Lucy Letby case #28

[Walnutss]

Can't believe she's took the stand. I still can't believe she had the front to please not guilty defo big narcissist vibes. Fuck now nervous would you be. Even if I was innocent I don't think I could get up there

 

[raspberryjuice]

I’d put money on the mum from LWH being the mum of either the baby that died, or the dying baby she was given to “help her get over a dead baby”.

Anyway ladies, lunchtime! Time to feed yourselves and any kids, empty the washing machine, restock your snacks, check your toddlers are still in the house….

 

[Lynn’ssnazzycardigan]

Just in my experience, if there has been a complaint or a death that is going to the coroner then the main worries are usually perception of incompetence and thoroughness of documentation. Your thoughts don’t automatically go to the police because you haven’t done anything malicious. You worry that your team will be criticised, the Trust sued, or if you had made a mistake, that you would have to go to NMC/GMC panel. Why would the police be involved? She knows she has done something malicious. Edited to add, these are selfish worries, your main worry would be have you inadvertently harmed someone or their family?

 

[dottynotty]

Totally off topic but this popped up on my Instagram and can’t help but see a resemblance to her!

 

[LittleMy]

It can be both; a badly run hospital and a serial killer on the loose. The serial killer was able to go undetected for so long because of the badly run hospital. The head honchos like Karen Rees’ failure to take Dr SB’s concerns seriously honestly makes me feel sick and heads should roll for it. What a grave mistake.

 

[Okgolightly]

I'm with you 100% and my thinking has not changed since the beginning. Even during the opening statement I was very concerned about how robust the prosecution's case was and it has transpired that it is even flimsier than I initially thought. There is no evidence that any of these children were murdered, let alone by her, and I feel she has been made a scapegoat for a poorly performing unit. I rarely post here any more as frankly I cannot abide the nonsensical and purely imagined insights into her character by people who know absolutely nothing about her, but seem to think they can tell a lot by looking at pictures of inherited wallpaper.

My issue with the scapegoat theories is…why Lucy? A woman who by all accounts was a relatively well liked and well respected nurse. A woman who was supported by higher ups throughout doctors raising their concerns about her, with one going so far as to say that she would take responsibility for any future deaths etc that took place with Lucy back on the ward. IMO the scapegoat theory makes literally no sense. She was there for all of these incidents/deaths; the next person was there for 7/22. There’s not much comparison surely? And if I were a nurse there for 22 deaths/near misses I sure as shit would be raising concerns about the ward or taking a step back or doing whatever I could. Not just plodding along then writing bizarre post it’s.

 

[Treesy19]

Additionally remember she noted the babies names in her diary, with reference to them collapsing/dying on those dates.

Exactly this. Show me another nurse who writes the initials of dead patients in a personal diary, the dates they met them and the dates they died.

 

[Windowtothewall]

"Letby says, to remember what had happened through the course of a shift for a baby, her retrospective notes to be documented would be compiled from a mixture of documentation at the time and notes she had written on the back of her handover sheet."

So she was using the handover notes to complete medical notes she write retrospectively!! To me, THAT is a reason to keep those notes. Because she could remember WHAT was in the medical notes by referring to the handover notes she had right. So she must have always known there'd come a time where her cases might be reviewed and she kept all the handover notes to refresh her memory.

That looks like sabotage to me. If she was using handover notes to write up medical notes - keeping handover notes would be like keeping medical notes.

 

[DellaC]

Ok I have to ask, who laugh reacted what? I must’ve missed it (genuinely)

I think, if you have an opinion you just have to be prepared to back it up sensibly (and many have). Too many people come in saying “there’s no evidence” when we’ve just spent the last 7 or so months hearing evidence. That is ridiculous and I can see why people will laugh react in disbelief.

I think I did once or twice. I did check the profiles of the folks and the were clearly goading and had set up an account just to do so.

I am a bit childish though (as you know), I put a laugh emoji on Daisy's post this morning but then took it off incase she didn't see the humour. I didn't want to get twatted.

I honestly and genuinely think that if somebody is affected by a laughing face emoji on a tattle post then they have absolutely nothing better to worry about in their life and for that, they are truly blessed

 

[Windowtothewall]

Wayne Couzens is completely different there was forensic and cctv evidence of him placing him at the scene. There's no evidence of LL directly killing babies from cctv or forensic evidence , the evidence is she was on shift when the babies collapsed. How many deaths were supposed to happen per year, It's ruling out based who was on shift and statistical anomaly. No one saw her kill , Even post mortem foul play wasn't suspected until later. You can't get the forensic evidence as the offending feed bag would have been thrown into the clinical waste bin and incinerated. Basing guilt on Facebook searches and notes isn't the smoking gun.

I think she did it by the way but its a bugger to prove much harder than typical murders. Best hope is that Ben Myers hasn't got an expert medical witness or statistician for the defence.

I see this talked about a lot - the use of statistics to prosecute. But statistics isn't the CPS's case, it was used to identify a suspect by way of elimination. But their method to identify a suspect and run the investigation isn't on trial, their evidence is re: medical experts, patterns of behaviour and her presence when deliberate harm was done and no one else could be present - circumstantial evidence.

If their entire case was, "She was the only one present at all the incidents so she is guilty", then that would be wrong and not meet CPS' threshold to prosecute. Their case hinges on the medical experts as without them, her presence at all the incidents would not be suspicious.

Imagine if the experts had reviewed all her cases and said the cause of death was inconclusive, or it was natural causes or an error or equipment failure - LL wouldn't be on trial for murder. Even if she was the only one present at all the incidents.

She's on trial because the medical evidence shows babies were attacked or murdered - and she was the only one with the opportunity and timing to be responsible. There's been a lot of convictions on circumstantial evidence such as this, in fact, majority convictions are made on circumstantial evidence.

From the college of policing handbook:

"There is a perception that circumstantial evidence is weaker than direct evidence, however, Lord Hewart CJ in the decision of R v Donovan (1930) 21 Cr App R.20 stated:

It has been said that the evidence against the applicants is circumstantial: so it is, but circumstantial evidence is very often the best. It is evidence of surrounding circumstances which, by undesigned coincidence, is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics. It is no derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial."

Circumstantial evidence is not necessarily weaker than direct evidence if there are number of circumstances that together can lead the court or a jury to a guilty verdict.
R v Exall (1866) states that: ‘One strand of a cord might be insufficient to sustain the weight, but three stranded together may be quite sufficient of strength. Thus, it may be circumstantial evidence – there may be a combination of circumstances no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, or more than a mere suspicion; but the whole, taken together, may create a strong conclusion of guilty, that is, with as much certainty as human affairs can require or admit of’.

 

[Deeznutslol]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and at the end of the day, nothing we say here matters anyway, only what the jury says matters.
I for one am genuinely interested to hear from anyone who still thinks she is NG after hearing from the prosecution, I don’t think it’s fair to try and discourage people from posting.
if someone comes on and is intentionally trolling the thread then report them.

 

[IGiveUp22]

I took the worst time to have a break from Tattle. Not fully caught but just wanna say - HUGE risk by BM letting her offer an “explanation” for the searches when she didn’t offer one under caution for the police in ALL interviews. The jury can 100% draw a negative inference from this - she will have also been warned regarding this as the caution is explained in depth by police to check understanding of each section

 

[DellaC]

… I find it hard throwing things away. Like mental notes and commodes. Except my bank statements that I shred neatly into a shredder. But not got a clue how to get rid of handovers.

She even had to buy a paper weight to keep them neat and tidy.

 

[yellowmellow]

Not sure if my memory is serving me correctly here, but was the shredder box with "keep" written on it, containing handover notes at her mum and dad's house? I would find it highly unlikely for her mum and dad to be used as witnesses as they have been there viewing the trial and didn't think it was allowed, but could they be or would they already have been questioned if they knew when this box came to appear at their house?

See for me there’s too many incidents and not enough commotion from her for it to be incompetence and mistakes. You know when you’ve made a mistake, if she’d accidentally done all this and her intentions were as clear cut as she says then the first mistake she made she would’ve tried to rectify it immediately. You know when you’ve fucked up, you’d speak to someone, you’d tell someone, you wouldn’t sit there making mistake after mistake, all of which results in poor babies passing away/almost passing away. She’s a stupid cunt she’s full of piss and wind

Absolutely agree. I realised I accidentally paid the wrong bank details at work once, a couple of thousand, and I was in my boss's office, sobbing, struggling to get my words out. Luckily he laughed and said we would get it back and not to worry, but my God, I thought I was getting fired on the spot. I always double, triple, and quadruple check bank details now. If I, in any way thought there was something I had done that could have caused a baby's death, I'd be absolutely broken and make sure whatever mistake I thought I made never, ever happened again. Not keep shrugging it off!

 

[onthefence1]

I had a reflective diary I used during my preceptorship for reflection, would put initials and a couple of words to jog my memory, I didn't keep it up but lots of nurses use them.

I don't think she's coming across bad tbh, I mean she's clearly weird but seems plausible.
---
BTW well aware I'm in the minority based on the reactions in the thread

I agree, and i know i'm minority and hopefully dont get slammed but her answers seem quite believable to me at the minute. Yes the excessive searching is odd.. obsessive And intrusive, BUT, happen she was at work talking about a baby or family, it triggered her to search them then went down a fb rabbit hole. Its weird, unproffesional and invasive but unfortunately thats what social media enables, and sometimes peopld get stuck in weird habits dont they. From a different perspective, i've had patients search me on fb and try adding me (im a nurse) its very creepy! Also, im quite an obsessive person and it made me think today, i wonder how many times in the last 6 months ive relentlessly searched lucy letby, dan on twitter, judith, tattle forums, chester standard, tried snooping on Fb it would give me quite a shock if i actually got presented with numbers, times etc my friends and family would think i was well weird but im guessing some of you guys might be in the same boat . Anyway for now, still on the fence!

 

[Tofino]

Wayne Couzens is completely different there was forensic and cctv evidence of him placing him at the scene. There's no evidence of LL directly killing babies from cctv or forensic evidence , the evidence is she was on shift when the babies collapsed. How many deaths were supposed to happen per year, It's ruling out based who was on shift and statistical anomaly. No one saw her kill , Even post mortem foul play wasn't suspected until later. You can't get the forensic evidence as the offending feed bag would have been thrown into the clinical waste bin and incinerated. Basing guilt on Facebook searches and notes isn't the smoking gun.

I think she did it by the way but its a bugger to prove much harder than typical murders. Best hope is that Ben Myers hasn't got an expert medical witness or statistician for the defence.

I don’t think anyone here thinks the Facebook searches are a smoking gun or prove her guilt in isolation to anything else. They just see it as suspicious and sinister behaviour in context to other evidence.

I think the point I’m trying to make is being missed. I’m trying to address the repeated comments that because Lucy did something that plenty of us do (Facebook stalk) that it’s not suspicious behaviour. That it’s normal behaviour. But people are looking at it in isolation regardless of how clear or not other evidence is.

If you look in isolation at Wayne Couzens buying rubble bags it doesn’t prove his guilt. and it’s something plenty of us do that is normal behaviour. But I use this as an example because we know for fact it wasn’t a normal behaviour on that day and were purchased for sinister reasons.

Yes his other evidence is far clearer and more tangible plus he pleaded guilty. But that wasn’t the comparison i was making. If the other evidence was less clear him buying rubble bags around the event would still be seen as suspicious if he was on trial for murder and form part of the collection of evidence.

 

[amsmall]

View attachment 2142792

I actually find this response unusual. It sounds too prepared -what would an innocent nurse say - but she gets it wrong.

It doesn’t matter if you are a nurse or not, no normal person would ever want to hurt a baby.

I know, you would say "no, never".
She seems detached and gives a long winded answer, which usually means your lying. She chats

 

[moo.89]

I’m actually shocked she took the stand, I hope the prosecution make bits of her. She’s just way too poor me, I’ve been hard done by, never mind the poor families who have lost children.

 

[F1Grid]

BM: Did you ever think to yourself, blimey, I have got a lot of handover sheets, I had better get rid of them?

LL: No

BM must be fuming.

 

[Takemetoyourbuffet]

Fuck me, I had one night off and came back to pure pages!!

Nothing to add really. I've always maintained I enjoy hearing both sides as long as there's an element of critical thinking behind it, helps me to stay grounded.

BUT if you're getting butt hurt by discussions about decor, clothes or dildos (which serve no purpose other than to lighten the mood, and have been joined in by tattlers on BOTH sides of the fence) then Tattle probably isn't the place for you. Maybe try Reddit with their community of pseudo intellectuals who think they're better than everyone else.

(ETA- I actually really like Reddit, but it serves a very different purpose)