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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now15:36

Court resumes​

The jury has filed back in.
Letby is visibly more tearful and holds tissues in her hands which she occasionally uses to wipe her eyes.

 
3:41pm

The photo of the cot, as shown previously, is displayed.

1685025743128.png
NJ: "Do you agree it is accurate?"

LL: "No...there would be more light visible. The cot would potentially be nearer to the light.

LL: "I think it was nearer to the workbench than that."

Mr Johnson asks how big Child I's hands would be - Letby says they would be small.

Mr Johnson says Child I would be almost entirely obscured.

LL: "Just her hands and her face."

NJ: "Which would be covered by that tentlike structure."

LL: "Not entirely no."

Mr Johnson asks how Letby could spot something Ashleigh Hudson could not, as mentioned from her police interview.

"I had more experience so I knew what I was looking for - at."

"What do you mean looking 'for'?"

"I don't mean it like that - I'm finding it hard to concentrate."

 
15:45

Letby refuses to answer a question - as judge ends early​

The court is being shown an image of nursery two in a state of almost total darkness.
Nick Johnson, the prosecution barrister, asks if this is an accurate representation of what it was like on 12/13 October, when Letby is alleged to have attacked Child I.
"No," says Letby.
The cot has a tent-like structure over it - Letby says this is to "minimise bright light" to the baby.
"There is almost nothing to see," Mr Johnson says.
"Just her hands and face," Letby replies.
"Which could have been covered by that tent-like structure," Mr Johnson says,
"Not entirely no," says Letby.
She refutes what a colleague previously said - the colleague said people "can't see anything" from that doorway.
'Maybe I spotted something that XX wasn't able to spot. The rooms are never that dark that you can't see the baby at all,' Letby previously said in a police interview.
She now says she had more experience "so knew what I was looking for".
"What do you mean by that," Mr Johnson asks.
There is silence as Letby refuses to answer the question.
Letby then says she is finding it "quite hard to concentrate on all of the dates".
The judge then concludes proceedings early, "having observed the witness" he says it has been a "long day" for Letby.

15:46

Court is adjourned early​

It will resume again at 10.30am on Tuesday morning.

 
3m ago15:13

Baby was 'white and gasping for air'​

Letby tells the court the colleague who was meant to be monitoring Child I lacked experience.
"I don't think [colleague] had a lot of experience in recognising changes in babies," Letby tells the court.
Letby's defence statement is now being read to the court.
In it, she says: 'I could see she was white and gasping for air.'
Letby agrees this was correct.
Nick Johnson, prosecuting, is asking - as he has with all the babies - if staffing levels or incompetence contributed to the death of Child I.
Letby says: "No."

Very cleverly NJ appears to be pointing out that staff (this nurse) was not incompetent (or contributed to the the babies death)... and LL agrees.
Jmo
 
3:44pm

The judge, Mr Justice James Goss, says it "has been a long day" and the trial is adjourned for today.

3:46pm

The next court day scheduled will be for Tuesday, May 30.

 
As far as I’m concerned ‘Don't you think Child I looks pale?’ Is a weird thing to say in itself.

If you’re the more senior nurse, and you think a baby looks pale, you don’t stand in the doorway and say to your junior “don’t you think that baby looks pale?” You go and check the baby, or you say “Ashleigh, baby looks very pale, was she this pale at the last obvservation?” Or “has she been this pale for a while?”

I just think it’s the most bizarre thing to say, almost like you’re wanting the junior nurse to be the one to actually notice, or be the first “on the scene” or similar.
 
Thank you for the updates today.
Strange, when she can’t or won’t answer, there’s this silence or strange sort of feeling to it. Then needs a break/becomes tearful.

Regardless, my thoughts to the families (and jury), this must be incredibly difficult for them to hear in so much heartbreaking detail.
 
Interesting I thought, makes you wonder specifically what that was about in more detail..

Although it’s possible the colleague was distressed enough by it themselves and just didn’t want to discuss it. Understandable really. But it does remind me of the whole thing with Mel Taylor where LL is texting JJK and expresses how Mel didn’t want to discuss baby C I think? But Mel was then back in room 1 or something.

So she’d fell out with Mel already over a similar thing and here, a second colleague who wouldn’t talk to her in similar circumstances. Very odd.

JMO

If true, IMO not talking to someone is quite extreme, especially in a work environment such as this. It could get pretty volatile at times where I worked, but people generally patched things up very quickly. I can only recall a couple of very serious clashes and they when one staff member had behaved very badly indeed. Nothing to do with patients though, it must be said.
I wonder if he means whoever it was, just wouldn't talk to her about baby A's death, rather than not talking to her at all. She did mention that Mel Taylor wasn't interested in talking about baby A

"Anyway forget it. I can only talk about it properly with those who knew him and Mel not interested so I'll overcome it myself."


 
15:45

Letby refuses to answer a question - as judge ends early​

The court is being shown an image of nursery two in a state of almost total darkness.
Nick Johnson, the prosecution barrister, asks if this is an accurate representation of what it was like on 12/13 October, when Letby is alleged to have attacked Child I.
"No," says Letby.
The cot has a tent-like structure over it - Letby says this is to "minimise bright light" to the baby.
"There is almost nothing to see," Mr Johnson says.
"Just her hands and face," Letby replies.
"Which could have been covered by that tent-like structure," Mr Johnson says,
"Not entirely no," says Letby.
She refutes what a colleague previously said - the colleague said people "can't see anything" from that doorway.
'Maybe I spotted something that XX wasn't able to spot. The rooms are never that dark that you can't see the baby at all,' Letby previously said in a police interview.
She now says she had more experience "so knew what I was looking for".
"What do you mean by that," Mr Johnson asks.
There is silence as Letby refuses to answer the question.
Letby then says she is finding it "quite hard to concentrate on all of the dates".
The judge then concludes proceedings early, "having observed the witness" he says it has been a "long day" for Letby.

15:46

Court is adjourned early​

It will resume again at 10.30am on Tuesday morning.


NJ has been on top form today, back to how he was last week, and LL is back to being quiet and tearful. Compared to her cockiness yesterday it’s quite a change IMO. It also adds to the idea that LL switches from quiet and reserved to cocky, assertive and self assured depending on how much control she feels she has over a situation. The water works started IMO because NJ has completely caught her out on baby I, the evidence is overwhelming. The only thing she can do is play victim Lucy and cry, she has no power over this questioning atall, finally she defiantly refuses to answer a question.

Also, how has it been a long day for LL? Taking off breaks she’s probably spent 4 hours testifying, they were late starting and late back from lunch so maybe even less! She’s only had to testify for 2 days this week…

IMO she is crumbling, she’s realising that her lies are being exposed, the questions are coming thick and fast and she can’t think of a lie quick enough. So now she gets a break until Tuesday to try and come up with a story to explain why she could see baby I’s condition when in her cot half covered with a hood in a very dimly lit room…

I find it absolutely insulting that she’s said that Ashleigh Hudson wasn’t experienced enough to notice a baby being pale and gasping for air. You don’t even have to be a nurse to notice that isn’t right IMO. Anyone who saw a baby gasping and pale would know something was wrong. It’s yet another attempt to paint Lucy as the intelligent, competent, diligent senior nurse who knows more than every one else. At the expense of yet another colleague.

All MOO
 
Blimey, this continued insistence that everyone else is incompetent! She’s definitely not winning any team player awards! The other nurses/doctors she mentions must be fuming. She always seems so angry under the surface. I know staffing on the NHS is tight but I’m surprised she wasn’t flagged up as a major management issue even before any suspicions of deaths. Did nobody talk to her in a management sense about this stuff like falling out with coworkers and being judgemental about their skills? Or is that sort of management not common with nurses… I know it can be a pretty harsh “stop squabbling and get on with it” sort of environment.
 
A neonatal nurse attacked nine of her alleged victims just hours after their parents left their cotsides, a court has been told.

[...]

Mr Johnson suggested to the defendant: “(Child H’s father) leaving gave you the opportunity to sabotage (Child H), didn’t it?”

Letby said: “No.”

Mr Johnson said: “Just as in the cases of (Child B), (Child C), (Child E), (Child I), (Child M), (Child N), (Child O) and (Child P) – all children who deteriorated shortly after their parents left.

[...]

Mr Johnson put it to Letby that the deterioration was caused by her removing a chest drain - a tube to assist breathing - from Child H.

The prosecutor said: “You were sabotaging (Child H) weren’t you?”

Letby said: “No.”

[...]

The prosecutor accused Letby of attacking another baby girl, Child I, when her mother left the nursery.

He said she tried to kill the infant on September 30 by force-feeding her milk and air while Child I’s mother had left the unit to pick up her other children from school.

 
So has she slipped up by saying she knew what she was looking for rather than looking at? Implying she was expecting some sort of change?
Perhaps. Or this is showing the stark contrast between a highly educated word smith (like any KC who uses and analyses words with laser like precision) and a lay person who doesn’t , and who uses clumsy, general terms to describe things which can have more than one interpretation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
148
Guests online
948
Total visitors
1,096

Forum statistics

Threads
589,933
Messages
17,927,859
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top