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

[DianaWW]

"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

I agree. There was enough of a disruption that the judge had to step in and ask her lawyers to speak to her so that they could continue (daily mail report from yesterday). I wouldn’t describe that as composed but a bit tearful. JMO.

 

[notsure]

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

We don't know if she has shown sadness in reaction to all the upsetting testimony.

You have to remember that she has had years to think and reflect on these sad events, and time can dull the impact of trauma to an extent.

Nevertheless, anyone in that court room could be expected to show a sad reaction to the parents' and other people's testimony, not just LL. We just don't know how many people have cried and when, so we have to be careful not to read too much into it, IMO.

Also, as others have pointed out, she has perhaps been advised to remain composed.

Really, she can't win either way: if she cries, it's 'crocodile tears,' if she doesn't cry, she's hard-hearted.

IMHO

 

[Dotta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1626628549477007379

 

[Tortoise]

bonus edition

The Trial of Lucy Letby: Episode 16, Baby J Part 2, “All the investigations could not explain why she had the seizures.”

www.mailplus.co.uk

The Trial of Lucy Letby: Episode 16, Baby J Part 2, “All the investigations could not explain why she had the seizures.”​

In this episode, Liz and Caroline explain the rest of the evidence the jury have heard about Baby J, ‘a nice little baby’ who Lucy Letby is accused of attempting to murder in November 2015 by smothering.

 

[Marantz4250b]

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

Is this what this is, though? I'm not sure; these witnesses are not anonymous as their names are provided to the court. We know that to be the case as LL started crying when he stated his name.

In addition, I cannot see how the criteria required for an anonymity order to be made are fulfilled in this case. Those being;

• 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.

I don't believe that any of the witnesses for whom their names cannot be published meet this criteria. There is virtually no chance that they are under any threat to their safety and in the absence of that then what danger is there of them being named in the press which represent "real harm to the public interest"? As I said, if that were the case then they wouldn't be names at all.

This is some sort of reporting restriction, imo, rather than a witness protection order under that section.

I think it's likely to be related to identification of victims in some estric way or, perhaps, in order not to prejudice any further related legal cases as I think we can be sure that there are a raft of cases which will be heard after the conclusion of this one. We already know that the parents are lawyered-up for civil cases and I think there is a likelihood of possible further criminal cases given what has gone on at this hospital.

 

[Marantz4250b]

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

Is this what this is, though? I'm not sure; these witnesses are not anonymous as their names are provided to the court. We know that to be the case as LL started crying when he stated his name.

In addition, I cannot see how the criteria required for an anonymity order to be made are fulfilled in this case. Those being;

• 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.

I don't believe that any of the witnesses for whom their names cannot be published meet this criteria. There is virtually no chance that they are under any threat to their safety and in the absence of that then what danger is there of them being named in the press which represent "real harm to the public interest"? As I said, if that were the case then they wouldn't be names at all.

This is some sort of reporting restriction, imo, rather than a witness protection order under that section.

I think it's likely to be related to identification of victims in some estric way or, perhaps, in order not to prejudice any further related legal cases as I think we can be sure that there are a raft of cases which will be heard after the conclusion of this one. We already know that the parents are lawyered-up for civil cases and I think there is a likelihood of possible further criminal cases given what has gone on at this hospital.

 

[Marantz4250b]

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 agree. There is clearly a personal connection here.

With reference to the house; it's been mentioned on here a few times that she owned it but I've never seen evidence of that actually being the case. She may have done, of course, but a three bed semi is a tad unusual for a 25 year old single nurse. Nothing wrong with it, and it makes little difference to the discussion, but it's just a bit noteworthy.

Do we know that she actually owned it or was she renting?

 

[Dcflag]

I wonder if the screened witness was aware of what was happening with the defendant while she was having her meltdown?

Dbm because I was wildly wrong

 

[ColourPurple]

I think it's likely to be related to identification of victims in some estric way or, perhaps, in order not to prejudice any further related legal cases as I think we can be sure that there are a raft of cases which will be heard after the conclusion of this one. We already know that the parents are lawyered-up for civil cases and I think there is a likelihood of possible further criminal cases given what has gone on at this hospital.

I think it was in one of the early Daily Mail podcasts they said the hospital staff were all offered the option of anonymity in court.

 

[ColourPurple]

I agree. There is clearly a personal connection here.

With reference to the house; it's been mentioned on here a few times that she owned it but I've never seen evidence of that actually being the case. She may have done, of course, but a three bed semi is a tad unusual for a 25 year old single nurse. Nothing wrong with it, and it makes little difference to the discussion, but it's just a bit noteworthy.

Do we know that she actually owned it or was she renting?

The nurse added: “Lucy was young, living in a doctors’ halls of residence and saving to buy a house. She was single and was willing and wanting to do extras.”

Lucy Letby trial: Court hears nurse was keen to work extra shifts

The Lucy Letby trial heard the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit nurse was "willing and wanting" to do extra shifts.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Dotta]

I think it was in one of the early Daily Mail podcasts they said the hospital staff were all offered the option of anonymity in court.

So my hunch was right that all still employed in this hospital were offered anonymity.
I wonder if it was on Prosecution's request?

 

[ColourPurple]

So my hunch was right that all still employed in this hospital were offered anonymity.
I wonder if it was on Prosecution request?

I assumed it included all doctors and nurses whether they were still there or not but don't quote me on that lol

 

[Marantz4250b]

its dr John Gibbs speaking about the junior doctors Not the unnamed paediatric consultant. I thought if he was someone who read the insulin results and didn’t realise the significance he was probably one of the juniors at the time, on his way in Training to become a full PC. I was betting on him being older than LL at the time but not by much. Around thirty maybe slight older maybe slightly younger but still older. Not ruling out he was much older but going with the done thing wouldn’t presume over 35. Remember she was 25 at the time.

assuming he started Training to be a PC at 18 after all of this

1. a 5-year degree in medicine, recognised by the General Medical Council.
2. a 2-year foundation course of general training.
3. 4 to 7 years of specialist training, depending on your chosen area of medicine.

that still places him as 32 With a max 7 years specialist training.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if she was seeing someone much older. It's really not that unusual these days for young women, especially educated successful ones with good careers, to date men a lot older. Having been privileged to have been afforded the opportunity to personally "research" the phenomenon extensively over recent years I can confirm that it's a lot more common than many people may realise!

If we are to accept that the three bed house, the rapid career progression and what seems to be a lot of overtime, equates to her trying to set herself up with a comfortable life in which to start a family then dating an older doctor would definitely fit with that. Indeed, I think I'd go as far as to say that I'd be surprised if she were dating a guy her own age.

Also, for her it would be much easier from the point of view of her family as there is a significant age difference (17 years) between her parents so she wouldn't be getting the disapproval from parents, siblings, etc. I would not be surprised if she was dating someone well into his 40's - maybe even older but that might start to conflict with the plan to have a family.

LL appears to have very clearly defined life goals, from what we can deduce from what we know of her, which, imo, makes it even more bizarre to me if she's actually guilty of all this.

But, yeah, I think that this guy is someone who is of great significance to LL.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think it was in one of the early Daily Mail podcasts they said the hospital staff were all offered the option of anonymity in court.

I think you may be right but I'm not sure it was anonymity due to the section that Tortoise posted before. They arent anonymous as their names were stated in court. It just seems to be a reporting restriction, probably based on Human Rights grounds or something.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I agree. There is clearly a personal connection here.

With reference to the house; it's been mentioned on here a few times that she owned it but I've never seen evidence of that actually being the case. She may have done, of course, but a three bed semi is a tad unusual for a 25 year old single nurse. Nothing wrong with it, and it makes little difference to the discussion, but it's just a bit noteworthy.

Do we know that she actually owned it or was she renting?

really does seem that way to me. Her heading for the doors shows great discomfort after hearing him speak. IMO. She obviously shows control as well. She regained composure after the outburst and returned to her seat, subduing the feelings. Could be the accumulation of feelings.

there is another potential here though, say if she did become involved with this fella but once he became aware of the situation in the hospital he called it off. She might not have known then but obviously does now. Might have brought back allot of hurt for her.

in this daily Mail article, they mention more than once it was her property. Worth 180 k so presumably a mortgage. Fits with someone who had done all those extra shifts and wanted to be away from her parents. Saved up for a deposit. She seems an independent person who planned for a family. This property was also a mile away from the hospital. She seems to have had her head screwed on properly assuming innocence etc

O”n Tuesday, police arrived at Miss Letby's modern £180,000 three-bedroom semi-detached house in Chester, about a mile from the hospital. n Tuesday, police arrived at Miss Letby's modern £180,000 three-bedroom semi-detached house in Chester, about a mile from the hospital.”

“Now, police officers are digging up the back garden of her home as the fingertip search extends to land around her house.”

Police dig up back garden and search gutters at home of neonatal nurse

Police officers are digging up land around Lucy Letby's home in Chester and searching gutters after she was arrested on suspicion of the murder of 8 babies at the Countess of Chester hospital.

www.dailymail.co.uk

and this suggests ownership.

“”The property in Westbourne Road being searched belongs to children’s nurse Lucy Letby, 28, who is understood to have worked at the hospital for seven years, Mirror Online is reporting.”

Police raid nurse's home as part of Countess baby deaths inquiry

The property being searched belongs to 28-year-old children's nurse Lucy Letby

www.cheshire-live.co.uk

 

[Sweeper2000]

Think it’s this house.

Property valuation - 41 Westbourne Road, Chester, Cheshire West And Chester, CH1 5BA

41 Westbourne Road, Chester is a 3 bedroom freehold semi-detached house spread over 829 square feet, making it one of the bigger properties here - it is ranked as the 22nd most expensive property* in CH1 5BA, with a valuation of £234,000.

themovemarket.com

sold again in 2019. Made 11 k.

photo from dm involving the search.

Police dig up back garden and search gutters at home of neonatal nurse

Police officers are digging up land around Lucy Letby's home in Chester and searching gutters after she was arrested on suspicion of the murder of 8 babies at the Countess of Chester hospital.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Photo from website with property details.

https://images.themovemarket.com/size/600x400/e006ff4d-d9bd-474e-878f-e7ad351b2363/41-westbourne-road-chester-cheshire-west-and-chester-ch1-5ba-1

no mention of it being rented. Same walkway next to the notable black gate.

 

[Tortoise]

"We thought it was probably worth getting an expert in to help us with all of this, David Banks, he's an expert in media law...

One of the things in this case David, which maybe you can explain whether this is unusual or not, is that the babies at the centre of these allegations are not going to be named, there are quite tight reporting restrictions on this case aren't there at the moment?"

David Banks - "The fundamental principle of the courts here in this country is that we have what they call Open Justice, where everyone gets named, the defendant, the witnesses, the lawyers, everyone involved with the case is named and the public get to see those names and they know who it is. But in some circumstances the courts can order anonymity... It's unusual though to have adult witnesses in court granted anonymity, but in this case an Order has been made doing that, because the view of the court and the judge in the case is that that will allow those witnesses...their evidence will be better for the court if they are granted that anonymity, but what that means though is that the babies have to be given anonymity as well, because if the babies were named then that would lead to the identification of their parents. So it's an unusual situation, it's not unheard of, but it is quite unusual."

Source : The Trial of Lucy Letby, Episode 2: A scrawled post-it note

 

[Sweeper2000]

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!!

Sorry dotta

it’s just me putting the info together. I’m kind of guessing that at the age of 25 she hadn’t quite become settled enough for a serious relationship. 25 is quite young to really have that side of life down imo especially for one committed to her goals. Maybe had little experience with boyfriends before. Not much anyways. Probably too involved with work and getting secure in a new house. The house gives her that opportunity IMO.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I wouldn't at all be surprised if she was seeing someone much older. It's really not that unusual these days for young women, especially educated successful ones with good careers, to date men a lot older. Having been privileged to have been afforded the opportunity to personally "research" the phenomenon extensively over recent years I can confirm that it's a lot more common than many people may realise!

If we are to accept that the three bed house, the rapid career progression and what seems to be a lot of overtime, equates to her trying to set herself up with a comfortable life in which to start a family then dating an older doctor would definitely fit with that. Indeed, I think I'd go as far as to say that I'd be surprised if she were dating a guy her own age.

Also, for her it would be much easier from the point of view of her family as there is a significant age difference (17 years) between her parents so she wouldn't be getting the disapproval from parents, siblings, etc. I would not be surprised if she was dating someone well into his 40's - maybe even older but that might start to conflict with the plan to have a family.

LL appears to have very clearly defined life goals, from what we can deduce from what we know of her, which, imo, makes it even more bizarre to me if she's actually guilty of all this.

But, yeah, I think that this guy is someone who is of great significance to LL.

certainly wouldn’t rule it out. Just she seems quite mature and level headed so wouldn’t guess any attraction to a fella much older. She’s more or less grade A material if you will forgive the expression, could get with anyone. He was a new doctor on a good pathway, similar interests presumably Ie childcare. Stable, intelligent and good prospects. He was also a registrar at the time so presumably wasn’t much older.

really do agree with your statements on her having clearly defined life goals, fits with what little we know about her. Dedicated, well regulated and work/task orientated.maybe risk averse and low stimulation preference.
<modsnip: Removed comments that are sub judice>

 

[DianaWW]

I’m not sure I would describe her as having a ‘low stimulus preference’ when she has complained in text messages about being bored when looking after babies that only needed feeding. But I do find it interesting how we all perceive these things differently. JMO.