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

[Marantz4250b]

1:56pm

R: Nobody has accused you of neglecting a baby or causing a deterioration.
LL: I know. Just worry i haven't done enough
R: How?
LL: We've lost 2 babies I Was caring for and now this happened today, makes you think 'am I missing something/good enough'
R: Lucy, if anyone knows how hard you've worked over the last three days it's me. The standard of care delivered is tertiary nicu level. if *anybody* says anything to you about not being good enough or performing adequately I want you to promise me that you'll give my details to provide a statement. I don't care who it is and I don't care if I've left the trust.
R: Promise?
LL: Well I sincerely hope I won't ever be needing a statement
But thank you, I promise

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, March 31

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Yeah, that removes any doubt that he was after her or was already involved with her, in my mind!

Also note the "....am I good enough..." comments echo the same thoughts in her note.

 

[Tortoise]

genuinely i think if she had of had her back up because she had done something I would have expected these scanning questions around the time of the alleged incidents but we didn’t see that. Only now, so why now? She may well have picked up on a change of attitudes towards her but how? There was no questions after the dr j and baby k event, no scanning questions on the move to day shifts, so why now?

We have quite a few scanning questions in evidence (in addition to checking the facebook pages of most of the parents, some up until her arrest)

E:
Colleague: "You ok? Just heard about E. Did you have him? Sending hugs xx"
LL: "News travels fast - who told you?

G:
LL: "Had rubbish nights. x"
JJ-K: "Yeah gathered. x"
LL: "Thought someone would have told you x.
The conversation turned to LL asking which of the team had informed JJ-K about the events of the night-shift

G:
Nurse: Yup I know, looks dreadful, getting puffy.
LL: Any idea what's caused it?"
Nurse: "Nope. Just seems to be a circ collapse. Chest seems clear."

I:
In WhatsApp messages LL asked a colleague if I was staying on the unit. She added: "I'd like to keep her please."
Colleague: "Yes. Staying for now. OK re keeping."
An hour later the colleague messaged: "I've had to re-allocate. Sorry."
LL: "Has something happened?"

Dr Beebe said: "I remember Lucy crying with another nurse and it was very much of the gist of 'it's always me when it happens, my babies, it's always happening to me a lot'.

K:
A message sent to Letby at 10.04am from a colleague says: 'Hope you had a good shift and are in the land of nod now!'
Letby messages her colleague at 5.48pm: '25wkr delivered so fairly busy...' The message was in reply to a colleague saying she had hoped the shift had gone well, and expecting she was asleep at that time ('in the land of nod').
Letby adds: 'Everything ok? Not like you not to text back'. The colleague apologises.

N:
LL: 'What do you think caused his (Child N's) bleed?'

 

[Sweeper2000]

Yeah, that removes any doubt that he was after her or was already involved with her, in my mind!

Also note the "....am I good enough..." comments echo the same thoughts in her note.

It’s also very much in line with the obliviousness to potential trouble ahead we have seen from her, much like someone who doesn’t have a reason to have her back up.

 

[Sweeper2000]

We have quite a few scanning questions in evidence (in addition to checking the facebook pages of most of the parents, some up until her arrest)

E:
Colleague: "You ok? Just heard about E. Did you have him? Sending hugs xx"
LL: "News travels fast - who told you?

G:
LL: "Had rubbish nights. x"
JJ-K: "Yeah gathered. x"
LL: "Thought someone would have told you x.
The conversation turned to LL asking which of the team had informed JJ-K about the events of the night-shift

G:
Nurse: Yup I know, looks dreadful, getting puffy.
LL: Any idea what's caused it?"
Nurse: "Nope. Just seems to be a circ collapse. Chest seems clear."

I:
In WhatsApp messages LL asked a colleague if I was staying on the unit. She added: "I'd like to keep her please."
Colleague: "Yes. Staying for now. OK re keeping."
An hour later the colleague messaged: "I've had to re-allocate. Sorry."
LL: "Has something happened?"

Dr Beebe said: "I remember Lucy crying with another nurse and it was very much of the gist of 'it's always me when it happens, my babies, it's always happening to me a lot'.

K:
A message sent to Letby at 10.04am from a colleague says: 'Hope you had a good shift and are in the land of nod now!'
Letby messages her colleague at 5.48pm: '25wkr delivered so fairly busy...' The message was in reply to a colleague saying she had hoped the shift had gone well, and expecting she was asleep at that time ('in the land of nod').
Letby adds: 'Everything ok? Not like you not to text back'. The colleague apologises.

N:
LL: 'What do you think caused his (Child N's) bleed?'

Jmo. I never did get the impression that those kinds of questions were scanning. They all seemed within normal parameters to me. ill give an example of how I reached that conclusion. “News travels fast, who told you”? If one were to look at the underlying emotions in that sentence you could assume a perceived negative Ie gossiping but it isn’t one preceded by or followed by anxiety. If anxiety was at the root of that sentence the immediate question would have been “who told you”? then “news travels fast”. I know it’s not a strong example and is just my opinion but that’s the kind of thing I have been looking for along with something that is directly and self evidently anxious. With the example given the only problem clearly perceived is people gossiping not that something has happened that she doesn’t want people talking about Or that it could potentially reflect badly on her. Again she seems oblivious to the potential that people could be looking at her with a big big raised eyebrow. Like she hasn’t done anything.

however the fb searches have come as close to questionable as anything else presented, big question mark for me there.
jmo.

as something else there isn’t a way of perceiving those scanning texts as defensive in nature for example, “who told you?, people should not be gossiping“

 

[Marantz4250b]

I don't think he suspected a thing at this time, even though we know what was going on in the background with doctors demanding her removal at this time. I think that is why she was so shocked to hear him give evidence, I wonder when exactly he changed his mind (or if he even has fully changed it)...

The thing I think that people miss is that just because someone is a witness for the prosecution doesn't mean that they are necessarily lining up on the prosecution's side or are wholly against the defendant.

The witness is merely giving evidence to what they saw or, in the case of an independent expert, what their expertise leads them in their examination of the facts.

In the case of Dr Nice, he is simply giving his accounts of what he witnessed or what he recorded and why. Just the facts, essentially. Many, many, many years ago I was asked to give an evidence statement against someone I knew but it was noting more than a simple statement along the lines of ...I gave something (entirely lawfully on my part, btw) to the defandant on a particular date... and that was it. It was a simple statement of fact and nothing more.

 

[Sundial]

I agree with you. It would be a strange thing to say otherwise, IMO.

It begs the question why he was behind a screen though; if he’s willing to vouch for her. JMO

 

[Dotta]

It begs the question why he was behind a screen though; if he’s willing to vouch for her. JMO

The screen is for those who want to stay anonymous - for anybody watching.

 

[Tortoise]

If anxiety was at the root of that sentence the immediate question would have been “who told you”? then “news travels fast”.

And in your analysis, how did you rule out that she wrote "news travels fast" first because she didn't want it to be obvious that her main concern was "who told you?"

"News travels fast - who told you?" feels very much to me as if she is hiding the curiosity behind a casual comment, and her motivation was entirely to find out who might be talking about the events. JMO

 

[Sundial]

The screen is for those who want to stay anonymous - for anybody watching.

Of course, that’s very true and understandable. But I was thinking more along the line of other factors really. They would still hear his name. I guess if he was very willing and determined to support her, which is the impression I get, I Jst find it strange he would have the screen. That’s all.
JMO

 

[Anxala]

It begs the question why he was behind a screen though; if he’s willing to vouch for her. JMO

Of course, that’s very true and understandable. But I was thinking more along the line of other factors really. They would still hear his name. I guess if he was very willing and determined to support her, which is the impression I get, I Jst find it strange he would have the screen. That’s all.
JMO

A lot of time has elapsed since those txts though. So much could have happened in the interim to make him change his mind about her, not least her being accused of multiple murders and attempted murders. That would certainly, I imagine, give anyone pause for thought. And if the latter, then perhaps he felt betrayed by her for pulling the wool over his doting eyes and just couldn't face looking at her...

 

[May72031]

It begs the question why he was behind a screen though; if he’s willing to vouch for her. JMO

I wouldn't blame any witnesses from requesting the screen if they had fairly close relations with LL at the time this was all happening, regardless of whether they might have supported her back then, or even support her now.

IMO, there is no reason to believe he vouches for LL now.

 

[Dotta]

Im really waiting for Police questioning transcripts/audio.

I hope Mr Dan will be very focused

 

[Tortoise]

This was doc choc's testimony for baby P

After 45mins the decision was taken, in conjunction with his family, to stop resuscitation. Prosecutor Simon Driver asks the doctor: 'Can you understand the course his life took over those few days (since his birth)' 'No', the medic responds

https://twitter.com/x/status/1637822872629510145

 

[Sweeper2000]

And in your analysis, how did you rule out that she wrote "news travels fast" first because she didn't want it to be obvious that her main concern was "who told you?"

"News travels fast - who told you?" feels very much to me as if she is hiding the curiosity behind a casual comment, and her motivation was entirely to find out who might be talking about the events. JMO

I totally get that line of thought. I suppose I’m not actually ruling it out only stating that that passage of writing doesn’t give it away. In essence no reason to think it’s anything but a normal response that anyone would give in that situation.

i Would give that proposition much more due seriousness if there was anything that could be tied into that being a likely suggestion. As an example any other instances of her using veiled language, ever. The same investigatory method I’m applying to her imo personal usage of the words “not good enough” and clinical usage of her personal phrase “rubbish”.

Can I ask what it is that makes you think that that is a veiled question with only one aim?

 

[marynnu]

I wouldn't blame any witnesses from requesting the screen if they had fairly close relations with LL at the time this was all happening, regardless of whether they might have supported her back then, or even support her now.

IMO, there is no reason to believe he vouches for LL now.

I think I'd be the same. I feel really sorry for him.

 

[Dotta]

How many Prosecutors are there?
- Nick J.
- Simon D.
- Philip A.

Anybody else?

Quite a numerous Team

 

[Sweeper2000]

I think I'd be the same. I feel really sorry for him.

There is nothing quite like a feeling of betrayal for a sense of hurt, add that to the feelings you would have towards someone who may have done as alleged and I can’t think of the words that would do it justice. Sickened is one.

 

[Dotta]

I think I'd be the same. I feel really sorry for him.

I might seem heartless but I don't feel the same.

He was a DOCTOR completely oblivious to the (alleged) drama of patients under his care.
Drama happening "under his nose".

Clueless.

Not to mention engaging into (alleged) "office/hospital romance" during working hours - and I guess much to amusement of staff and gossip.
(The text of a nurse about "going commando")

My sympathy and tears are solely for Babies and their parents.

JMO

 

[Anxala]

I wouldn't blame any witnesses from requesting the screen if they had fairly close relations with LL at the time this was all happening, regardless of whether they might have supported her back then, or even support her now.

And not just anyone who had a close relationship with her. You only need look at the appalling damage an out of control social media can inflict upon anyone whose name/face happens to flow into the latest news cycle. This is wholly warranted self-protection.

I'm surprised more of the witnesses here haven't chosen the same degree of anonymity as Dr Choc.

 

[marynnu]

So, do we think Dr.A has named someone? Or are the asterisks just for emphasis?

"If *anybody* says something to you about being not good enough or performing adequately I want you to promise me that you'll give my details to provide a statement."