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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Legal said:
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?
Click to expand...
Maybe, or maybe she's just... "over-tired"

She's definitely being treated with kid gloves, in a way I've not seen before in a trial. She already had short hours and regular breaks and now there's the ending things early. If it's the only way to get through the cross examination though, then so be it.
 
Tortoise said:
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.
Click to expand...
RSBM

I hadn't realised it was that many! He's doing an excellent job at pointing out possible patterns in the timings of the collapses. IMO
 
With so many early breaks and long intervals between Court sittings I wonder how long her taking the stand will last.
They are only discussing Baby "I".

And I guess, besides the Babies, Prosecution will also focus on handover sheets at home and "post it" notes.

JMO
 
GoodDayToYouSir said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't describe her wording as clumsy usually. In fact the opposite. A lot of the things she says seem to be very cleverly worded (e.g. off the top of my head when she said it was a shock to "walk into that situation" when talking about Baby A's death, implying the collapse was already happening as she arrived).

IMO she comes across as somebody who knows the power of words, and knows how a subtle change in wording can change the whole meaning. Hence her realising immediately, the possible implication of her saying "looking for" instead of "looking at". JMO
 
ColourPurple said:
Maybe, or maybe she's just... "over-tired"

She's definitely being treated with kid gloves, in a way I've not seen before in a trial. She already had short hours and regular breaks and now there's the ending things early. If it's the only way to get through the cross examination though, then so be it.
Click to expand...
I can understand the judge taking it upon himself to end the session early if he observes the accused is upset, as that isn’t conducive to getting coherent testimony for the jury to consider.

But I haven’t seen a trial before where the defendant is able to herself request that cross-examination stops so she can take a break, which has happened a couple of times. Maybe that is a normal thing and does happen if an accused is giving evidence over many days, but I do wonder whether she is being allowed to request breaks when she needs them because of some underlying mental health issues, which the judge obviously has to be mindful of.
 
ColourPurple said:
RSBM

I hadn't realised it was that many! He's doing an excellent job at pointing out possible patterns in the timings of the collapses. IMO
Click to expand...
That's why this case has always been about so much more than than the nursing spreadsheet.

There's the experts not knowing who the medical staff were, designated nurses going on their breaks or just leaving the room, the timing of many events being in the early morning hours when less staff on and no visitors, babies recovering on the next shift, collapses following the pattern of LL's changes from nightshift to dayshift, with sometimes weeks of recovery in between, stopping during her holidays and when she was taken off the unit. It's a tapestry of all of these circumstances together.

MOO
 
ColourPurple said:
I wouldn't describe her wording as clumsy usually. In fact the opposite. A lot of the things she says seem to be very cleverly worded (e.g. off the top of my head when she said it was a shock to "walk into that situation" when talking about Baby A's death, implying the collapse was already happening as she arrived).

IMO she comes across as somebody who knows the power of words, and knows how a subtle change in wording can change the whole meaning. Hence her realising immediately, the possible implication of her saying "looking for" instead of "looking at". JMO
Click to expand...
I think there is a difference between having certain rehearsed statements in your head which you reel off when prompted “such as walk into a situation” and having the intellectual fluidity to enable you to respond to questions which you might not have thought were going to be asked or are not asked in the way you had expected.

She does not strike me in the slightest as being articulate. I think that saying she “ knew what she was looking for” makes perfect sense in that it means that as a more experienced practitioner, she knows what to look for in terms of early signs of something being wrong with a baby, such as paleness. But she was clumsy in my opinion because her answers are often somewhat incomplete and imprecise, which creates these opportunities for different meanings to be attached to what she is saying. So in the example, we are talking about, if she had answered more completely along the lines of “ I knew what I was looking for in terms of early signs of babies in medical distress” then it would not be suspicious and it would not have created a memorable moment in the trial, which is now being viewed as a “gotcha” moment or a Freudian slip.

But it’s only once the words are out of her mouth and the follow-up question comes from NJ that she realises that the words can be misconstrued.
 
ColourPurple said:
I wouldn't describe her wording as clumsy usually. In fact the opposite. A lot of the things she says seem to be very cleverly worded (e.g. off the top of my head when she said it was a shock to "walk into that situation" when talking about Baby A's death, implying the collapse was already happening as she arrived).

IMO she comes across as somebody who knows the power of words, and knows how a subtle change in wording can change the whole meaning. Hence her realising immediately, the possible implication of her saying "looking for" instead of "looking at". JMO
Click to expand...

Is it just me that sees no significance in saying 'looking for'?
 
Tortoise said:
13:04

Infant was 'doing well' before she collapsed​

The prosecution claims Letby only liked being in the highest dependency nursery (nursery one).
"I liked being in all of the nurseries," Letby says when asked about this.
Nick Johnson, the prosecution barrister, then asks if she didn't like her new colleague on the unit.
"I don't agree with that," Letby says.
He says Letby had also fallen out with another colleague, who "wouldn't talk to you in the aftermath of [children A & B]."
(RECAP: Children A and B are twins - Child A died within 90 minutes of Letby coming onto shift. The prosecution says he 'most likely' died after being injected with air. His elder sister was attacked 28 hours later but survived.)
She again disputes this.
Paperwork from 30 September 2015 shows Child I was making good progress - and similar to Child G had been due to receive her immunisations. (This is something only done once an infant is reasonably healthy.)
"This is a baby who was doing well, who was demanding milk and taking it from a bottle at 00.30," says Mr Johnson.
"Yes," says Letby.

13:06

Letby knew routine of victim's family 'very well'​

The prosecution claims Lucy Letby knew the routine of Child I's family "very well".
She is accused of attempting to kill the infant four times before succeeding.
"The family were very attentive and present at the unit a lot," Letby says.
Nick Johnson, barrister for the prosecution, says Child I's mother would visit her new daughter after dropping her older children off at school.
"She visited regularly, yes," Letby says.

news.sky.com

Lucy Letby trial: Facebook searches of nurse accused of murdering babies read out in court

Lucy Letby, a former neonatal nurse, has been back in court for another day of cross-examination by the prosecution on Friday. She is accused of the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of 10 others, and denies all the charges.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
Click to expand...
Anyone know what this is about? Ie name of colleague assuming its known, any convo on this point, I’m wondering if. It’s related to the not very nice comments about her role?
not being funny but it’s highly unprofessional and immature to not. Talk to a colleague,sounds silly if you ask me.
 
GoodDayToYouSir said:
I think there is a difference between having certain rehearsed statements in your head which you reel off when prompted “such as walk into a situation” and having the intellectual fluidity to enable you to respond to questions which you might not have thought were going to be asked or are not asked in the way you had expected.

She does not strike me in the slightest as being articulate. I think that saying she “ knew what she was looking for” makes perfect sense in that it means that as a more experienced practitioner, she knows what to look for in terms of early signs of something being wrong with a baby, such as paleness. But she was clumsy in my opinion because her answers are often somewhat incomplete and imprecise, which creates these opportunities for different meanings to be attached to what she is saying. So in the example, we are talking about, if she had answered more completely along the lines of “ I knew what I was looking for in terms of early signs of babies in medical distress” then it would not be suspicious and it would not have created a memorable moment in the trial, which is now being viewed as a “gotcha” moment or a Freudian slip.

But it’s only once the words are out of her mouth and the follow-up question comes from NJ that she realises that the words can be misconstrued.
Click to expand...
I think she probably underestimated how hard it would be to think on her feet.
 
Sweeper2000 said:
Anyone know what this is about? Ie name of colleague assuming its known, any convo on this point, I’m wondering if. It’s related to the not very nice comments about her role?
not being funny but it’s highly unprofessional and immature to not. Talk to a colleague,sounds silly if you ask me.
Click to expand...
I'm wondering if it's Mel Taylor. I've noticed Sky don't seem to be up with whether some of the nurses can be named or not in their reporting, not using the name Ashleigh in their reporting about the doorway incident.

I think he could be referring to LL's text saying Mel didn't want to talk with her about baby A's death, on the night of baby C's death.

JMO
 
ColourPurple said:
Maybe, or maybe she's just... "over-tired"

She's definitely being treated with kid gloves, in a way I've not seen before in a trial. She already had short hours and regular breaks and now there's the ending things early. If it's the only way to get through the cross examination though, then so be it.
Click to expand...
I'm not seeing any kid gloves here, just a judge aware of how stressful her time on the stand is and that she's no use to anyone if she becomes overwhelmed by the intensity of the questioning and turns into a gibbering mess.

Seems just like general care for a defendant under enormous pressure. Innocent or guilty, her wellbeing has to come first.

In any case, what we might regard as short hours may feel like days to her. In addition to which, she's living it every hour away from the court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 195 more.
Total: 2,999 (members: 196, guests: 2,803)

Online statistics

Members online
196
Guests online
2,803
Total visitors
2,999
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,818
Messages
17,959,568
Members
228,620
Latest member
ohbeehaave
Back
Top