Naaaa BM is a ginger gone grey. With his pasty complexion he simply couldn't carry off a lemon two-piece suit.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
The thought of her, standing in that doorway is giving be the absolute creeps.The summing up feels even more horrifying then the cross exam and the other evidence put together. NJ is doing a fantastic job at setting the scene and relaying the events as they unfold but it's like watching a car crash in slow motion, you know what's going to happen and its so unfathomably awful.
I can imagine BM approaching LL with some aggressive finger pointing “I TOLD you not to take the stand you stupid bint” then he throws up his hands and turns to Boss Man Goss “This is SO unfair. You’ve seen what I’ve got to work with!” Lastly, wringing his hands at the jury “She never done nothing, honest. They’re all out to get her, you’ve got to believe me. Plus I really want to beat Nick, please.” Walks past BNE muttering “b” under his breath.
11:15am
Mr Johnson refers to Letby's 2019 police interview, in which she said room 2's light was off, and there was 'an element of light coming from the doorway', and Child I was by the window.
Ashleigh Hudson said Child I had a blanket over her, and a 'tent structure' keeping her secure.
She said she could not see Child I due to the canopy and the lighting.
Mr Johnson says Letby did not have a better view.
Ms Hudson said she switched on the light and looked at Child I, who was 'gasping', 'incredibly pale', and in a 'very bad way'.
Ms Hudson initially thought the deterioration was so rapid she thought she was too late to save her.
She said you "cannot see" a child from the position Lucy Letby was in.
Mr Johnson says we have a "head-on credibility conflict", of two accounts who "don't live in the same world".
Mr Johnson says in cross-exmination, Letby was asked about looking from a brightly lit corridor into a dark room would improve her ability to see.
He says her first response was "I don't know".
NJ: "She 'conceded' she would not have been able to see, yet she persisted that she could see [Child I].
NJ: "We had a break, we came back, and I asked Lucy what she had said in interview...
He says Letby had said "Maybe I spotted something Ashleigh couldn't spot."
Mr Johnson had asked Letby: "You don't have better eyesight than Ashleigh, do you?"
LL: "No."
NJ: "The question is, how would you be able to spot the colouring [of Child I better than Ashleigh Hudson from the same point of view]?"
LL: "I had more experience so I knew what I was looking for/at."
Mr Johnson adds: "You will remember the way she corrected herself."
He says there was a very long pause.
He added at the time: "Your answer, you explain it."
He said Letby was "finding it difficult to concentrate on all the dates".
Mr Johnson said there was nothing about the dates in this context.
He says did Letby make an innocent mistake, or did something else slip out, under the pressure of the witness box?
He says Letby caused the problem for Child I. He says Child I recovered well.
Mr Johnson refers to Letby's 2019 police interview, in which she said room 2's light was off, and there was 'an element of light coming from the doorway', and Child I was by the window.
Ashleigh Hudson said Child I had a blanket over her, and a 'tent structure' keeping her secure.
She said she could not see Child I due to the canopy and the lighting.
Mr Johnson says Letby did not have a better view.
Ms Hudson said she switched on the light and looked at Child I, who was 'gasping', 'incredibly pale', and in a 'very bad way'.
Ms Hudson initially thought the deterioration was so rapid she thought she was too late to save her.
She said you "cannot see" a child from the position Lucy Letby was in.
Mr Johnson says we have a "head-on credibility conflict", of two accounts who "don't live in the same world".
Mr Johnson says in cross-exmination, Letby was asked about looking from a brightly lit corridor into a dark room would improve her ability to see.
He says her first response was "I don't know".
NJ: "She 'conceded' she would not have been able to see, yet she persisted that she could see [Child I].
NJ: "We had a break, we came back, and I asked Lucy what she had said in interview...
He says Letby had said "Maybe I spotted something Ashleigh couldn't spot."
Mr Johnson had asked Letby: "You don't have better eyesight than Ashleigh, do you?"
LL: "No."
NJ: "The question is, how would you be able to spot the colouring [of Child I better than Ashleigh Hudson from the same point of view]?"
LL: "I had more experience so I knew what I was looking for/at."
Mr Johnson adds: "You will remember the way she corrected herself."
He says there was a very long pause.
He added at the time: "Your answer, you explain it."
He said Letby was "finding it difficult to concentrate on all the dates".
Mr Johnson said there was nothing about the dates in this context.
He says did Letby make an innocent mistake, or did something else slip out, under the pressure of the witness box?
He says Letby caused the problem for Child I. He says Child I recovered well.
Sucks to be BM lately...he didn't manage to "get off" the evil Jordan monaghan from my neck of the woods off either....evil.personified
LL: "I had more experience so I knew what I was looking for/at."
Mr Johnson adds: "You will remember the way she corrected herself."
He says there was a very long pause. He added at the time: "Your answer, you explain it."
He said Letby was "finding it difficult to concentrate on all the dates".
Mr Johnson said there was nothing about the dates in this context. He says did Letby make an innocent mistake, or did something else slip out, under the pressure of the witness box?
Glad BNE reminded everyone of the 'looking for / at' comment and the pause and the' confused about dates' excuse. I'm sure he's delivering that in a very powerful way.
Mr Johnson adds: "You will remember the way she corrected herself."
He says there was a very long pause. He added at the time: "Your answer, you explain it."
He said Letby was "finding it difficult to concentrate on all the dates".
Mr Johnson said there was nothing about the dates in this context. He says did Letby make an innocent mistake, or did something else slip out, under the pressure of the witness box?
Glad BNE reminded everyone of the 'looking for / at' comment and the pause and the' confused about dates' excuse. I'm sure he's delivering that in a very powerful way.
Aww my nana was actually called Dorothy! It was on my girls list of names too. But I had a boy.It’s such a sweet name but I don’t think I could bring myself to use it currentlytry not to worry if you do go for it, you can’t control these things anyway.
I remember it’s because you liked the book and I think Annie is a gorgeous name with the same feel as Lucy. Or you could mix it up with Lucille. I love an old lady name so I’d even be tempted by MaudI never got to use a girls name but have helped name lots of my friends girl babies with my huge lists I made when pregnant. Might be why the Letby prison names came so easily to me
My girls name would have been Dorothymy Nana’s middle name.
Wendy Juryfindyouguilty (sorry just came to me
I want to know who was still associating with this thing whilst she was being investigated/who was still supporting her, believing in her innocence, when she's thrown the lot of them under the bus?
Maybe they weren't aware at the time that they would all end up under said bus
Maybe they weren't aware at the time that they would all end up under said bus
I know it will probably go on longer after the verdict coz surely there’s more stuff to come out but I feel like we are a family lol (sorry had a few glasses of wine) I don’t want to lose you guys
James off FB made me do an actual lol. That dude is weird AF.
I’m sooooo glad he covered this again. Also stating there are no dates so wtf she on about. She definitely slipped up here - she had more evidence??? Yeah because she knew what she’d done to the poor baby
11:22am
Mr Johnson says Letby had timed her note, having seen Ashleigh Hudson's nursing note first, so it appeared she saw Child I first.
Mr Johnson says it is another case of 'plausible deniability'.
Professor Arthurs said Child I's large bowel was distended, and the NG Tube was in the curled up in the oesophagus rather than the stomach.
Dr Evans said the only explanation was air administered to Child I via the NG Tube.
Mr Johnson says Dr Bohin explained Child I was sabotaged by air administered via the NG Tube and via and IV line.
Dr Anne Boothroyd's x-ray report on September 30 recorded: 'There is splinting of the diaphragm due to bowel distention'.
Mr Johnson says Letby had timed her note, having seen Ashleigh Hudson's nursing note first, so it appeared she saw Child I first.
Mr Johnson says it is another case of 'plausible deniability'.
Professor Arthurs said Child I's large bowel was distended, and the NG Tube was in the curled up in the oesophagus rather than the stomach.
Dr Evans said the only explanation was air administered to Child I via the NG Tube.
Mr Johnson says Dr Bohin explained Child I was sabotaged by air administered via the NG Tube and via and IV line.
Dr Anne Boothroyd's x-ray report on September 30 recorded: 'There is splinting of the diaphragm due to bowel distention'.
So...being very careful. I know that when she was first accused the general consensus was that she was innocent and being used as a scapegoat by the people she worked with. Those colleagues continued to socialise with her but stories have been sold now which indicates to me that atleast one of those colleagues believes she is guilty.I want to know who was still associating with this thing whilst she was being investigated/who was still supporting her, believing in her innocence, when she's thrown the lot of them under the bus?
Maybe they weren't aware at the time that they would all end up under said bus
Thankyou....guessing so.much has come out since and obviously so.much over the past 8 months...she's shat on most of the people she worked with in one way or another!
Sure there will be much comes out at the end of all this
11.28
For the third event for Child I, Dr Ravi Jayaram said there were 'no clinical concerns' for Child I before the night of October 13-14.
Mr Johnson says evidence was heard to say Child I was "stable".
This was the second time Letby was the designated nurse.
Mr Johnson says this was the second time she had the opportunity to falsify notes.
Dr Matthew Neame's 5.55am note is shown to the court for October 14.
Mr Johnson says this is not a retrospectively written note, as it includes a note of a prescription which is timestamped at 5.56am, and an urgent x-ray is timed at 6.05am.
He says Letby's addendum note, made at 8.43am, after Child I had desaturated: 'At 0500 abdomen noted to be more distended and firmer in appearance with area of discoouration spreading on right hand side, Veins more prominent'
Mr Johnson asks why would Lucy Letby do this?
He says to bear in mind what happened the previous night, if these symptoms were shown, then the doctor would be called urgently. He says the absence of a doctor called shows there was no problem at 5am.
For the third event for Child I, Dr Ravi Jayaram said there were 'no clinical concerns' for Child I before the night of October 13-14.
Mr Johnson says evidence was heard to say Child I was "stable".
This was the second time Letby was the designated nurse.
Mr Johnson says this was the second time she had the opportunity to falsify notes.
Dr Matthew Neame's 5.55am note is shown to the court for October 14.
Mr Johnson says this is not a retrospectively written note, as it includes a note of a prescription which is timestamped at 5.56am, and an urgent x-ray is timed at 6.05am.
He says Letby's addendum note, made at 8.43am, after Child I had desaturated: 'At 0500 abdomen noted to be more distended and firmer in appearance with area of discoouration spreading on right hand side, Veins more prominent'
Mr Johnson asks why would Lucy Letby do this?
He says to bear in mind what happened the previous night, if these symptoms were shown, then the doctor would be called urgently. He says the absence of a doctor called shows there was no problem at 5am.
It seems obvious to me that you wouldn't believe your colleague was a serial killer straight away, I guess it's only when everyone shares their experience and you realise what was actually going on at home (hello handover sheets) that reality started to set in. It must be absolutely traumatising for the people who worked and socialised with her, potentially even life ruining. I know people who are involved in this case who have to make massive changes to their lives due to it all. They'll be so relieved when it's all over.Thankyou....guessing so.much has come out since and obviously so.much over the past 8 months...she's shat on most of the people she worked with in one way or another!
Sure there will be much comes out at the end of all this
11:34am
Mr Johnson says, from the paper trail, if anyone 'puts two and two together' and thinks there is a problem with Lucy Letby, they are "thrown off the scent".
Dr Neame said the mottling was "unusual", which was why he recorded.
NJ: "How many times have we heard that in this case?"
Mr Johnson says the abdomen was distended.
Dr Andreas Marnerides had excluded NEC.
Mr Johnson says the only possibility is pushing air in down the NG Tube.
Dr Neame said Child I looked uncomfortable when examined and "grimaced".
He noted the abdominal distention.
Prof Arthurs said, of the x-ray image, the stomach was 'markedly dilated', and the small bowel and the large bowel were also dilated, with 'no symptoms of NEC'.
Another image at 8.03am had the stomach decompressed, and a third image the following day showed 'no problems at all'.
Dr Neame recorded a further desaturation for Child I at 7am, and the ET Tube was reintubated.
It was noted there was 'good air entry' for Child I, but - as Mr Johnson says, in so many other cases for babies in this trial - Child I was desaturating.
Mr Johnson says, from the paper trail, if anyone 'puts two and two together' and thinks there is a problem with Lucy Letby, they are "thrown off the scent".
Dr Neame said the mottling was "unusual", which was why he recorded.
NJ: "How many times have we heard that in this case?"
Mr Johnson says the abdomen was distended.
Dr Andreas Marnerides had excluded NEC.
Mr Johnson says the only possibility is pushing air in down the NG Tube.
Dr Neame said Child I looked uncomfortable when examined and "grimaced".
He noted the abdominal distention.
Prof Arthurs said, of the x-ray image, the stomach was 'markedly dilated', and the small bowel and the large bowel were also dilated, with 'no symptoms of NEC'.
Another image at 8.03am had the stomach decompressed, and a third image the following day showed 'no problems at all'.
Dr Neame recorded a further desaturation for Child I at 7am, and the ET Tube was reintubated.
It was noted there was 'good air entry' for Child I, but - as Mr Johnson says, in so many other cases for babies in this trial - Child I was desaturating.
Dan is tweeting quite a lot today but I haven’t been able to share (trying to do a million things and follow!) but BNE has just pointed out to the court that with all the falsifying, when colleagues went back to the notes, it was so hard to see the wood for the trees. She knew what she was doing in that respect. She was also playing poor lucy to everybody. Incredibly manipulative.
11:38am
Child I had further desaturations on October 14-15, which Mr Johnson said were 'explicable' as there were secretions in the NG Tube.
Child I had a 'miraculous recovery' after being transferred to Arrowe Park, and improved, until coming into the "misfortune" of contact with Lucy Letby, he adds.
Dr Evans thought Child I's stomach had been injected with air, and air injected into the intravenous system.
There was an "astonishing amount of air" in Child I's stomach.
Dr Bohin concluded Child I had air administered.
Child I had further desaturations on October 14-15, which Mr Johnson said were 'explicable' as there were secretions in the NG Tube.
Child I had a 'miraculous recovery' after being transferred to Arrowe Park, and improved, until coming into the "misfortune" of contact with Lucy Letby, he adds.
Dr Evans thought Child I's stomach had been injected with air, and air injected into the intravenous system.
There was an "astonishing amount of air" in Child I's stomach.
Dr Bohin concluded Child I had air administered.
- Status