- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
12:32pm
Child J desaturated at 4.40am on November 27.
Mary Griffiths was working in room 2.
She said in evidence Child J was a 'joy to look after', and described the first desaturation, which she and Nicola Dennison dealed with.
The desaturation was "alarmingly low".
Ms Dennison said, after cross-examination, Child J collapsed after her feed.
Dr Kalyilil Verghese recorded the shift was busy. Twins had been admitted to room 1 at 6.10am.
He said he reviewed Child J once, and all information was given to him by nursing staff. He noted there had been 'two profound desaturations', timed at 5.15am.
Child J was moved to nursery 2 when the designated nurse was Mary Griffith.
Mr Johnson says Letby was then involved in care of babies in room 2, despite her designated babies being in room 3.
12:34pm
Letby had said, in a text, the unit was 'closed' trying to get someone in.
At 6.49am she messaged 'It's all a bit t**s up'
Mr Johnson says resources had been diverted to room 1, and this was the "perfect opportunity" for Letby to attack Child J.
At 6.56am, Child J collapsed.
Child J desaturated at 4.40am on November 27.
Mary Griffiths was working in room 2.
She said in evidence Child J was a 'joy to look after', and described the first desaturation, which she and Nicola Dennison dealed with.
The desaturation was "alarmingly low".
Ms Dennison said, after cross-examination, Child J collapsed after her feed.
Dr Kalyilil Verghese recorded the shift was busy. Twins had been admitted to room 1 at 6.10am.
He said he reviewed Child J once, and all information was given to him by nursing staff. He noted there had been 'two profound desaturations', timed at 5.15am.
Child J was moved to nursery 2 when the designated nurse was Mary Griffith.
Mr Johnson says Letby was then involved in care of babies in room 2, despite her designated babies being in room 3.
12:34pm
Letby had said, in a text, the unit was 'closed' trying to get someone in.
At 6.49am she messaged 'It's all a bit t**s up'
Mr Johnson says resources had been diverted to room 1, and this was the "perfect opportunity" for Letby to attack Child J.
At 6.56am, Child J collapsed.
He also didn't have any experts to contradict the prosecution's experts which speaks volumes.I think BM will start with:
This is a woman who says it wasn't her fault. Lucy Letby says she was in the wrong places, at the wrong times, and would never harm a child. Miss Letby says she was set up.
Not sure where he can go from there though
Reading live updates this week has been horrific - all the timings falling in to place giving a visualisation of exactly what she did and when…
I cannot fathom anyone being on the fence after this… It is clear as day.
Well done to every parent, nurse, doctor, lawyer, police officer, administrator who has played their part in piecing this together, I cannot wait to see this evil fucker get sent down.
I cannot fathom anyone being on the fence after this… It is clear as day.
Well done to every parent, nurse, doctor, lawyer, police officer, administrator who has played their part in piecing this together, I cannot wait to see this evil fucker get sent down.
She also attacks babies in the outside nurseries so that they become nursery one babies and many times because of staffing, it means that she is then assigned their care instead of someone on a different band/experience.
She probably managed to gaslight them all into thinking she was poor little sweet Lucy being got at by the useless doctors.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
The defence do not have to do anything at all. It is for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. You cannot infer anything from the defence’s decision not to call expert witnesses.
Lucienne is a lovely and unusual variation of Lucy.
I think most of us are aware of this being the rule now thanks to the legal brains on the thread. However, NJ has directly raised with the jury several times that they’ve had nothing to contradict his experts findings. He’s also raised several times how they’ve shown no actual evidence to prove the points that their case is built on, staffing levels, medical negligence, Gang of Four.
It’s usually reported when BM or the judge objects so personally feel the jury are being allowed to see the point that there is no real evidence coming from the defence. And I know exactly what I’d be thinking if I was on that jury! Rule or not
The witch is done for +++++
The Judge will cover this point in his directions - it’s an important one. The same way that the defendant not taking the stand says nothing about guilt.I think most of us are aware of this being the rule now thanks to the legal brains on the thread. However, NJ has directly raised with the jury several times that they’ve had nothing to contradict his experts findings. He’s also raised several times how they’ve shown no actual evidence to prove the points that their case is built on, staffing levels, medical negligence, Gang of Four.
It’s usually reported when BM or the judge objects so personally feel the jury are being allowed to see the point that there is no real evidence coming from the defence. And I know exactly what I’d be thinking if I was on that jury! Rule or not
There are asp lots of reasons why you might not call an expert. Cases tend not to be won or lost on them - for example, I might not call an expert because it’s more likely to confuse the jury and it’s easier, acting for the defence, to cast doubt on the Pursuer’s experts.
The right expert witnesses could have added a lot of doubt. A pathologist saying baby O ruptured liver is common after CPR. A virologist stating the collapses could be due to viruses that the baby weren't tested for. A neonalist who said that sudden cardiac arrest happen in stable NNU babies, and the fleeting purple rash is normal. An endocrinologist stating babies can randomly make synthetic insulin. Instead we have a plumber talking about a blocked sink on a day where Lucy wasn't attacking.
In the U.K. juries ARE allowed to draw an adverse inference when defendants refuse to take the stand. But that’s not relevant here anyhow.
Adverse Inferences | The Crown Prosecution Service
And whilst the judge may well cover the lack of defence witnesses in his summing up, it will still be something that is in the minds of the jury, rightly or wrongly. They don’t have an alternative opinion for what caused these babies deaths, and that will 100% have an impact on their thought process.
Agree with this. I know they don’t “have” to but in a case like this, I think it was a huge mistake not to. So therefore the only conclusion I can come to was that there wasn’t experts willing to put their names to such testimony. I know my opinion doesn’t matter, but I would also think this if I was on the jury. It’s not strong enough for me for them to just say the other medical experts are mistaken without providing anything to back that up
Ok, that is understandable. But surely if they did have somebody, it would cast more doubt onto the prosecution? Also saying that not taking the stand doesn’t infer guilt, sadly so many people thought her taking the stand inferred innocence so
He says it is accepted people do text at work, but giving an NG Tube feed is a two-handed process, and "you can't do that if you're texting at the same time".
He says there are 41 text messages in the conversation, and that "cannot be done" if you are giving, "in the proper way", an NG Tube feed.
Mr Johnson says Letby was asked about this, how it could be done: LL: "You can't."
Mr Johnson had told Letby there was one method of administering a feed quickly.
Letby added: "You think I pushed it in?"
NJ: "That's what you were doing, wasn't it?
LL: "No."
How can anyone think a nurse who preferred texting gossip over gently feeding a baby is not capable of hurting them?? Surely this is such strong evidence that she just had no empathy or care for them, and did not "do her best for them" like she keeps saying. How could anyone manhandle something so tiny to text about "going commando".
He says there are 41 text messages in the conversation, and that "cannot be done" if you are giving, "in the proper way", an NG Tube feed.
Mr Johnson says Letby was asked about this, how it could be done: LL: "You can't."
Mr Johnson had told Letby there was one method of administering a feed quickly.
Letby added: "You think I pushed it in?"
NJ: "That's what you were doing, wasn't it?
LL: "No."
How can anyone think a nurse who preferred texting gossip over gently feeding a baby is not capable of hurting them?? Surely this is such strong evidence that she just had no empathy or care for them, and did not "do her best for them" like she keeps saying. How could anyone manhandle something so tiny to text about "going commando".
Repeatedly lied about not texting in clinical areas. That’s rather a big lie. And she has to make it for exactly the point you’ve made there - she didn’t actually care at all.
I have not contributed very much to the threads but have been reading them.
The thought of those poor little babies who lost their lives simply because evil in the form of that woman happened to work in a particular hospital ... I cannot even begin to imagine how those poor parents must feel.
I hope that justice is done and that she never sees life outside prison bars ever again.
The thought of those poor little babies who lost their lives simply because evil in the form of that woman happened to work in a particular hospital ... I cannot even begin to imagine how those poor parents must feel.
I hope that justice is done and that she never sees life outside prison bars ever again.
I hope now he’s explained the people who thought he went to far actually understand now, he’s just showing she was happy to lie under oath about insignificant things
- Status