How buzzing she is to be bathing the poor baby. Fuckin rodent
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
12:17pm
Dr Evans says this was "another" case, in Child I, receiving air administered.
He thought the nature of the collapse, the crying, the prolonged resuscitation, and the purple and white discolouration, were all symptoms of air embolus.
There was no account of natural disease.
Dr Bohin said the cause of death was air embolus - from the unexpected catastrophic collapse, Child I being unsettled and agitated, the 'extremely unusual' crying meaning Child I was in excruciating pain.
In cross-examination, Dr Bohin was asked if she had a coherent explanation for an air embolus.
Mr Johnson said Dr Bohin's answer, without hesitation, lasted for about 10 minutes.
She was asked about Child I's poor weight gain, and Dr Bohin said that did not make her more likely to have a cardiac arrest [as Child I had].
Prof Arthurs said it was 'unusual' to see the amount of dilation in Child I's stomach. He excluded CPAP belly as a cause. He said it was "reasonable to infer" air administered.
Dr Marnerides said at the time of Child I's death, she had no acute illnesses or abnormalities in the bowel, other than presence of air. The presence of gas had "no pathological cause". He said the collapses were air administered from the NG Tube.
Mr Johnson says Child I's case is a "stark one".
He says Letby made repeated efforts to kill Child I, and falsified notes both for Child I and another baby.
She 'gave herself away' in the event with Ashleigh Hudson.
"Lucy Letby's behaviour in the aftermath [of Child I's death] was bizarre and inappropriate.
She revelled in what she had done."
"Her voyeuristic tendancies caused her to look up [Child I's mother] on Facebook."
"
Having killed her [Child I], she wrote a condolence card. It was still on her phone when it was seized by the police."
---
12:23pm
Mr Johnson details the case of Child J.
He says when Letby was giving evidence in this case, she said band 4 nurses [nursery nurses] cannot do intensive care or high dependency babies, or handling of stomas.
Letby said the unit was very busy as an explanation why a band 4 nurse was caring for Child J.
Mr Johnson says the implication of that exchange was to give that Child J received incompetent care, and staffing levels were compromised.
Letby had messaged a colleague on November 19, 2015: "It's shocking really that they are willing to take on the responsibility for things that they have no training or experience etc on. Don't think they appreciate the potential difficulties"
Mr Johnson says the jury will remember witnesses had been cross-examined about nursing guidelines.
He says the part that was never quoted was the bit about stomas.
The care, shown to the court, says special care day nurses can include care of a stoma.
Mr Johnson says that whole evidence "was designed to mislead you".
"It's the same type of beaviour that Lucy Letby engaged in with her colleagues."
12:26pm
Mr Johnson says Child J had no respiratory difficulties and was being bottle fed, and did not need respiratory support, and was in room 4.
Nurse Nicola Dennison said Child J was 'getting ready to go home' with a stoma by November 26, 2015. She wrote in notes that Child J was 'stable'.
Child J's mother left at the end of the day, intending to return at 8am the following day, but received an emergency call overnight.
Letby was in room 3, designated nurse for two babies that night shift. Nicola Dennison was the designated nurse for Child J and one other baby in room 4.
Dr Evans says this was "another" case, in Child I, receiving air administered.
He thought the nature of the collapse, the crying, the prolonged resuscitation, and the purple and white discolouration, were all symptoms of air embolus.
There was no account of natural disease.
Dr Bohin said the cause of death was air embolus - from the unexpected catastrophic collapse, Child I being unsettled and agitated, the 'extremely unusual' crying meaning Child I was in excruciating pain.
In cross-examination, Dr Bohin was asked if she had a coherent explanation for an air embolus.
Mr Johnson said Dr Bohin's answer, without hesitation, lasted for about 10 minutes.
She was asked about Child I's poor weight gain, and Dr Bohin said that did not make her more likely to have a cardiac arrest [as Child I had].
Prof Arthurs said it was 'unusual' to see the amount of dilation in Child I's stomach. He excluded CPAP belly as a cause. He said it was "reasonable to infer" air administered.
Dr Marnerides said at the time of Child I's death, she had no acute illnesses or abnormalities in the bowel, other than presence of air. The presence of gas had "no pathological cause". He said the collapses were air administered from the NG Tube.
Mr Johnson says Child I's case is a "stark one".
He says Letby made repeated efforts to kill Child I, and falsified notes both for Child I and another baby.
She 'gave herself away' in the event with Ashleigh Hudson.
"Lucy Letby's behaviour in the aftermath [of Child I's death] was bizarre and inappropriate.
She revelled in what she had done."
"Her voyeuristic tendancies caused her to look up [Child I's mother] on Facebook."
"
Having killed her [Child I], she wrote a condolence card. It was still on her phone when it was seized by the police."
---
12:23pm
Mr Johnson details the case of Child J.
He says when Letby was giving evidence in this case, she said band 4 nurses [nursery nurses] cannot do intensive care or high dependency babies, or handling of stomas.
Letby said the unit was very busy as an explanation why a band 4 nurse was caring for Child J.
Mr Johnson says the implication of that exchange was to give that Child J received incompetent care, and staffing levels were compromised.
Letby had messaged a colleague on November 19, 2015: "It's shocking really that they are willing to take on the responsibility for things that they have no training or experience etc on. Don't think they appreciate the potential difficulties"
Mr Johnson says the jury will remember witnesses had been cross-examined about nursing guidelines.
He says the part that was never quoted was the bit about stomas.
The care, shown to the court, says special care day nurses can include care of a stoma.
Mr Johnson says that whole evidence "was designed to mislead you".
"It's the same type of beaviour that Lucy Letby engaged in with her colleagues."
12:26pm
Mr Johnson says Child J had no respiratory difficulties and was being bottle fed, and did not need respiratory support, and was in room 4.
Nurse Nicola Dennison said Child J was 'getting ready to go home' with a stoma by November 26, 2015. She wrote in notes that Child J was 'stable'.
Child J's mother left at the end of the day, intending to return at 8am the following day, but received an emergency call overnight.
Letby was in room 3, designated nurse for two babies that night shift. Nicola Dennison was the designated nurse for Child J and one other baby in room 4.
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.
- Status