
  • #647
Anyone else feeling a bit sorry for the plumber? Been working there since the 80s, probably was cursing the place while dealing with a clogged sluicemaster and literal crap in the labour ward, thinking to himself “can this job get any worse?”, and the answer was yes, yes it does get worse, one day you’ll be testifying about this as the only witness for the defence in a baby murder trial. Poor guy.
Definitely poor guy - wonder if anyone's told him yet that he was the only expert.
 
  • #648
I don’t know, i think it was la patrick 777 who suggested it. I just replied to his post.
JMO
 
  • #649
Ive been trying to catch up but I missed a lot of LL testimony.

Many are saying she damaged her defence and contradicted herself and BM. I tried to read where but couldn't find it. Would anyone be so kind to give a few examples please?

Do you think BM couldn't find a single expert to support alternative causes of death, like what the original death certificates said? I'm confused..

JMO but I think the prosecution has put their case so fully to over-ride what the original death certificates said to the point that one would need to have a literal objection to the prosecution arguments, not refer back to 'the cover up' if you see what I mean.

I guess there's someone out there in the world happy to take a punt at being objectionable and argue the toss for the sake of liking their own voice or becoming notable -but- the second problem is that this case is being brought at the cost of the public purse and all court time must be justified.

The financial cost of arguing must be justified and also the emotional and human toll on everyone involved including the defendant herself.

If BM were to seek out 'anyone prepared to argue' just for the sake of it, it would not speak to being a professional with integrity, it would cost a fortune, and be frankly unjustifiable. Also, ultimately the judge gets to decide if that person gets to speak because what they have to say is relevant and important - ie they were qualified to say and prove how the prosecution case had flaws. So, maybe there is no-one credible. There may be some 'incredible' people, no doubt wanting to showboat!

JMO
 
  • #650
The alleged motive is for psychiatrists to ponder upon - certainly not common people.

How can normal people guess what motivated an alleged unhinged person?

Especially if this person herself is not probably aware of the cause of compulsions.

JMO

Absolutely and also especially if this person is so defended with her own sophisticated internal denial mechanisms, may not be fully conscious of much of her actions, it would take a long time to 'work' with her, if at all feasible. JMO
 
  • #651
I completely agree and yet some people following the case are offering an armchair diagnosis.

So far on this thread alone I’ve seen at least narcissism, ocd and bpd suggested. I think it’s human nature to look for the why. I’m not saying its right and I completely agree only qualified personnel should make a diagnosis.

JMO
Dont forget the munchausens.
 
  • #652
JMO but I think the prosecution has put their case so fully to over-ride what the original death certificates said to the point that one would need to have a literal objection to the prosecution arguments, not refer back to 'the cover up' if you see what I mean.

I guess there's someone out there in the world happy to take a punt at being objectionable and argue the toss for the sake of liking their own voice or becoming notable -but- the second problem is that this case is being brought at the cost of the public purse and all court time must be justified.

The financial cost of arguing must be justified and also the emotional and human toll on everyone involved including the defendant herself.

If BM were to seek out 'anyone prepared to argue' just for the sake of it, it would not speak to being a professional with integrity, it would cost a fortune, and be frankly unjustifiable. Also, ultimately the judge gets to decide if that person gets to speak because what they have to say is relevant and important - ie they were qualified to say and prove how the prosecution case had flaws. So, maybe there is no-one credible. There may be some 'incredible' people, no doubt wanting to showboat!

JMO
100% agree, it would have to be a real heavy hitter expert to have impact. I doubt anyone with credibility wanted to jeopardise that for 15mins fame!

Moo moo
 
Last edited:
  • #653
100% agree, it would have to be a real heavy hitter expert to have impact. I doubt anyone with credibility wanted to jeopardise that for 15mins fame!

Moo moo

I imagine the prosecution brought in plenty of people to scrutinise and critique their case along the way because there's no way they'd want to go through the expense and time of this trial and have an expert come out of left field and point out flaws. Also due to the incredibly sensitive nature of the harm done. They wanted to lock it down flawlessly and seemingly that's what they've just done.

I think the jury will respond quickly as I suspect they've had to keep a track of and comprehend every single point at the time it was being made. If there's no expert witnesses presented to quibble the facts, why would the jury take it upon themselves to dispute or debate? They will recap and take the judges guidance and IMO I wouldn't be surprised if there's a rapid decision. JMO
 
  • #654
I am new here, made a mistake with my post, sorry
 
  • #655
  • #656
I'm kinda stunned after today's (lack of) evidence; I know a lot of you thought there wouldn't be anything, but I figured there had to be something, or else what case can they make? The plumber in itself made sense; having seen the reactions on here to LL mentioning the drainage problems, proving she was not just making it up was a good move. But... that was it?!

They couldn't even find any expert prepared to say "yes, air embolism is a good possibility, but so is XYZ condition", or any senior nurse prepared to say "yes, a careless nurse could accidentally put air into the system if they were too busy texting to follow procedures correctly". Or even any statician to warn of the dangers of relying on a list of who worked on the shifts in question (I recall this coming up before the trial started). They don't even have to prove any alternative theories, just introduce doubt, so saying there's a reasonable chance that something else could be the cause of various incidents would lessen the cumulative effect of everything, but they can't even produce that. I really expected more.

I have a feeling after the defence case, the jury will need less time than I'd originally thought before it - I doubt it'll be as short as 1-2 days if they take their job seriously, as each charge does need to be looked at individually, and not all are totally clear cut (from what's been reported in the media - it's entirely likely that evidence in court was better!), but I doubt it'll be a multi-week deliberation now. I bet the jury can't wait, I do feel they should get some kind of reward for putting up with it for so long!
 
  • #657
I am genuinely curious to know if LL herself will claim mental illness and if so at which point.
ive Seen no evidence that would make me think anything like that was a factor IMO. Which makes me think she is cognitively functional, considering the charges and the lack of anything obviously amiss makes me think she’s cold and calculating which is pointed Imo. If guilty etc

if guilty might take years of confinement to get an answer to certain questions which to a psychologist will be used to ascertain the nature of her. However some people have been known to Play power games with information and the thought of that is a grim reality.
 
  • #658
I am genuinely curious to know if LL herself will claim mental illness and if so at which point.

Same. I wonder what happens after conviction? Does someone just go to serve their time in the appropriate risk category prison? Or do they get fully medically and psychiatrically evaluated before being allocated to a place most suited? Do they get psychotherapy inside or is that it? Just passing the days being a prisoner?

I imagine if LL has diagnosed PTSD from the police coming for her, if guilty, she's potentially going to have pretty serious issues with being sentenced. JMO
 
  • #659
I'm kinda stunned after today's (lack of) evidence; I know a lot of you thought there wouldn't be anything, but I figured there had to be something, or else what case can they make? The plumber in itself made sense; having seen the reactions on here to LL mentioning the drainage problems, proving she was not just making it up was a good move. But... that was it?!

They couldn't even find any expert prepared to say "yes, air embolism is a good possibility, but so is XYZ condition", or any senior nurse prepared to say "yes, a careless nurse could accidentally put air into the system if they were too busy texting to follow procedures correctly". Or even any statician to warn of the dangers of relying on a list of who worked on the shifts in question (I recall this coming up before the trial started). They don't even have to prove any alternative theories, just introduce doubt, so saying there's a reasonable chance that something else could be the cause of various incidents would lessen the cumulative effect of everything, but they can't even produce that. I really expected more.

I have a feeling after the defence case, the jury will need less time than I'd originally thought before it - I doubt it'll be as short as 1-2 days if they take their job seriously, as each charge does need to be looked at individually, and not all are totally clear cut (from what's been reported in the media - it's entirely likely that evidence in court was better!), but I doubt it'll be a multi-week deliberation now. I bet the jury can't wait, I do feel they should get some kind of reward for putting up with it for so long!

I'm guessing maybe not, simply because maybe the Director of Public Prosecutions and the judge who ordered the warrant for LL's arrest and detention may have needed to already have that indisputably proven to them before allowing this case to progress. Not sure if that makes sense but it's such an horrific allegation and so incredibly contentious and potentially harmful in all manner of directions that there'd have already been a really high burden of proof required for it to even get to court.

By which point, maybe there's already no argument in the key facts - synthetic insulin, air embolism, altering records, taking home the handover sheets of the very same babies attacked, searching them on FB, dates and times LL was present at same time as babies collapsed. If those key areas could have been argued they would have been already by the DPP and judge ordering warrant. JMO

Edit: apologies, it's CPS = Crown Prosecution Service, not DPP
 
Last edited:
  • #660
HMP Rampton probably.
Same. I wonder what happens after conviction? Does someone just go to serve their time in the appropriate risk category prison? Or do they get fully medically and psychiatrically evaluated before being allocated to a place most suited? Do they get psychotherapy inside or is that it? Just passing the days being a prisoner?

I imagine if LL has diagnosed PTSD from the police coming for her, if guilty, she's potentially going to have pretty serious issues with being sentenced. JMO
I think Beverly Alit got a guilty conviction after pleading not guilty, she was sent to prison but refused to eat and so that's how she ended up a hospital instead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
41
Guests online
2,680
Total visitors
2,721

Forum statistics

Threads
632,911
Messages
18,633,351
Members
243,332
Latest member
Letechia
Back
Top