UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #37

[Parker Knoll]

It was. It was to prove that if she would lie about the smallest most inconsequential things chances are she would lie about everything else. There was no reason why she would pretend not to know what “ going commando “ would mean … even my 87 yr old mother knows it’s inference, she could quite easily have answered the question but she dug her heels in for some bizarre reason.

We covered ALL of these questions a million threads ago.

 

[Highlandspring]

Well the RSS aren't very bright then, are they. JMO

I'll simplify it with an analogy.

There is a marmalade loving bear who enjoys a party with his various groups of bear friends. The only problem is, after every party a dead bear is found next morning, his sheets and the unfortunate dead bears covered in marmalade paw prints. The bear keeper calls the police. I'm worried marmalade bear is killing my bears, I found marmalade all over them.
The police ask the bear doctor to look at the deaths of all bears at all parties over the last year, to see if they were natural deaths or not, but they don't tell bear doctor about the marmalade.

Bear doctor investigates all the deaths and tells the police which deaths were natural and which were suspicious. It turns out all the suspicious deaths had marmalade all over them, and not only that, marmalade bear was provably present, from photographs, at all of the suspicious deaths, but not all of his bear friends were!

The police slap cuffs on marmalade bear and charge him with murder. At trial, the crown presents photographic proof that marmalade bear was present at every murder and proof of where all the other bears were on said occasions. What bear keeper told police about marmalade has nothing to do with the bear doctor's opinion which the case rests on, plus proving that marmalade bear was there. To help everyone, because there were so many parties, the crown makes a simple chart showing presence of bears at every party.

Nothing to do with statistics or initial suspicions of bear keeper!

Story time over.

The crown does not have to disclose lines of police enquiry which have no relevance to proving their case at trial.

I along with countless others love you Tortoise. Thank you for being the leading light in the dark amongst the many and much appreciated lights on here ❤

 

[Marantz4250b]

Wasn't all that just to establish her crush on Doc Choc and how far it went? That was important because he was on the wards with her. Please correct me if I'm misremembering.

Yes, it was to establish that she was interested in him and to demonstrate the prosecution assertion that she was doing what she was doing was doing, in part, to impress him or get his attention or attendance at emergencies. It also clearly showed her as a liar and I think the prosecution knew that it would.

The assertion that she was promiscuous, or a big drinker and all round party girl is ludicrous, however, as she clearly wasn't. Anyone who knows anything about the trial knows that the prosecution did no such thing.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I thought that and the discussion of her clothing at the time of one of her arrests was to show the jury that she would habitually lie on the stand about things that were pointless and provably false.

MOO

Exactly!

 

[mrC]

well if sweenys cliams about the doctor killing the baby are untrue they would constitute libel and the doctor could easly instructer a lawyer to sue and they would win easily and get damages.

its very funny they chose not to do this

 

[iamshadow21]

well if sweenys cliams about the doctor killing the baby are untrue they would constitute libel and the doctor could easly instructer a lawyer to sue and they would win easily and get damages.

its very funny they chose not to do this

So, because someone is not responding to ridiculous claims, that makes them guilty somehow?

Newsflash, not every person or every society has everyone suing everyone for every slight or slander. A lot of people will just ignore obvious garbage.

MOO

 

[Marantz4250b]

well if sweenys cliams about the doctor killing the baby are untrue they would constitute libel and the doctor could easly instructer a lawyer to sue and they would win easily and get damages.

its very funny they chose not to do this

Sorry, totally incorrect. That's not how it works. No one "easily" gets damages in defamation cases. They are painfully expensive things to bring and there is no guarantee of anything.

Also, the Dr would need to prove that actual damage had befallen them and be able to quantify it as a sum of money. Unless he's been put out of a job he probably hasn't suffered any damage.

The bottom line, of course, is that there would only be damage to him if anyone actually believed it and literally no one does because it's utter rubbish!

 

[mrC]

what could be more damaging for an accusation they had killed someone they could easly prove damage

doctors are not poor they could easily afford to file a claim

in a libel case the person fileing the lawsuit does not prove anything

the burden of proof is on the defendant

 

[Parker Knoll]

what could be more damaging for an accusation they had killed someone they could easly prove damage

doctors are not poor they could easily afford to file a claim

in a libel case the person fileing the lawsuit does not prove anything

the burden of proof is on the defendant

SMH

You clearly know nothing about the law of Tort.

 

[Marantz4250b]

what could be more damaging for an accusation they had killed someone they could easly prove damage

doctors are not poor they could easily afford to file a claim

in a libel case the person fileing the lawsuit does not prove anything

the burden of proof is on the defendant

As PK has pointed out - you have no idea about this.

Please re-read what I wrote.

A claimant must prove actual damage - ie; genuine financial loss that they can quantify in money terms.

Edit: as to the "doctors aren't poor comment", a defamation case can easily run into the multiple hundreds of thousands of pounds. Even if you win there is no guarantee that costs will be awarded in your favour. Uness the doctor has suffered financial losses of a very substantial nature it would be pointless to initiate such a case.

 

[May72031]

John Sweeney's reputation has taken a severe battering. Despite Shoo Lee and his panel of "eminent experts" dropping the "needle" claim in their second conference, and suggesting instead, the damage to the liver was because of a traumatic birth.

Defenders of Shoo Lee get angry when you point this discrepancy out.

 

[mrC]

this is the same shoo lee whose paper the prosecution used to convict her hes ethere an expert or he isnt if hes not an expert that still makes the conviction unsafe

 

[mrC]

elisbeth marshall was also on shift for 3 of the baby deaths but she doesnt seem to hae noticed lucy doing anything https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0003190_1,2,3,4.pdf

 

[Rohmer]

That’s just not true.

If

What do you mean? Who would be reacting? Nurse Letby was the only nurse in that immediate area.

The only other person who could react was the shocked mother, who reacted strongly last first----tried to comfort him but he wouldn't calm down----she asked Nurse Letby 'what happened' and Letby said it was just from the tube rubbing his throat, but a doctor was already on the way, so please leave and we will call you soon.

What else is mom going to do at that moment? She has no reason to believe he was actually assaulted. She was still very concerned so she went and called her husband immediately and he tried to assure her everything was fine.

She then spoke to a midwife she saw on the 2nd floor, and she also assured her that everything was being done to help him and she needed to wait for their call.

So the 'clear cut case' of the assault was not fully revealed until things began to play out. Their midwife called the parents and told them to come to nursery one. As Mom arrived she saw the resuscitation taking place. Obviously this was more than just a tube irritating his throat.

When they testified at trial, the barrister tried pushing back on the parents, saying they were misremembering, had their 9 pm confused, were wrong about Mom seeing blood, were wrong about LL telling her to leave the nursery, mistaken about bringing her breast milk for the scheduled feed, and wrong about LL saying she'd already called a doctor. etc.


BOTH parents were adamant about their facts and timeline and memories. They would not agree with LL's barrister who tried to get them to change their testimony.

So your point above ---'that it couldn't be an assault because surely there'd be more of a reaction at the time'----is a faulty conclusion. There was a strong reaction but it was rebuffed and controlled by LL at first. It took time before it was fully revealed.


NO, that's not how it went. Up until Baby E and those parents testimonies, the earlier cases were not as obvious. More than half of the members here were on the fence. And about a quarter were confident she was innocent.

I think the jury was probably in a similar mindset at that time. In the earlier cases it was possible she was involved somehow, but not probable, and definitely not certain.

But Baby E case was a turning point. A big shift in momentum against LL for the first time.

So what you said ^^^ above---'about the jury feeling the burden to prove she was guilty'---that was not how things were at this point in the trial. I think people were trying to make sure she wasn't unfairly scapegoated. The earlier cases were all 'explainable' in some ways. Some did look suspicious but there was no smoking gun.

But in Baby E's case, there was a clear cut example where Letby was trying to deny somethings that seemed to have strong corroboration. The witnesses had phone records, and data and strong witnesses and Letby had no corroboration and worse, her evidence seemed to have been falsified.

The parents told their stories and the defense had no proof they were lying and the witnesses had proof they were telling the truth. FOR THE FIRST TIME, LUCY WAS CAUGHT OUT AS A LIAR.

So---we have experts arguing that there was deliberate harm inflicted.

And the truth is, NONE of the experts can say for sure. Medical Examiners are not infallible. They rely heavily upon circumstantial evidence to help them reach their conclusions.



The parents didnt just 'look back in hindsight' to reach some of their conclusions. They immediately saw some big problems and had questions from the start.

Baby E's parents were being called liars by Letby and her barrister. So obviously they are not just prejudiced by emotions- they are seeing things clearly because they know the TRUTH. They know their baby was bleeding and screaming in pain at 9 pm. And they have receipts to prove it.

So what you are trying to say above, about it being 'unfair' to poor Letby , that makes no sense in the case of Baby E.

Her parents are clear eyed and adamant that Lucy was in that nursery, with a screaming bleeding baby, and she sent the mom away and did not call for medical help for at least 45 more minutes.

NOTHING about that incident is impacted in any way by that word salad above:
"...and prejudicial way against Letby in a way that might be better explained by chaos in a ward that an independent research council has already vouched for..."

The biggest chaos in that ward was created by Lucy herself.


Sure, maybe there were some errors made. Especially when there were 27 total collapses to deal with.

But these deaths and collapses were the result of maliciousness and it would be an utter tragedy if Lucy Letby ever walked free again. IMO

‘She has no reason to believe he was actually assaulted.’

That’s the point I’m making.

Hypothetically speaking, if every remaining medical expert in the entire world joins a new panel claiming that there was no intentional harm done to the babies, then will all these inconsistencies in Letby’s testimony and recollections really have that much evidentiary value? I don’t think so. The reason is because it’s not absolute proof of lying. It’s only proof of lying if she’s guilty, but we’re trying to weight this circumstantial evidence of ‘lying’ and inconsistencies separately to determine if it’s strong or weak evidence. And it’s weak evidence. It’s just as easily explained away by Letby not recollecting events properly, events from 6 years or more ago. How many medical records in current circulation are inaccurate? How many have serious inaccuracies that endanger patients? I bet the answer is not a few. But we don’t assume that these records have been falsified. We don’t assume relevant staff are lying when the can’t remember who was where when etc.

Did Dr Jayaram falsify or fabricate evidence when he initially spoke to the police about babies who two years later he reported as having the symptoms of air embolism, but failed to mention these symptoms contemporaneously. Does that, according to your logic, not mean that he can just as easily be accused of maliciously embellishing the case notes after having read the academic paper on air embolism?

I don't find it difficult to picture a serial killer in Letbys circumstances saying this at all. After all, she was trying to get away with it. I wouldn't expect her to say "yes, youve got me". Looking back through the evidence Letby was, imo, extremely crafty and devious. She took advantage of situations which presented herself, gaslit her colleagues. Her texts messages show a degree of cunning, planning. So the idea of Letby claiming this is not a surprise whatsoever. Just look at the datix she put in for the bung and the potential for an air embolism. From memory and someone tell me if im incorrect, but his came very shortly after she had heard about air embolism mention in relation to the deaths, through her relationship with the married Dr. Letby went to great lengths to make herself appear as a victim, wrongly accused.

So you’re saying that she wrote down these notes because she’s crafty? That makes utterly zero sense. If she were crafty all she had to write down was ‘I’m innocent’ or ‘I never done anything wrong’, sentiments which she did roughly express. However she expressed them alongside things like ‘I did this’ or ‘maybe I did this’ and so on. That is *not* the double bluff alibi scribbled down and carefully planted by a devious killer. It was infinitely more likely a haphazard pile of demented ravings from someone having a nervous breakdown and feeling guilty deaths that happened on her watch that she was being investigated for or she was expecting to be investigated for. I honestly don’t know how you can’t see that.

Even Professor David Wilson thinks the notes are meaningless and he was someone who originally felt the verdict was reasonable.

 

[JosieJo]

this is the same shoo lee whose paper the prosecution used to convict her hes ethere an expert or he isnt if hes not an expert that still makes the conviction unsafe

No-one is an Expert on air embolism...it's too rare in neonates
The prosecution didn’t claim he was..they were quite clear that it was the only paper usable and was years old

 

[JosieJo]

elisbeth marshall was also on shift for 3 of the baby deaths but she doesnt seem to hae noticed lucy doing anything https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0003190_1,2,3,4.pdf

Well she never did anything with people around that's why...like most people who plan to murder

 

[Tortoise]

elisbeth marshall was also on shift for 3 of the baby deaths but she doesnt seem to hae noticed lucy doing anything https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0003190_1,2,3,4.pdf

Elizabeth Marshall was a band 4 nursery nurse, not in room 1 where those deaths occurred.

Q. Given you worked in the outside nurseries or nurseries 3 and 4, and occasionally 2, how did you become aware of Letby's involvement in these unexpected deaths?

A. Generally if there was a trauma situation going on, for example in Nursery 1, then the trained staff would move into help with that situation and the Band 4s would be monitoring the outside nurseries ensuring babies are fed and observations are done, so keeping everything else going, so were -- the actual physical unit then was quite compact, so it was very easy to become aware that there was a major event going on.

A. Oh, knew Lucy was involved? It was my impression that she was always in -- yes, she was always involved with what was going on when there was a major collapse.

Q. Did you sometimes work in the same nursery?

A. I don't really recall working -- actually working alongside her. I've worked many shifts with her, but not specifically with her, because it was quite rare that she was in the outside nurseries.

10/10/2024 – Transcript of Week 5 Day 4 | The Thirlwall Inquiry

Transcript of Part B Evidence: - Melanie Taylor – Registered Nurse - Ashleigh Hudson – Registered Nurse - Kathryn Percival-Calderbank – - Registered Nurse - Kate Bissell – Registered Nurse - Elizabeth Marshall – Neonatal Assistant

thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk

 

[Rohmer]

Yes, it was to establish that she was interested in him and to demonstrate the prosecution assertion that she was doing what she was doing was doing, in part, to impress him or get his attention or attendance at emergencies. It also clearly showed her as a liar and I think the prosecution knew that it would.

The assertion that she was promiscuous, or a big drinker and all round party girl is ludicrous, however, as she clearly wasn't. Anyone who knows anything about the trial knows that the prosecution did no such thing.

I’m not saying they made a big song and dance about her drinking and gambling and sexual immorality. They might have been slipped in to imply bad character on her part.

There’s no other reason to include the ‘go commando’ line of questioning. Why bring it up in the first place? To prove that Letby was a liar when she denied she knew the term? But how could he have known she what not know it’s meaning in advance? So the only logical conclusion is that was about painting her as being involved with a married man or whatever. It had nothing to do with showing her as a liar.

Likewise with the text on winning money on the horses and drinking. These were meant to show her callousness: how could she possibly be casually enjoying herself or saying flippant things after a shift on the ward when kids have died. She must be a psychopath for not staying at home and feeling shattered for these kids. Oh but she also has an unhealthy interest in these families (omitting that she searched hundreds of times for people in her Salsa classes and people she met from work: behaviour well within the bounds of normal to neurotic to weird or obsessive but stopping well short of child serial killer). So which is it? Damned if she doesn’t stay at home after the deaths and goes out like a thoughtless person with no heart and bad character but damned if she then goes on to look them up as though curious about their lives etc.

Just like the accusation of her inability to shed tears, it is of a piece with a witch-hunt and lynch mob morality. As someone already said in this forum, the prosecution were quite right to prosecute their case in such an emotive way, given that we have preordained her guilt. To hell with facts and reason, we already know what happened.

Well thankfully people who care about justice can see through so much of this meaningless innuendo and weak evidence for what it is.

 

[May72031]

I must admit, I am amused to see the old "none of the other nurses saw anything suspicious" line get trotted out again.

After all, history shows us that murderers always wait until someone else is watching them, before carrying out the act. /s

 

[joltz]

If

‘She has no reason to believe he was actually assaulted.’

That’s the point I’m making.

Hypothetically speaking, if every remaining medical expert in the entire world joins a new panel claiming that there was no intentional harm done to the babies, then will all these inconsistencies in Letby’s testimony and recollections really have that much evidentiary value? I don’t think so. The reason is because it’s not absolute proof of lying. It’s only proof of lying if she’s guilty, but we’re trying to weight this circumstantial evidence of ‘lying’ and inconsistencies separately to determine if it’s strong or weak evidence. And it’s weak evidence. It’s just as easily explained away by Letby not recollecting events properly, events from 6 years or more ago. How many medical records in current circulation are inaccurate? How many have serious inaccuracies that endanger patients? I bet the answer is not a few. But we don’t assume that these records have been falsified. We don’t assume relevant staff are lying when the can’t remember who was where when etc.

Did Dr Jayaram falsify or fabricate evidence when he initially spoke to the police about babies who two years later he reported as having the symptoms of air embolism, but failed to mention these symptoms contemporaneously. Does that, according to your logic, not mean that he can just as easily be accused of maliciously embellishing the case notes after having read the academic paper on air embolism?

So you’re saying that she wrote down these notes because she’s crafty? That makes utterly zero sense. If she were crafty all she had to write down was ‘I’m innocent’ or ‘I never done anything wrong’, sentiments which she did roughly express. However she expressed them alongside things like ‘I did this’ or ‘maybe I did this’ and so on. That is *not* the double bluff alibi scribbled down and carefully planted by a devious killer. It was infinitely more likely a haphazard pile of demented ravings from someone having a nervous breakdown and feeling guilty deaths that happened on her watch that she was being investigated for or she was expecting to be investigated for. I honestly don’t know how you can’t see that.

Even Professor David Wilson thinks the notes are meaningless and he was someone who originally felt the verdict was reasonable.

No, you've got that one wrong. I never said she wrote the notes because she was crafty. I referenced multiple occasions where I think Letby was crafty.
But in relation to the notes

"Letby explains in her own words she was writing these haphazard thoughts down in something like the throes of a nervous breakdown"

I don't disagree that it was some sort of release of Letby but I don't think she wanted to be caught with them. That's where she got crafty with her reasoning. Her reasoning. But it doesn't tally with the evidence presented at court where she claimed to write the notes long before she was having the counselling sessions, and well before any police involvement.