UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #3

[Konstantin]

Maybe

Answer why she did Facebook searches
Why she took photo of sympathy card
Why she took photo of deceased
Why she was standing in poor light saying a child looked pale instead of going straight in the room as her colleague did ..just some examples where she really could make a difference

That is perhaps the reason why she is not taking the stand, because she will not be able to account for these (and that could be for many reasons including that she is too distraught and broken), and this will come across badly if she is taken apart by the prosecution.

 

[bastien]

Regarding taking a photo of the card, I routinely take photos of cards I send if I've written a message inside (a message more than to/from). It's to help me remember what I've said if it comes up in conversation after the person has received it.

I also don't clear out my phone / phone backups, so I'm sure I've got photos of dozens of cards from over the years.

What would be more significant is if this sympathy card is the only card that she has a photo of. That could suggest that it's something out of the ordinary (though I'm sure it could be argued that LL took a photo of the card to show a friend to ask if it's okay etc, but that's just my own speculation of a possible explanation).

 

[Music2022]

Regarding taking a photo of the card, I routinely take photos of cards I send if I've written a message inside (a message more than to/from). It's to help me remember what I've said if it comes up in conversation after the person has received it.

I also don't clear out my phone / phone backups, so I'm sure I've got photos of dozens of cards from over the years.

What would be more significant is if this sympathy card is the only card that she has a photo of. That could suggest that it's something out of the ordinary (though I'm sure it could be argued that LL took a photo of the card to show a friend to ask if it's okay etc, but that's just my own speculation of a possible explanation).

You could be right. Maybe she took a photo and texted it to a friend asking if what she wrote is ok to send. This would be easily corroborated if the friend testifies she did that.
When was the card sent to the parents? Were they close? Have they given her their address or was it out of the blue?

 

[Sherlockhames]

Maybe

Answer why she did Facebook searches
Why she took photo of sympathy card
Why she took photo of deceased
Why she was standing in poor light saying a child looked pale instead of going straight in the room as her colleague did ..just some examples where she really could make a difference

But she has already indicated in police interviews she can’t recall answers to these questions. And none of these impact the actual evidence of whether or not she was responsible for sabotage/murder of the children. I can’t imagine any of the answers she gave to those questions would satisfy people anyway. Whereas maybe half would understand where she was coming from, the other half might consider them weird (as is demonstrated by the differing reactions/interpretations from people on here to the same evidence eg the note).

Her defence doesn’t have to explain or excuse everything to everyone’s satisfaction - it just has to demonstrate whether she was involved in the deliberate murder/sabotage of those poor babies. The law doesn’t require a satisfying motive/and presence or absence of one would be a distraction from the actual evidence.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Maybe

Answer why she did Facebook searches
Why she took photo of sympathy card
Why she took photo of deceased
Why she was standing in poor light saying a child looked pale instead of going straight in the room as her colleague did ..just some examples where she really could make a difference

I'm not sure that she could make a difference. I don't think it would matter what she said, quite honestly, because the prosecution would just say the opposite.

She's already said that she can't recall doing the FB searches so literally anything she says about that is going to be jumped on because she "lied" initially.

There are million legitimate reasons as to why she took the photo of the card.

There are legitimate reasons (although maybe unethical) as to why she took the photos of the deceased - perhaps the parents asked her to or gave the impression that they would be happy with it?

It was "poor light" in the opinion of the doctor who walked up behind her. A doctor who I'm guessing was looking at it with 50+ year old eyes as opposed to her 25'ish year old eyes and who had, perhaps, just walked out of a brightly lit corridor.

At this point I think that the only benefit to her giving evidence might be that she can give an explanation for the note. I think she'll be destroyed by the prosecution in the process though.

 

[kittythehare]

We were shown one note yesterday.
I am wondering whether there actually 000's of them?

 

[merrypason]

We were shown one note yesterday.
I am wondering whether there actually 000's of them?

They did say she had a diary and they found a lot of interesting materials at her home. Also a lot of patient documentation she shouldn't have had.

 

[Music2022]

I'm not sure that she could make a difference. I don't think it would matter what she said, quite honestly, because the prosecution would just say the opposite.

She's already said that she can't recall doing the FB searches so literally anything she says about that is going to be jumped on because she "lied" initially.

There are million legitimate reasons as to why she took the photo of the card.

There are legitimate reasons (although maybe unethical) as to why she took the photos of the deceased - perhaps the parents asked her to or gave the impression that they would be happy with it?

It was "poor light" in the opinion of the doctor who walked up behind her. A doctor who I'm guessing was looking at it with 50+ year old eyes as opposed to her 25'ish year old eyes and who had, perhaps, just walked out of a brightly lit corridor.

At this point I think that the only benefit to her giving evidence might be that she can give an explanation for the note. I think she'll be destroyed by the prosecution in the process though.

With regards to the lighting I fairly certain it was another nurse that came up to her and didn’t figure out how she saw the tone of the skin. The age wasn’t mentioned. I wonder if that nurse will testify.

 

[cuecard]

Maybe

Answer why she did Facebook searches
Why she took photo of sympathy card
Why she took photo of deceased
Why she was standing in poor light saying a child looked pale instead of going straight in the room as her colleague did ..just some examples where she really could make a difference

The prosecution would annihilate her up there with a cross examination imo. They know what they are doing and saying and how to set traps most people would walk right into. LL would be the same imo. Her defence aren’t stupid enough to allow that to happen.

 

[Marantz4250b]

You could be right. Maybe she took a photo and texted it to a friend asking if what she wrote is ok to send. This would be easily corroborated if the friend testifies she did that.
When was the card sent to the parents? Were they close? Have they given her their address or was it out of the blue?

As it happens, I have a photo of a card on my phone which I took on Monday. I was supposed to give it to someone the previous day but we didn't manage to get together as she was laid out with Covid and still is. I was intending to send her the picture of the card but never did as she's been really ill. So, perfectly legit reason for having it on my phone but not really an explanation anyone would think of.

The card was bought from a gallery near where I live and features a local scene by a local artist. If my friend were to go missing and the picture were found on my phone might it be speculated that this was the place that I'd disposed of her? Also, the card is currently locked in my safe - for legitimate reasons as I currently have builders in and I don't want it lost or damaged - so it might be suggested that it was some sort of sick trophy that I placed great value in. Also in that safe is a box containing a ring which belongs to an ex (she's asked me to keep it safe as it was her mothers and she doesn't want it lost and I have very secure facilities due to my job), an earlier exes engagement ring and some other stuff of hers. It could be made to look really weird if someone got it into their head that it was anything less than 100% legit.

Several random and unconnected events or items can be used to imply absolutely anything. It's not that hard to put two and two together and come up with six. It's pretty easy to come up with a fairly horrendous but entirely untrue story about someone. Perhaps the card is a trophy of her killing spree? Perhaps it's entirely innocent? Thus far though, I don't see much other than a lot of unconnected random events, each of which could have perfectly plausible explanation which doesn't involve serial murder. I can see why this trial is slated to be six months, quite frankly.

 

[merrypason]

I've thought about that note overnight and am struck by how many people have just assumed she wrote it in anguish or despair, because that's what the defence have said or they relate it to personal circumstances.

No one know what state of mind she was in. Like John Worboys, she could have been plotting out her excuses for WHY she killed them because:

1. (Remorseful defence) on purpose, I am evil
2. (Self pitying defence) because i'm not good enough to care for them, I will never have kids/marry
3. (Indignant defence) I haven't done anything wrong
4. (Blame defence) Police victimisation, slander, discrimination
5. Feelings to demonstrate to police depending on which defence is used - I can't breathe (Remorseful), I don't deserve to live or deserve mum and dad etc (Self pitying), Why me (indignant), panic/fear (blame)

Writing on a post it note with doodles of a cat shows me she wasn't that anguished. Because you have to really concentrate on getting everything into a teeny tiny post tit. When you're anguished, it's not easy to focus in that way. Also the pen pressure looks different so it looks like it was written at different times. Why return to the same note unless she was just updating her ideas and wanted it in one place. She was methodical, we know this from how she writes down everything, so it makes sense that she wanted everything on one post it if they were all linked thoughts - all linked to her defence excuses.

I''m very curious to see what other notes they found at her home.

I do feel she has a more calculating air about her because she messaged people to say she was bored, unfulfilled, days were slow - just after babies had died on her watch! Then got defensive (as per messages) when she was being questioned by a senior consultant - surely you'd expect to be questioned if you've been present at all the unexplained incidents.

Also the very methodical notes on understanding who made allegations and what was the evidence. She didn't crack at interview and knew how to evade questions even in 2020. She strikes me as someone calm, collected and analytical not hysterical.

MOO.

 

[Marantz4250b]

With regards to the lighting I fairly certain it was another nurse that came up to her and didn’t figure out how she saw the tone of the skin. The age wasn’t mentioned. I wonder if that nurse will testify.

I thought it was a doctor, the doctor who's apparently on the TV, but I may be wrong on that.

 

[MsBetsy]

You could be right. Maybe she took a photo and texted it to a friend asking if what she wrote is ok to send. This would be easily corroborated if the friend testifies she did that.
When was the card sent to the parents? Were they close? Have they given her their address or was it out of the blue?

I don't think the sympathy card alone says much of anything. It will be the sum of all her actions that will tell the story. Imo

I think it will be witness testimony and the vast amount of evidence combined, that when looked at as a whole, will paint a clear picture.

The picture of the sympathy letter, viewing the SM of the victims, and taking pictures of dead babies may be seen as a way of re-living events, or as the prosecution suggests, some sort of trophy. Imo

 

[bluetit]

Reading the trial updates today, it occurred to me that if a doctor had suspicions about this nurse, whey wasn't she closely scrutinised/supervised afterwards to prevent further possible misdemeanours?

Maybe

Answer why she did Facebook searches
Why she took photo of sympathy card
Why she took photo of deceased
Why she was standing in poor light saying a child looked pale instead of going straight in the room as her colleague did ..just some examples where she really could make a differenckee

One

Maybe

Answer why she did Facebook searches
Why she took photo of sympathy card
Why she took photo of deceased
Why she was standing in poor light saying a child looked pale instead of going straight in the room as her colleague did ..just some examples where she really could make a difference

did she really take photos of dead babies? I haven’t seen anything about that, and it sounds like the type of gruesome headline the tabloids would milk relentlessly.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Maybe

Answer why she did Facebook searches
Why she took photo of sympathy card
Why she took photo of deceased
Why she was standing in poor light saying a child looked pale instead of going straight in the room as her colleague did ..just some examples where she really could make a difference

I would be exceptionally surprised if questions to this effect weren't asked in the police interviews. 'Relevant' extracts will be read to the court by an interviewing officer, at the behest of either counsel.

Unless there is anything significant that she can add, change or refute then the evidence is already documented.

Adding, changing or refuting at this late hour will be seized upon by the prosecution to imply that she seeks to change her story after having so long to think about it, and therefore she is covering up her real motivations.

It's the for the prosecution to prove. Let them try and prove it without a helping hand from the defence.

 

[Dcflag]

One

did she really take photos of dead babies? I haven’t seen anything about that, and it sounds like the type of gruesome headline the tabloids would milk relentlessly.

She did. It’s been reported in newsfeeds but the note was what made the headlines.

 

[MsBetsy]

I thought it was a doctor, the doctor who's apparently on the TV, but I may be wrong on that.

The designated nurse reportedly found her outside, looking into a 'darkened room' when Letby remarked the baby looked pale. When the nurse switched on the light, only then did she see that the baby was not breathing.

I can't remember which victim it was but it was the baby that the prosecution stated she made four attempts to kill by injecting air into her.

 

[bluetit]

She did. It’s been reported in newsfeeds but the note was what made the headlines.

Where was that reported? I’ve been following the case very closely and I’ve only heard people say that here. If they post all over the media that she sent a card to the parents of a deceased baby (morbid enough) then surely at least one newspaper would mention the photos of babies on her phone?

 

[Dcflag]

Where was that reported? I’ve been following the case very closely and I’ve only heard people say that here. If they post all over the media that she sent a card to the parents of a deceased baby (morbid enough) then surely at least one newspaper would mention the photos of babies on her phone?

Off the top of my head sky news updates reported it. It was a photo of the two deceased triplets In a cot together.

 

[merrypason]

Where was that reported? I’ve been following the case very closely and I’ve only heard people say that here. If they post all over the media that she sent a card to the parents of a deceased baby (morbid enough) then surely at least one newspaper would mention the photos of babies on her phone?

I posted a Sun article link some pages back and someone posted a Sky news link.