UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #24

[Blondiexoxo]

What I find strange is that LL never seemed to question what was causing all the collapses and deaths. We haven’t seen any texts from her after the death of a child asking colleagues why this keeps happening, questioning whether it’s something she’s doing? Questioning her competence as a nurse because of how many devestating incidents have happened on her shift. Even the most innocent person would surely second guess themselves and try to get to the bottom of it?

LL is trying to come across as a competent, intelligent nurse who does everything by the book. The fact that she didn’t seem to question these events or ask colleagues if they thought it was something she’d missed or a mistake she’d made etc.. it just doesn’t gel with the image she’s trying to portray on the stand IMO. She’s saying other colleagues weren’t experienced or qualified enough to deal with certain babies, yet she was in her eyes better qualified than many of the other nurses, but in almost every single case a collapse seems to have happened to babies she was either caring for, had just provided care to, or was involved in the care of. Yet LL doesn’t seem to have twigged that the care she provided could be in any way a factor in a collapse.

I find it really unusual because from what we’ve heard of LL she was very work oriented, was thinking about the babies when she wasn’t on shift, was texting colleagues about work when they weren’t at work. She seemed borderline obsessed with the NNU… It doesn’t make sense that someone who seemed to be such a critical thinker as LL wasn’t desperately trying to work out what had caused these collapses, all of which she’d witnessed at some point either during resuscitation efforts or raising the alarm.

She wasn’t profoundly affected to the point she needed time off work, she wasn’t asking colleagues for their thoughts except for when she was offering explanations such as ‘overwhelming sepsis’ ‘extreme prematurity’.. at no point did she add up and realise the vast amount of incidents there had been, each one occurring while she was on shift. It just seemed to be business as usual for LL right up until she was removed from the unit IMO

All MOO

 

[May72031]

LL seems to have a habit of remembering all the things that are innocuous about these events, yet whenever something comes up that could paint her in a bad light she can’t recall it. It’s weird to me that you can remember insignificant details but not the ones that truly matter. JMHO.

This reminds me of the (in)famous interrogation of Stephanie Lazarus, which will probably be familiar to many Websleuthers. She would ramble on in great detail about irrelevant events 20-30 years previously, rattling off names of people she briefly once knew, or anything that was not incriminating to her - but when it came to the event of the brutal murder of her on-off boyfriend's wife (Lazarus even feigns not knowing her name), her recollection becomes very vague, with her blaming the fact "it was a million years ago"!

 

[marynnu]

I think the unit would also have have registers and senior registers.

The first level is House Officer (not employed on neonatal units), then Senior House officer (SHO), registrar, senior registrar and consultant.
All of them are junior doctors apart from consultants.

 

[la patrick777]

The first level is House Officer (not employed on neonatal units), then Senior House officer (SHO), registrar, senior registrar and consultant.

be dealing with grumpy dr's if I called them junior

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

I thought it was a brilliant way of showing how she is disputing something and at the same time saying she has no memory of the time in question. What other example could he give of something she wouldn't remember but doesn't dispute?

"Mr Johnson asks how, if she has no memory, she can dispute the fact she was in the nursery.
"I have not agreed that I was definitely in the nursery," she said.
Mr Johnson says she is "ignoring the question" because she cannot answer the question.
"Do you remember being born?" Mr Johnson asks.
"No," Letby says.
"Do you dispute you were born?"
After a pause, Letby replies: "No."

Lucy Letby trial live: Nurse accused of murdering seven babies to continue giving evidence

I disagree. I thought it came across as a smart alec question which sought to score quick points by drawing false parallels.

Asking whether LL disputes whether she was born because she can’t remember being born: the evidence which categorically establishes that she was born is the fact that she is a living, breathing person who is sat in the witness box. We aren’t being asked to rely on the memory of someone who was asked about it a few years after the event (when interviewed by police) in order to establish the fact of her birth.

In contrast, NJ was trying to get LL and the jury to accept as a fact that LL was in a nursery because a colleague has said she was there when interviewed a couple years after the event by police. So I don’t see anything wrong with LL refusing to accept she was in the nursery purely based on a colleague’s memory . It is completely different.

If LL was a bit more intellectually agile, she could (and should IMO) have responded as such to NJ. But she isn’t and she didn’t .

It does the prosecution no favours IMO because it paints NJ in a negative light and feeds into the image of a weeping woman being publicly patronised and humiliated by an older man whilst giving evidence on the stand.

You don’t want there to be any prospect of such an image being created in the mind of the jury IMO as it risks distracting them from the actual evidence . I’m not saying give her an easy ride or treat her with kid gloves or let apparent inconsistencies or u-turns go unremarked upon. But don’t try to be cute or show boat.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Never knew "belittling" was an issue in a trial.

I’m not sure where you are from , but in the UK, even though the proceedings are adversarial, barristers tend to conduct themselves in a far more restrained and polite way than we might see on tv and in the USA.

Maybe the parallel is what Americans like to refer to as “badgering “ the witness .

 

[notsure]

I’m not sure where you are from , but in the UK, even though the proceedings are adversarial, barristers tend to conduct themselves in a far more restrained and polite way than we might see on tv and in the USA.

Maybe the parallel is what Americans like to refer to as “badgering “ the witness .

I'm from the UK. I just haven't heard that term used as an objection by the defence before.

 

[Imnothere]

Am I right in thinking that mr Johnson is actually giving the times in which the alleged attacks have taken place now?
for instance with baby I, what I don’t get is if it is alleged that she attacked the baby and then that baby died later on in the shift and if it was an AE i would presume that baby would have been declared dead within forty minutes. so what’s the timings on the alleged attack compared to the recorded time of death?

It's not always immediate. I can't remember the baby, but there was a case where it seemed to take an age for the baby to die. I think this was the case where the mother told Lucy that the baby's not dead yet.

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

It's not always immediate. I can't remember the baby, but there was a case where it seemed to take an age for the baby to die. I think this was the case where the mother told Lucy that the baby's not dead yet.

No that was an earlier baby. Baby C. Premature baby survived 'injection of air', Lucy Letby trial hears

But it's easy to get the two confused because LL's reported behavior is similar.

 

[katydid23]

What a ridiculous' question to ask, do you know the difference between life and death. And all this did you kill them, no, did you enjoy it, what is the purpose of this kind of questioning? Is someone expected to say no I didn’t kill them but yes I enjoyed it?

Of course he didn't expect the answer he wanted from her. But it was a way to convey to the jury, what the prosecution's case is/ And what they think her mental state was. The jury wants a motive or an explanation. JMO

 

[katydid23]

It seems to be his style, goading and baiting. I really don't understand his need to do this. It's not as if it's achieving anything useful. Maybe he thinks it will impress the jury?

I think it is achieving a few things. The defendant is on trial for unspeakable acts. While being questioned, she needs to be rattled and pressured if the prosecution wants her to drop her act and appear less sure of herself and her calm answers.

The purpose for asking tough questions is to remind the jury that she is accused of very serious crimes. So asking her about changing observation notes, on its face, would seem unimportant. But when it is mixed in with the alleged accusations, of her injecting air into the baby whose notes she was writing, it is a much more serious interview. And it would seem more likely that she might have had a reason to make those messy changes on the notes.

I don't think it is to impress the jury. I think it is to keep the questioning in full context of the allegations. These questions are not about making mistakes in notes or being misleading with the timeline. These questions are about serious criminal allegations concerning murder.

 

[katydid23]

This questioning isn’t landing for the prosecution IMO.

Thank God, I’ve never lost a child , but I have been in a hospital in the immediate aftermath of close family members dying , and the nurses have in every instance talked to us about happy times when the person was alive and in the hospital (such as how they were such a “character “ and made the nurses laugh ).

And I’ve also read several doctors’ memoirs where they talk to a deceased person as if they were still alive. One such example is in “ With the end in mind” by Kathryn Mannix , who was a palliative care doctor for many years (if you haven’t read it, I highly recommend it as it is one of the standout books in the genre, which will simultaneously break your heart and lift your spirit).

In one passage, Dr Kathryn has a cancer patient die and the patient is sent for an autopsy. Dr Kathryn goes along to the autopsy and takes the ward sister with her (it is her first time seeing a post-mortem). The deceased is on the table with her abdomen completely cut open and Dr Kathryn enters the room, goes up to the table and says “hello [patient name ], I’ve brought ward sister along with me to find out what all the trouble was causing you pain in your ribs.”

It might sound shocking, but talking about / to a dead person as if they were still there does not raise alarm bells for me.

I think there is a difference between talking about Granddad with the family after he passed, expectedly. And how a neonatal nurse would speak to grieving parents of a newborn preemie, bathing their dead baby, who had collapsed unexpectedly. I do not think that was the time for funny, happy memories. JMO

 

[katydid23]

It really annoys me. Stupid questions, such as this and “ do you accept you were born” just serve to diminish NJ in my opinion. He is a highly skilled KC and he has plenty of proper, legitimate questions which he can and should be asking.

These are the kind of silly things you would expect to hear from a lawyer on a legal drama being shown on Channel 5 on a weekday afternoon.

I’m not suggesting for one minute that he should go easy on her. Challenge her as much as you like, point out inconsistencies, but don’t resort to this style of questioning.

I think it lands better in a court room in real life than it does by tweet.

 

[bbsaz]

What's the dance he suggests?

That she fumbles for documentation whilst thinking of a plausible answer? I don't get NJs remark

 

[katydid23]

Am I right in thinking that mr Johnson is actually giving the times in which the alleged attacks have taken place now?
for instance with baby I, what I don’t get is if it is alleged that she attacked the baby and then that baby died later on in the shift and if it was an AE i would presume that baby would have been declared dead within forty minutes. so what’s the timings on the alleged attack compared to the recorded time of death?

I think the allegation is that LL pumped excessive amounts of milk and also air, at different points, in the 4 attacks. So if she had been pumped with milk as well, it could have been a slower process.

 

[katydid23]

Mr Johnson has been reviewing this horrid evidence for years. He has interviewed grieving, devastated family members, offered them Kleenex tissues to dry their eyes, listened to their stories, and watched the defendant calling them 'confused or misleading' as they talk about their painful memories.

He has spoken to many co-workers and colleagues and many medical experts, who have led him to believe the allegations he is now putting forth. He sees the sweet, nice defendant as an adversary.

Mr Johnson has to stand next to the woman who he believes caused tremendous pain and torture to innocent babies and families, and try to get her to reveal herself, in the next few weeks. I am not surprised that he is trying to 'belittle' her in his attempts to rattle her cage. He is under tremendous pressure himself, if he believes his allegations and he feels it is up to him to get her to reveal her true self.

My father was a defense attorney and I know how urgent it was, in his mind, to get things done during a trial.

 

[katydid23]

What I find strange is that LL never seemed to question what was causing all the collapses and deaths. We haven’t seen any texts from her after the death of a child asking colleagues why this keeps happening, questioning whether it’s something she’s doing? Questioning her competence as a nurse because of how many devestating incidents have happened on her shift. Even the most innocent person would surely second guess themselves and try to get to the bottom of it?

LL is trying to come across as a competent, intelligent nurse who does everything by the book. The fact that she didn’t seem to question these events or ask colleagues if they thought it was something she’d missed or a mistake she’d made etc.. it just doesn’t gel with the image she’s trying to portray on the stand IMO. She’s saying other colleagues weren’t experienced or qualified enough to deal with certain babies, yet she was in her eyes better qualified than many of the other nurses, but in almost every single case a collapse seems to have happened to babies she was either caring for, had just provided care to, or was involved in the care of. Yet LL doesn’t seem to have twigged that the care she provided could be in any way a factor in a collapse.

I find it really unusual because from what we’ve heard of LL she was very work oriented, was thinking about the babies when she wasn’t on shift, was texting colleagues about work when they weren’t at work. She seemed borderline obsessed with the NNU… It doesn’t make sense that someone who seemed to be such a critical thinker as LL wasn’t desperately trying to work out what had caused these collapses, all of which she’d witnessed at some point either during resuscitation efforts or raising the alarm.

She wasn’t profoundly affected to the point she needed time off work, she wasn’t asking colleagues for their thoughts except for when she was offering explanations such as ‘overwhelming sepsis’ ‘extreme prematurity’.. at no point did she add up and realise the vast amount of incidents there had been, each one occurring while she was on shift. It just seemed to be business as usual for LL right up until she was removed from the unit IMO

All MOO

The only time I remember her discussing the surge in deaths was when she was talking about what SHE needed to get over it---- which was to get to nursery one with the poorly babies so she could replace the image in her head with a new one.

So rather than taking a moment to ponder and process, she was insisting on jumping right back into it.

 

[Dotta]

Dbm

 

[Tortoise]

What's the dance he suggests?

That she fumbles for documentation whilst thinking of a plausible answer? I don't get NJs remark

I guess it's a routine that's well established by this stage, of her starting point of saying I have no recollection of the collapse/being there, then going through the neonatal schedule of events (LL entering notes into the computer for baby K) leading to her agreeing she did that, then agreeing that she obtained the paperwork from the baby's cotside, and then finally having to acknowledge that means she was there. It seems to be admissions of where she was, or couldn't have been where she would prefer to say she was, by a long process of extraction. JMO

 

[Dotta]

"I think I know where you are going, we will dance the dance if you want to," Mr Johnson says.
Letby's defense barrister objects to this, saying comments like this are "belittling". The judge agrees and asks Mr Johnson to refrain from such remarks in future.

I really don't get what is "belittling" in this comment:
"We will dance the dance if you want to."

I took it as
"OK. We will do it your way if you really want to" -
a kind of wry humour IMO.