UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #11

[Marantz4250b]

Why were you under that impression?

Why would the babies be identified through association with so many nurses and doctors, but not the other nurses and doctors?

I thought it was mentioned on here months back near the start of the trial, for some reason.

Witnesses don't usually get to choose to have their names suppressed unless there is an automatic right or requirement to it such as in sex cases, national security or vulnerable witness protection.

 

[JosieJo]

What’s your guess to his age then josie jo? About thirty maybe younger?

At a guess 27 to 32 ? But could be older if trained later or spent a long time as a Reg as some do imo

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

All the drama with LL’s reaction to the doctor yesterday has clearly provoked a lot of interesting discussion. Obviously it’s very interesting to speculate about who this Doctor is to LL and why she reacted in the way she did, but I think that ultimately, his relationship to LL and her reaction to him is irrelevant in terms of her guilt or innocence to the charges she faces.

However, I think that the event yesterday will either have helped LL in the eyes of the jury or will have done some serious damage.

I hope that I am never accused of such heinous crimes, let alone prosecuted for them . But the truth is that none of us know how we would react if we were in LL’s situation. Whether she is guilty or innocent, my understanding is that the accused is advised very strongly by their legal team to remain composed whilst in court and not to react to what is going on (because God forbid she should come across as a hysterical woman).

I think it is fair to assume that most people, if they were on trial and if they were sitting day after day through a court case for months on end listening to evidence being given by former colleagues and friends and bereaved parents of babies, would find that the composed persona they have been advised to adopt would crack at some point.

What actually triggers that persona to crack can be a specific event, which in itself is so upsetting that it breaks through the persona the accused has adopted; or it could be the cumulative effect of all that has come before , and the event which causes the accused to react isn’t particularly important or relevant in and of itself.

There is no way of knowing which explanation applies in reality to LL and her response yesterday.

The problem is that where you have a black hole of information about what the accused is like as a person, and their background, and what makes them tick (as we have in the case of LL, which many people have pointed out already), observers and indeed the jury will naturally be on high alert for any scrap of information which might provide some insight into LL as a person. And when a scrap of information appears, I think the likelihood of some real importance being attached to that information increases significantly.

So I think the jury will be inclined to attach some importance to yesterday’s response . They might look at her response and assume that this is someone she cared about very deeply, and this may be the first time she has heard their voice in several years, so it is understandable that she would be upset . They might therefore see this as an entirely normal human reaction, which serves to humanise her in the eyes of the jury, and makes her more relatable. In other words, they no longer look at her as a cold, uncaring, unmoved accused. That would obviously work in her favour.

But the other way in which I think they could look at it is that she is not crying when bereaved parents are giving evidence, nor when a baby’s last minutes of life are being recounted by medics, including descriptions of hysterical parents begging doctors to save their baby’s life. That that could very easily feed into a narrative that she doesn’t care about the babies or their parents.

JMO etc

 

[Dotta]

And I got the impression that this person is associated with deep hurt/trauma in her mind.

That is why, when she heard his name, she immediately got up wanting to leave his presence.

Feelings of betrayal and hurt can stay forever.

And on top of all her trauma in Court - he appeared.
It seems, it was TOO much for her.

So I wouldn't spin any "love story"scenario here.

JMO

 

[Tortoise]

Witness Anonymity Orders​

Introduction​

Section 86 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 defines a witness anonymity order as an order that requires such measures to be taken in relation to a witness in criminal proceedings as the court considers appropriate to ensure that the identity of the witness is not disclosed in or in connection with the proceedings. Such measures may include withholding the witness’s name and that the witness may use a pseudonym, may be screened, may have their voice modified or may not be asked questions which might identify them.

The police should advise the prosecutor of the likely need to make an application for a witness anonymity order as soon it becomes known in any investigation or case. This may be at the Early Advice stage, on the application of the Threshold Test or Full Code Test, or in some cases post-charge, but it should be as early as possible.

Prosecutors should apply this guidance in a thinking way that does not inhibit the effective progress of the case. They must consider whether the conditions for making a witness anonymity order are met, and if so, whether or not other statutory provisions or other common law powers would address the risk. As the Court of Appeal stated in R v Mayers and others [2008] EWCA Crim 2989 and emphasised in R v Donovan and Kafunda [2012] EWCA Crim 2749, ”a witness anonymity order is to be regarded as a special measure of the last practicable resort”.

In every case where consideration is being given to an application for a witness anonymity order, the prosecutor must ensure that the police have obtained as much evidence as possible that it supportive or corroborative of the witness’s evidence. The success of an application may depend on the nature and extent of any support or corroboration, particularly if it is independent of the witness for whom anonymity is sought.

Prosecutors must not apply for a witness anonymity order if the granting of the order would deny the defendant a fair trial.

Any prosecutor dealing with a witness anonymity application should have an appropriate level of security clearance taking into account the nature of the material underlying the application.

Considering whether to make an application​

The Law​

The court’s power to make a witness anonymity order is conferred by Part 3 Chapter 2 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”).

Section 88 of the 2009 Act sets out Conditions A to C, all of which must be met before the court may make a witness anonymity order:

• Condition A: the proposed order is necessary-
  1. in order to protect the safety of the witness or another person or to prevent any serious damage to property, or
  2. in order to prevent real harm to the public interest (whether affecting the carrying on of any activities in the public interest or the safety of a person involved in carrying on such activities, or otherwise).
• Condition B: having regard to all the circumstances, the effect of the proposed order would be consistent with the defendant receiving a fair trial.
• Condition C: the importance of the witness's testimony is such that in the interests of justice the witness ought to testify and-
  1. the witness would not testify if the proposed order were not made, or
  2. there would be real harm to the public interest if the witness were to testify without the proposed order being made.

In respect of the first limb of Condition A, Section 88(6) provides that in determining whether the proposed order is necessary to protect the safety of the witness or another person or to prevent serious damage to injury, the court must have regard (in particular) to any reasonable fear on the part of the witness that, if they were to be identified:

1. they or another person would suffer death or injury, or
2. there would be serious damage to property.

Section 89 of the 2009 Act lists some considerations for the court to have regard to in an application for a witness anonymity order. The list is not exhaustive, and the court can take into account such other matters as it considers relevant: section 89(1)(b).

Applying the law​

An application for a witness anonymity order should only be made when, after full consideration of all the available alternatives, a clear view is taken that Conditions A, B and C all apply.

Prosecutors must ensure that they have sufficient evidence or information to satisfy a court that each of the three conditions has been met. Each application is likely to be fact specific, and applications for civilian witnesses and those for professional witnesses engaged in law enforcement are likely to differ.

In order to show that the proposed order is necessary under Condition A, prosecutors will need to show the steps taken to try to secure the evidence of the witness short of anonymity.

Where section 88(6) is relied on, prosecutors must be able to show that any fear expressed by the witness is reasonable. The fear may be connected to a specific incident (such as a threat made to the witness), or it may be based on a general climate of fear in the environment in which the witness lives. In either case, it is essential that the prosecutor is satisfied that the police have evidence to support the concerns of the witness. It is likely that fear will be more applicable to civilian witnesses rather than law enforcement professionals. Once a prosecutor is satisfied that the fear of the witness is reasonable, they must consider whether any of the alternative measures set out above would address the fear of the witness.

Witness protection and anonymity | The Crown Prosecution Service

 

[notsure]

With regard to LL not crying when listening to the suffering endured by the babies and their parents, I do not see that as an indicator of hard-heartedness. She is a trained nurse, and as such is used to controlling her emotions around patients and their families. Nurses do not burst into tears when faced with a suffering patient: it doesn't help anybody. I doubt that every person in court was crying when hearing the evidence. Does that mean they are all callous? Of course not, IMHO

 

[Sweeper2000]

All the drama with LL’s reaction to the doctor yesterday has clearly provoked a lot of interesting discussion. Obviously it’s very interesting to speculate about who this Doctor is to LL and why she reacted in the way she did, but I think that ultimately, his relationship to LL and her reaction to him is irrelevant in terms of her guilt or innocence to the charges she faces.

However, I think that the event yesterday will either have helped LL in the eyes of the jury or will have done some serious damage.

I hope that I am never accused of such heinous crimes, let alone prosecuted for them . But the truth is that none of us know how we would react if we were in LL’s situation. Whether she is guilty or innocent, my understanding is that the accused is advised very strongly by their legal team to remain composed whilst in court and not to react to what is going on (because God forbid she should come across as a hysterical woman).

I think it is fair to assume that most people, if they were on trial and if they were sitting day after day through a court case for months on end listening to evidence being given by former colleagues and friends and bereaved parents of babies, would find that the composed persona they have been advised to adopt would crack at some point.

What actually triggers that persona to crack can be a specific event, which in itself is so upsetting that it breaks through the persona the accused has adopted; or it could be the cumulative effect of all that has come before , and the event which causes the accused to react isn’t particularly important or relevant in and of itself.

There is no way of knowing which explanation applies in reality to LL and her response yesterday.

The problem is that where you have a black hole of information about what the accused is like as a person, and their background, and what makes them tick (as we have in the case of LL, which many people have pointed out already), observers and indeed the jury will naturally be on high alert for any scrap of information which might provide some insight into LL as a person. And when a scrap of information appears, I think the likelihood of some real importance being attached to that information increases significantly.

So I think the jury will be inclined to attach some importance to yesterday’s response . They might look at her response and assume that this is someone she cared about very deeply, and this may be the first time she has heard their voice in several years, so it is understandable that she would be upset . They might therefore see this as an entirely normal human reaction, which serves to humanise her in the eyes of the jury, and makes her more relatable. In other words, they no longer look at her as a cold, uncaring, unmoved accused. That would obviously work in her favour.

But the other way in which I think they could look at it is that she is not crying when bereaved parents are giving evidence, nor when a baby’s last minutes of life are being recounted by medics, including descriptions of hysterical parents begging doctors to save their baby’s life. That that could very easily feed into a narrative that she doesn’t care about the babies or their parents.

JMO etc

Agree with all of this.

here’s my take on why that’s a significant moment for the accused.

I thought that the way that happened with this doc taking the stand ad then LL crying almost as a reaction to his presence indicates personal connection.

putting oneself in her shoes and looking at her history. She seems to have done everything right with no reported extremes in her past. All accounts of her are glowing, she had left school and immediately gone to university, studied hard, regulated herself, became a top tier nurse at her unit, had a clean record with the nursing council, recently purchased her first three bed property and was presumably looking to start a family. A single nurse doesn’t need three bedrooms, a family does though. That might also mean she saved enough for a deposit maybe. Fits with what others have said about her Imo. She had literally done everything right and the ground was set for a happy future. Maybe including this fella ie the doc.and then the highly traumatic events that have led to her being in the dock happened. And it all came crashing down.

if he was her dream fella the moment he spoke could have made her think “does he think this of me”? And then all happy memories, all that hard work, all seems so futile and wasted. It Hits her and then the tears And regret.

I might assume yesterday’s events work in her favour. she wasn’t screaming, she didn’t exit the dock, she headed for the doors had a little chat and then resumed her place. Apparently composed enough but a bit tearful. She seemingly has control and emotion. She Has also had years to think about this court case and years to prepare for the hardship involved. That might explain why she hasn’t shown emotion up until now.

I do believe she will have been instructed to remain composed in court or poker face. Give nothing away.

assuming she is innocent or didn’t intend to get caught.

jmo

 

[Sundial]

Not to mention a group of Doctors had gone before the board to voice their concerns well before the start of the investigation in 2017.

The changes would make it much more difficult for someone to commit murders in plain sight.

This has me thinking; perhaps said doctor (that cannot be named) yesterday was part of that group to raise concerns (with or without any kind of interest between himself and LL)
MOO

 

[Dotta]

Agree with all of this.

here’s my take on why that’s a significant moment for the accused.

I thought that the way that happened with this doc taking the stand ad then LL crying almost as a reaction to his presence indicates personal connection.

putting oneself in her shoes and looking at her history. She seems to have done everything right with no reported extremes in her past. All accounts of her are glowing, she had left school and immediately gone to university, studied hard, regulated herself, became a top tier nurse at her unit, had a clean record with the nursing council, recently purchased her first three bed property and was presumably looking to start a family. A single nurse doesn’t need three bedrooms, a family does though. That might also mean she saved enough for a deposit maybe. Fits with what others have said about her Imo. She had literally done everything right and the ground was set for a happy future. Maybe including this fella ie the doc.and then the highly traumatic events that have led to her being in the dock happened. And it all came crashing down.

if he was her dream fella the moment he spoke could have made her think “does he think this of me”? And then all happy memories, all that hard work, all seems so futile and wasted. It Hits her and then the tears And regret.

I might assume yesterday’s events work in her favour. she wasn’t screaming, she didn’t exit the dock, she headed for the doors had a little chat and then resumed her place. Apparently composed enough but a bit tearful. She seemingly has control and emotion. She Has also had years to think about this court case and years to prepare for the hardship involved. That might explain why she hasn’t shown emotion up until now.

I do believe she will have been instructed to remain composed in court or poker face. Give nothing away.

assuming she is innocent or didn’t intend to get caught.

jmo

Her buying a house happened after many mysterious collapses of babies.

And if,
and I mean a big IF, there was "romantic" feeling in your story

(Umm, "romantic" and LL? )

this guy seemed to me too observant - with his head screwed on right
that he quickly "ran for the hills".

Oh boy, he had a lucky escape!!!
JmO

PS
Your story made my eyes tear up!!

 

[Sweeper2000]

This has me thinking; perhaps said doctor (that cannot be named) yesterday was part of that group to raise concerns (with or without any kind of interest between himself and LL)
MOO

Can’t be. He only joined in 2016.

 

[Tortoise]

With regard to LL not crying when listening to the suffering endured by the babies and their parents, I do not see that as an indicator of hard-heartedness. She is a trained nurse, and as such is used to controlling her emotions around patients and their families. Nurses do not burst into tears when faced with a suffering patient: it doesn't help anybody. I doubt that every person in court was crying when hearing the evidence. Does that mean they are all callous? Of course not, IMHO

She's not in a hospital ward though, tending to the sick and trying to be practical and professional, she's in a courtroom seeing the impact these deaths had on the parents. I doubt she is controlling her emotions, because why would she not engage now? Much as she wouldn't control her emotions if she was watching a sad film, because there is no need to.

While I don't think I expect her to be continually sobbing her heart out, I think I would expect to see appropriate emotion at times to particularly sad testimony, if she is identifying with these witnesses' lives at all. We don't need to view her as a role-model nurse, we can view her as a nurse of 4 years, a friend, colleague, daughter, and as a 33 year old adult woman who might be capable of the crimes she has been charged with.

The other thing is, she didn't control her emotions yesterday, so it could be that she doesn't really do empathy but is quite caught up with her own feelings and needs.

JMO

 

[pandaknows]

US juries assess the credibility of witnesses and so they normally cannot hide behind a screen because the demeanor of the witness is important. I would want to know, as a jury member, why LL may have believed that this consultant medic testifying about insulin dosage may know something more about the situation than he is telling. Hence LL's outrage. Medic cannot look her in the eye while testifying. LL may have wanted him to tell the entire story/truth, whatever she thinks he should have understood from being close to her at one point, presumably. Perhaps she planned on staring him down and was looking forward to the trial for that opportunity. Could be romantic or could be related to hospital conditions he was aware of. If romantic, then perhaps she "saved Babies L and M" to make him look good because she loved him, MOO.

 

[Sundial]

Her buying a house happened after many mysterious collapses of babies.

And if,
and I mean a big IF, there was "romantic" feeling in your story

(Umm, "romantic" and LL? )

this guy seemed to me too observant - with his head screwed on right
that he quickly "ran for the hills".

Oh boy, he had a lucky escape!!!
JmO

PS
Your story made my eyes tear up!!

But, on the other side of the coin, is this the same doctor she was messaging on sm? Did she feel it was more than it might have been for example? I think back to her comments about the parents and the tiny dress to her colleague which was most inappropriate for her to discuss the way she did. Yet, *did that* actually even happen? They could have just been scrambling disoriented in a strange place to the door, did she make it out to be something it wasn’t?
Did she believe the doctor and herself could have been romantically linked (or interested in her) even if he wasn’t, did he then like someone else and she took it badly (could some of the bitchiness in work be connected by this). Was there something in her mind that wasn’t even reciprocated by him. All just my own thoughts, it could be anything or completely nothing I guess. JMO MOO

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

With regard to LL not crying when listening to the suffering endured by the babies and their parents, I do not see that as an indicator of hard-heartedness. She is a trained nurse, and as such is used to controlling her emotions around patients and their families. Nurses do not burst into tears when faced with a suffering patient: it doesn't help anybody. I doubt that every person in court was crying when hearing the evidence. Does that mean they are all callous? Of course not, IMHO

I agree with you that nurses and doctors will be able to control their emotions as part of their training and that it isn’t necessarily an indicator of hard heartedness.

My point was that in the absence of virtually any information about who LL is as a person, the jury may latch onto what few scraps of information they do get (such as a tearful outburst) and attach weight or importance to it, which may well not be justified , but I think it would be a fairly common response.

 

[marynnu]

Another reference to the “poor skill” of other staff in her texts (okay, a poor skill mix, but I think this is a polite way of putting it!). She also moves on from the bad day quickly to focus on the positives of winning money, which doesn’t jive with theories of her doing it for attention. She was planning to have a party; if she wanted to milk the deaths for sympathy that would have been the perfect time, but we don’t see it.

About the bag - sorry sure this must have been covered already but how much of it is pre-prepared? Does LL take the pre-prepared mix and put it in the bag or is the bag itself already made up for her?

Poor skill mix does not mean poor skill. It is not derogatory in any way. It means the proportion of qualified/experienced nurses to junior nursers or nursery nurses is not adequate.
JMO

 

[Sundial]

Can’t be. He only joined in 2016.

But that’s not to say he may have aired some kind of concern later down the line. I wonder if others then may have also reported unusual things (eg after the move to day shifts). It will be interesting to hear the latter end of the alleged cases, and who else may (or not!) have also shared any concerns.
Jmo

 

[Tortoise]

US juries assess the credibility of witnesses and so they normally cannot hide behind a screen because the demeanor of the witness is important. I would want to know, as a jury member, why LL may have believed that this consultant medic testifying about insulin dosage may know something more about the situation than he is telling. Hence LL's outrage. Medic cannot look her in the eye while testifying. LL may have wanted him to tell the entire story/truth, whatever she thinks he should have understood from being close to her at one point, presumably. Perhaps she planned on staring him down and was looking forward to the trial for that opportunity. Could be romantic or could be related to hospital conditions he was aware of. If romantic, then perhaps she "saved Babies L and M" to make him look good because she loved him, MOO.

The witness isn't screened from the jury though. Witnesses testifying are asked not to look at the barristers or anywhere else but the jury, because their answers are for the jury. If LL knew something about him that the prosecution didn't, she had the opportunity to tell her barrister, pass him a note, and have questions put to the witness. Mr Myers had no questions for this doctor.

JMO

 

[Dotta]

But, on the other side of the coin, is this the same doctor she was messaging on sm? Did she feel it was more than it might have been for example? I think back to her comments about the parents and the tiny dress to her colleague which was most inappropriate for her to discuss the way she did. Yet, *did that* actually even happen? They could have just been scrambling disoriented in a strange place to the door, did she make it out to be something it wasn’t?
Did she believe the doctor and herself could have been romantically linked (or interested in her) even if he wasn’t, did he then like someone else and she took it badly (could some of the bitchiness in work be connected by this). Was there something in her mind that wasn’t even reciprocated by him. All just my own thoughts, it could be anything or completely nothing I guess. JMO MOO

I have no the slightest idea!

But to love somebody, one has to first love ONESELF!
And, judging by her note - this wasn't exactly the case.

This is MY opinion only

 

[Sundial]

But, on the other side of the coin, is this the same doctor she was messaging on sm? Did she feel it was more than it might have been for example? I think back to her comments about the parents and the tiny dress to her colleague which was most inappropriate for her to discuss the way she did. Yet, *did that* actually even happen? They could have just been scrambling disoriented in a strange place to the door, did she make it out to be something it wasn’t?
Did she believe the doctor and herself could have been romantically linked (or interested in her) even if he wasn’t, did he then like someone else and she took it badly (could some of the bitchiness in work be connected by this). Was there something in her mind that wasn’t even reciprocated by him. All just my own thoughts, it could be anything or completely nothing I guess. JMO MOO

Adding onto my previous thoughts; she has been alleged not to be able to read the situation well with parents. Recalling back on the baby bath and she was smiling and chatting away, being told not to keep going into the family room by her superior. Perhaps this is similar. To him it may be nothing (or could be) and perhaps she’s not read the situation right.
Also the mention of colleagues messages “people should respect how I feel”. Again, her colleagues were concerned about her, but she doesn’t seem to be reading these vital points people were raising in quite the same way IMO.

 

[JosieJo]

Agree with all of this.

here’s my take on why that’s a significant moment for the accused.

I thought that the way that happened with this doc taking the stand ad then LL crying almost as a reaction to his presence indicates personal connection.

putting oneself in her shoes and looking at her history. She seems to have done everything right with no reported extremes in her past. All accounts of her are glowing, she had left school and immediately gone to university, studied hard, regulated herself, became a top tier nurse at her unit, had a clean record with the nursing council, recently purchased her first three bed property and was presumably looking to start a family. A single nurse doesn’t need three bedrooms, a family does though. That might also mean she saved enough for a deposit maybe. Fits with what others have said about her Imo. She had literally done everything right and the ground was set for a happy future. Maybe including this fella ie the doc.and then the highly traumatic events that have led to her being in the dock happened. And it all came crashing down.

if he was her dream fella the moment he spoke could have made her think “does he think this of me”? And then all happy memories, all that hard work, all seems so futile and wasted. It Hits her and then the tears And regret.

I might assume yesterday’s events work in her favour. she wasn’t screaming, she didn’t exit the dock, she headed for the doors had a little chat and then resumed her place. Apparently composed enough but a bit tearful. She seemingly has control and emotion. She Has also had years to think about this court case and years to prepare for the hardship involved. That might explain why she hasn’t shown emotion up until now.

I do believe she will have been instructed to remain composed in court or poker face. Give nothing away.

assuming she is innocent or didn’t intend to get caught.

jmo

"I might assume yesterday’s events work in her favour. she wasn’t screaming, she didn’t exit the dock, she headed for the doors had a little chat and then resumed her place. Apparently composed enough but a bit tearful. She seemingly has control and emotion"

I'm not so sure..she didn't just become emotional or shed tears ...she stood up in the middle of proceedings and walked towards the cell doors ...I must admit in such a formal setting that's quite something...in all of the cases I've followed I've never heard a defendant disrupt proceedings