GUILTY 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 #38

[Sweeper2000]

It is a big deal. This was one of the big gotchas used to prove she was a liar. The media and the podcast were all over it. Except she wasn’t lying, was she.

Nick Johnson flipped back and forth in that line of questioning about which arrest he was talking about, until finally it looked like she had lied.

Then they made sure to only show a snippet of the 2018 arrest, so everyone could see how brazen a liar she was.

Because any other footage would have clearly shown her in pyjamas.

This investigation was an exercise in confirmation bias from the get go.

This will be referred back to the court of appeal. The managers will not be charged. Thirlwall’s report will never be released.

And one thing I’m most sure of, these babies will never get justice.

I follow. See my post to Anxala. I myself can't see it as a big deal tbh but I'm speaking from my pov. How is one to estimate the way it was perceived by the jury? I certainly don't think it changes much but it does make me think differently of the shredder, another big gotya moment. If she couldn't answer that or adequately challenge it then we do have to ask why, out of the two I might think it would be easier to remember the pyjama drama correctly.

 

[WaneLyrical]

I follow. See my post to Anxala. I myself can't see it as a big deal tbh but I'm speaking from my pov. How is one to estimate the way it was perceived by the jury? I certainly don't think it changes much but it does make me think differently of the shredder, another big gotya moment. If she couldn't answer that or adequately challenge it then we do have to ask why, out of the two I might think it would be easier to remember the pyjama drama correctly.

And the “going commando”, and the “boyfriend”..

A disingenuous prosecution clutching at straws, resorting to tactics because the actual evidence is so flimsy.

4,000 other babies they’ve looked at. 4,000 babies who Letby looked after. And not a single one meeting the evidence bar. Meanwhile a whole new bunch of families have had their lives destroyed again by the suggestion their babies were murdered.

We are expected to believe Letby picked up an unexpected shift one day, waltzed into work, and immediately killed a baby she’d never ever met. Then tried to kill their sibling. And what’s the evidence? A rash. A rash that was still there the following day on Baby B, photographed by the mother. It’s the air embolism paradox. Any rash, whether it’s red, brown, pink, blue, pale, purple. Whether it moves, whether it doesn’t move, whether it disappears immediately, or disappears a day later, if Letby was there, that’s the proof she killed them.

 

[Jules2021]

OK dokey. Interesting really as she wasn't at all surprised on that first time but the others much more so.

I did just realise something though. When NJ KC said she was lying about being arrested in her pyjamas she wasn't, she was not referring to the first time was she? Just for what it's worth it's actually much more understandable now we know it was a bit more like a dawn raid. She was indeed in her pyjamas, she was indeed dragged out in front of her parents, humiliating and upsetting for both parties. She's actually kind of right to be upset by that.

I find it remarkable that NJ took that angle on that at all and kind of excluded the others which is a misrepresentation of the events with the arrest of her in her pyjamas being more memorable and more recent. He should have known. It's also remarkable that she herself didn't mention that she can't have been thinking straight as it's glaringly obvious and yeh that really didn't make her look good did it, like she was lying about that but she wasn't.

That's just one small bit and is what it is.

However I do genuinely find it remarkable.

I think she has that same tracksuit on underneath? Police would've let her get dressed. She has a dressing gown on but not PJs.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I think she has that same tracksuit on underneath? Police would've let her get dressed. She has a dressing gown on but not PJs.

You are correct. Can remember saying during the trial that maybe the "lounge suit" was indeed what she called "pyjamas". I think that's the case. Again it should have been clarified by someone. I would also guess it maybe wasn't the Jim jams that was what she was referring to but more the shock at the dawn raid and being hauled out in front of her folks. Again it should have been clarified. Yeh this is all quite obvious stuff to me and I don't know why it wasn't made clear.

 

[Baileyboo]

You are correct. Can remember saying during the trial that maybe the "lounge suit" was indeed what she called "pyjamas". I think that's the case. Again it should have been clarified by someone. I would also guess it maybe wasn't the Jim jams that was what she was referring to but more the shock at the dawn raid and being hauled out in front of her folks. Again it should have been clarified. Yeh this is all quite obvious stuff to me and I don't know why it wasn't made clear.

She was also arrested three times. So it does get a bit confusing.

 

[Baileyboo]

And the “going commando”, and the “boyfriend”..

A disingenuous prosecution clutching at straws, resorting to tactics because the actual evidence is so flimsy.

4,000 other babies they’ve looked at. 4,000 babies who Letby looked after. And not a single one meeting the evidence bar. Meanwhile a whole new bunch of families have had their lives destroyed again by the suggestion their babies were murdered.

We are expected to believe Letby picked up an unexpected shift one day, waltzed into work, and immediately killed a baby she’d never ever met. Then tried to kill their sibling. And what’s the evidence? A rash. A rash that was still there the following day on Baby B, photographed by the mother. It’s the air embolism paradox. Any rash, whether it’s red, brown, pink, blue, pale, purple. Whether it moves, whether it doesn’t move, whether it disappears immediately, or disappears a day later, if Letby was there, that’s the proof she killed them.

There is other evidence of air embolism other than the rash, air was seen on the X ray for some of the babies, the unexplained unexpected collapse and the failure to respond to resuscitation. The court of appeal stated the air embolism evidence was not just about the rash.

 

[Jules2021]

@Sweeper2000 yeah I can't even remember what was said now during the whole nightwear fiasco! I was a bit taken aback at them just going right into her room like that and saying they were arresting her but maybe it's procedure. She defo changed out of PJs. I can see how it was traumatising nonetheless though. Found the article about it-

Lucy Letby: The moment baby killer nurse was arrested in Chester

THIS is the moment when baby serial killer Lucy Letby was arrested at her Chester home in July 2018.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[CS2C]

What part did Johnson get wrong regarding the PJ's? I'm missing something I think...

 

[Sweeper2000]

@Sweeper2000 yeah I can't even remember what was said now during the whole nightwear fiasco! I was a bit taken aback at them just going right into her room like that and saying they were arresting her but maybe it's procedure. She defo changed out of PJs. I can see how it was traumatising nonetheless though. Found the article about it-

Lucy Letby: The moment baby killer nurse was arrested in Chester

THIS is the moment when baby serial killer Lucy Letby was arrested at her Chester home in July 2018.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Again something to note. If she was comfortable to go with the police in the Lee Cooper lounge suit the first time why did she just put the dressing gown on for the last arrest? I can't quite tell exactly what she is wearing when they wake her up. She's got the gown on but I can't see If she's wearing the hoodie underneath.

 

[Sweeper2000]

What part did Johnson get wrong regarding the PJ's? I'm missing something I think...

Mostly that his angle was that she was lying about wearing pyjamas when she had changed. I genuinely can't see if she is wearing that hoodie as they walk into her room which would mean the lounge suit is indeed the pyjamas.

 

[Parker Knoll]

I think the point that a being made in court was that if she could lie about a relatively trivial point in what she was arrested in then she could lie about everything else or that’s what I took from this.
The PJ drama is very confusing now as it was so easily clarified… she could just have asked which arrest NJ KC was referring to and answered appropriately but she argued and argued.
Also why didn’t BM KC reference the point ?

 

[JosieJo]

How do we know she was marched out in PJs at any point?

 

[Sweeper2000]

@wane i won't lie I did find it difficult to bring together the thought that she just went into work one day brimming with murderous intent all of a sudden and chose to do nearly unimaginable things to little lovely jubblies. It's a big leap. It's also now very difficult to bring together that and the perpetrator of it who seems genuinely overwhelmed and upset at seeing her parents like that when she says "don't look, just go in". It's difficult indeed but I couldn't argue that it changes anything to a major degree.

 

[Parker Knoll]

The arrest from the Hereford address pretty much confirm it I think Jo.
It’s all so odd

 

[JosieJo]

The arrest from the Hereford address pretty much confirm it I think Jo.
It’s all so odd

I need to read it as I presumed they would allow someone to dress before leaving in this situation

 

[CS2C]

This is the exact exchange from the transcript.


Q. Well, just remind us about what happened when you were arrested.
A. What do you mean?
Q. You really don't remember?
A. You want me to describe how I was arrested?
Q. Yes, how awful it was and why it was so awful.
A. I've already explained that once.
Q. Yes, well, it's a long time ago and I'd like you to remind us, please.
A. They knocked at my door at 6 o'clock in the morning and they arrested me.
Q. And how were you dressed when you left the house?
A. I think I had a nightie on and then a tracksuit bottom and top and trainers.
Q. Oh, but you told the jury you were taken away in your nightwear, in your pyjamas, I think was how you put it.
A. Yes.
Q. You were taken away in a blue Lee Cooper leisure suit, weren't you?
A. I don't recall exactly. I just know I had a nightie on.
Q. Do you want me to show you a video of it?
A. No.
Q. Well, I'll ask you again. You were taken away in a blue Lee Cooper leisure suit, weren't you?
A. Yes.
Q. On 10 June 2019, when you answered the door, you answered in your nightie.
A. No, I didn't answer the door on -- the 2019.
Q. Oh, you've got a very clear memory of this then, haven't you?
A. Yes, I remember this through the -- the arrests, yes.
Q. When the police came face-to-face with you, you had a nightie on, didn't you?
A. In 2019?
Q. Yes.
A. I had my pyjamas on, yes.
Q. No, you had a nightie on.
A. Okay.
Q. Do you want to see a video?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember having a nightie on?
A. I can't recall specifically which night. I was in bed.
Q. Do you remember what you left the house wearing?
A. Um... No. I know I was unable to get dressed and I think I took a dressing gown as well.
Q. You put your blue Lee Cooper leisure suit on again, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Then you asked them to let you put your dressing gown on over the blue Lee Cooper leisure suit, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. So you weren't taken away in your pyjamas, were you?
A. No.
Q. And you remember this, don't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you lie to the jury about it?
A. I don't know.
Q. You don't know? What advantage were you looking for by telling the jury that you were taken away by the police in your pyjamas? What benefit was there?
A. Because that's what happened on the first time. That was was how quickly everything happened.
Q. No, no. On the first time you were taken away in your blue Lee Cooper -- do you want to watch the video?

(pause)

You are a very calculating woman, aren't you, Lucy Letby?
A. No.

 

[WaneLyrical]

There is other evidence of air embolism other than the rash, air was seen on the X ray for some of the babies, the unexplained unexpected collapse and the failure to respond to resuscitation. The court of appeal stated the air embolism evidence was not just about the rash.

The court of appeal are not doctors, and yet doctors have come out in their droves to say what was presented in court was not evidence of air embolism.

 

[Jules2021]

Are these two different times? I'm so confused!

 

[JosieJo]

Someone put insulin into infusions ..fact imo...no matter how McDonald et al try to spin it ...just so happens it was same nurse who was there at all the other SUDDEN UNEXPECTED COLLAPSES...no relatives present at any of them ...what are the chances ..all of them ..in a unit with open visiting for family ...in reality impossible! ... Letby telling a nurse to look at her baby as they look pale ...a baby in the dark at a distance that the nurse testified it was not possible to see ...her obsession with going into bereaved relatives that she had no responsibility for ...so much so she was repeatedly asked by the nurse in charge to go and look after her own babies ...the perfectly well baby that collapsed minutes after her male "friend" (yea right) left the unit to have a coffee with a female colleague...the baby who projectile vomited further than experienced nurse had never seen in their careers ..vomited MORE FLUID than the baby had taken in by far....could go on and on ...I think McDonalds PR campaign is doing exactly what he wants...distracting from the real evidence

 

[JosieJo]

This is the exact exchange from the transcript.


Q. Well, just remind us about what happened when you were arrested.
A. What do you mean?
Q. You really don't remember?
A. You want me to describe how I was arrested?
Q. Yes, how awful it was and why it was so awful.
A. I've already explained that once.
Q. Yes, well, it's a long time ago and I'd like you to remind us, please.
A. They knocked at my door at 6 o'clock in the morning and they arrested me.
Q. And how were you dressed when you left the house?
A. I think I had a nightie on and then a tracksuit bottom and top and trainers.
Q. Oh, but you told the jury you were taken away in your nightwear, in your pyjamas, I think was how you put it.
A. Yes.
Q. You were taken away in a blue Lee Cooper leisure suit, weren't you?
A. I don't recall exactly. I just know I had a nightie on.
Q. Do you want me to show you a video of it?
A. No.
Q. Well, I'll ask you again. You were taken away in a blue Lee Cooper leisure suit, weren't you?
A. Yes.
Q. On 10 June 2019, when you answered the door, you answered in your nightie.
A. No, I didn't answer the door on -- the 2019.
Q. Oh, you've got a very clear memory of this then, haven't you?
A. Yes, I remember this through the -- the arrests, yes.
Q. When the police came face-to-face with you, you had a nightie on, didn't you?
A. In 2019?
Q. Yes.
A. I had my pyjamas on, yes.
Q. No, you had a nightie on.
A. Okay.
Q. Do you want to see a video?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember having a nightie on?
A. I can't recall specifically which night. I was in bed.
Q. Do you remember what you left the house wearing?
A. Um... No. I know I was unable to get dressed and I think I took a dressing gown as well.
Q. You put your blue Lee Cooper leisure suit on again, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Then you asked them to let you put your dressing gown on over the blue Lee Cooper leisure suit, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. So you weren't taken away in your pyjamas, were you?
A. No.
Q. And you remember this, don't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you lie to the jury about it?
A. I don't know.
Q. You don't know? What advantage were you looking for by telling the jury that you were taken away by the police in your pyjamas? What benefit was there?
A. Because that's what happened on the first time. That was was how quickly everything happened.
Q. No, no. On the first time you were taken away in your blue Lee Cooper -- do you want to watch the video?

(pause)

You are a very calculating woman, aren't you, Lucy Letby?
A. No.

And there it is ..facts