Lucy Letby Case #41

[Faith61]

He says Sophie Ellis shouldn't have been looking after the baby because of her lack of experience
That sounds like straight out of Letby's mouth. He knows best though because it seems that he knows everything medical and nursing in addition to everything about Law. How can the Jury take him seriously when he's had nobody from the medical profession back up his conclusions.

I honestly don't know...just shocking

 

[Futtrit]

He says Sophie Ellis shouldn't have been looking after the baby because of her lack of experience
That sounds like straight out of Letby's mouth. He knows best though because it seems that he knows everything medical and nursing in addition to everything about Law. How can the Jury take him seriously when he's had nobody from the medical profession back up his conclusions.

Also said Sophie didn't see LL do anything wrong......convenient he believes in her ability to judge that.....

 

[MmmB777]

He says Sophie Ellis shouldn't have been looking after the baby because of her lack of experience
That sounds like straight out of Letby's mouth. He knows best though because it seems that he knows everything medical and nursing in addition to everything about Law. How can the Jury take him seriously when he's had nobody from the medical profession back up his conclusions.

Yes he says we shouldn’t take Letby’s agreement about the insulin poisoning as verbatim because it’s above her pay grade medically yet he’s giving all this medically based defence for Letby without a shred of knowledge from an expert? Is it from Google?

 

[F1Grid]

I hope he's coming across as awfully in person as he is in print.

 

[Tofino]

3:49pm

Mr Myers recalls Child E's mother's statement on the 'bleed coming out of the mouth.'

A description was made around the mouth and the chin.

He says on cross-examination, it was "agreed it was not completely fresh".

He says he suggested it could have been aspirate.

The mother disagreed.

Mr Myers says there is no suggestion by any doctor/nurse of Child E screaming.

The neonatal schedule for Child E on August 3 is shown.

He says Caroline Oakley is involved in giving medication to Child F at 9.13pm, with Child F 'being near Child E at the time'.

Mr Myers says it isn't about lying, it is up to the jury to draw "a fair conclusion"

He says no-one else had seen anything that coincides with this.

9.13pm was after the mother had settled her screaming baby and been sent back to the parents unit. Of course Caroline didn’t see anything because Letby had cleaned up the baby by then.

And yet again the unit is so busy that ‘loads of staff would have come running’ to a screaming baby yet so understaffed that babies died from neglect. Ok Ben. He’s doing the exact same he’s accusing prosecution of doing.

 

[Windowtothewall]

Hoping and praying for some @Tofino and @Windowtothewall cross referencing to the wiki, evidence we’ve heard and cleverness posts today
So 5 babies today? I imagine the insulin babies he’s going to skirt over incredibly quickly. Can’t see him going on much after Thursday morning

Have had to work today so just trying to catch up on breaks and yes, I have thoughts, lots of them haha. Will write up once finished with work! My initial thoughts are - he's doing the best he can to try and discredit the witnesses and evidence, but he's only picking one aspect of it to argue.

Best way to describe his strategy is with an easier example. Imagine my boss says to me, "Windows, you're under investigation for stealing money because (a) colleague saw you (b) there's always money missing when you access the account (c) you're suddenly wearing lots of expensive Prada clothes we know you can't afford on your normal salary and (d) independent experts have tracked the money to an IP address (this lie that influencers spread explained here) in your area

And my defence lawyer says - "Windows is not guilty because she wasn't wearing Prada, it was actually Chanel and the witnesses and colleagues got the brand wrong which means everything they say is a lie and can't be trusted."

 

[tay65]

3:55pm

Mr Myers refers to the phone call at 9.11pm, and the defence say they don't doubt Child E's mother was distressed at that time.

The defence suggest the details from the later phone call were moved to the earlier call, something which is not accepted by either parent.

Mr Myers says Child E's mother spoke to the midwife, Susan Brooks, which was agreed evidence.

The midwife notes: 'Care since 2000hrs...[Child E's mother] asked me to let her know of any contact overnight from NNU as one of the twins- had deteriorated slightly...'

Mr Myers says this is the best, and maybe only, independent guide, for the event, and if the situation was more serious, it would have been noted as such.

It must be horrendous for E's parents listening to him trying to change the phone call events of that night when it must be imprinted in their minds. He cannot dispute the 9.11 pm call so he's saying the content of the discussion took place later. They must feel very angry.

 

[stardust1]

I actually feel ill at the thought of her being able to roam free

 

[Tofino]

I’ll do a new thread.
---
New thread

Lucy Letby Case #42

Defence are currently presenting their closing statement to the jury. It is expected to last all this week, judge summing up next week with deliberations starting w/c 10th July. Last thread: https://tattle.life/threads/lucy-letby-case-41.39939/ Last poll results. I’m wondering if we should...

tattle.life