UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #13

[Marantz4250b]

is tactless. I reckon she’s nev really dated before at least on the long term. That alo with being non socially minded. Find the choc thing funny tbh, if tht were me I wouldn’t be saying I don’t like ur gift lol. Esp if I was thinking to date them.


does anyone know which babies have autopsies? I’m just wondering if one of the clearer examples of proof of AE might be obtained in any of them.

I don't go with that theory - I think that the initial reports of her being "quiet and a bit awkward" are taking too much hold in people's minds. She is clearly very normally sociable. This is why I initially became so interested in this case because I can't think of any others where the people found guilty have been sociable people with a wide circle of friends as she clearly has.

All of her pics are either with other people or are taken by other people. She comes over as completely and utterly normal and respectable in every sense, which is why I will be utterly blown away if she's actually guilty.

AMOO, obvs.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I really don't think so. And remember, we're talking about a guy who's offered her his car to drive home in, a guy who says he'll pick it up in the morning if she takes him up on the offer ie. a no fuss guy, a guy she clearly already has at the very least a good working friendship with. You don't just offer the use of your car to some random person you might want to get to know better. On the basis of that, I'd say he's unlikely to be someone who'd take his chocolate rejection to heart. And it wasn't even rejection! She said '...but on this occasion....' (or words to that effect).

Something and nothing really imo.

I agree with all of that. It probably makes little difference to anything but I'm just getting the impression that if there's a relationship here it's possibly something that few people know the extent of and perhaps they're intentionally keeping things on the down-low.

 

[ColourPurple]

Anyone want to speculate on why the exchanges between her and this doc are significant enough to be admitted as evidence in court?

im struggling tbh.

IMO I'm guessing its to suggest that, if guilty, she may have allegedly tried to kill these last few babies to impress him with her calmness during resus (and potentially whilst dealing grieving parents if the resus wasn;t succesful) and the sympathy and attention he gave her when she'd had a tough shift.

The texts would be useful to show that there was a possible budding romantic relationship, she was getting sympathy and attention from him, and that she was possibly coming in to work early in the hopes of crossing paths with him. It will be interesting to see if any other collapses from N onwards coincide with him being on shift, or whether anything significant happens in their relationship at the point where she came back from her holiday and allegedly attempted to kill three babies in three days.

I'm guessing we'll also hear more about whether or not she did have hypothyroidism (otherwise why add that text). She does seem to like him but there's also the added bonus, if guilty, that she can use him to sound out what he and other Drs are feeling about the collapses. Whether they're suspicious etc. Not sure yet if he is the same doctor who she asks whether she should be worried, after Dr J starts asking questions about Baby Q.

All JMO if guilty etc.

 

[Dotta]

The fact he chose to give his evidence behind a screen so he couldn’t see her is quite telling I think.

I think ALL who cannot be named to public, are screened.

I don't think he had any say in it.

JMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

If she is found
Not Guilty,
will she ever work as a nurse again?

Is it even possible?

Would she want it?
Would any hospital want her?

And I guess, she would need long retraining.

Or choose completely new career.

What a mess.

JMO

This has been my feeling since I first read about her during lockdown 2020 - was it really that long ago???

If she's innocent her life is utterly ruined.

If she's guilty of any more than one of these murder charges there's a very good chance she'll never be released - the statutory sentencing rules will make sure of that. She'll get absolutely decades at the very least - that's the legal standard, not my opinion for the mods.

As I think you pointed out yourself, whether guilty or not, none of this needed to happen;

She's young, intelligent, well educated, attractive, has excellent career prospects in a well respected field, clearly earns well and doesn't waste money as she had a three bedroom house at the age of about 24 and, as we've recently discovered, perhaps had a thing going with a doctor.

Regardless of the outcome of this trial, no one will come out a winner. It's all just desperately sad and unnecessary.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think it was reported that she went to Ibiza with her folks.

That was Devon. I'm guessing she was in Ibiza with friends or a guy.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I don't go with that theory - I think that the initial reports of her being "quiet and a bit awkward" are taking too much hold in people's minds. She is clearly very normally sociable. This is why I initially became so interested in this case because I can't think of any others where the people found guilty have been sociable people with a wide circle of friends as she clearly has.

All of her pics are either with other people or are taken by other people. She comes over as completely and utterly normal and respectable in every sense, which is why I will be utterly blown away if she's actually guilty.

AMOO, obvs.

Would definitely agree with her being sociable but not necessarily socially gifted. A bit of an eccentric maybe. So she wants to be social but doesn’t quite have enough experience or aptitude at that point for social fluidity. It’s perfectly normal and not all unexpected especially when young and still learning.

an example of social experience would be imo her saying she doesn’t like chocolate when it would be wiser to inform the potential partner of that later. You could bring it up further down the line.

”you remember those chocolates you bought me when we first started chatting“, “yes I remember, the Thornton’s“?, “yes them, I didn’t want to tell you at the time because I liked you but I hate chocolate”. Then giggles commence.
telling someone on receipt of a gift you don’t like it is a bit striking maybe.

 

[ColourPurple]

That's not correct, though. At least in terms of the medical witnesses like this doctor she knows. When she had her upset moment the reports clearly said that she did so at the point that he gave his name!

The witnesses are not anonymous in this trial. There are reporting restrictions relating to publishing the names. Even the names of the deceased babies were given at her first Mags appearance - it was at that point the reporting restrictions were put in place and the original reports are still online we just can't like to them or publish the restricted parts.

I think everybody knows that when we refer to either the babies or certain witnesses being anonymous, we know that their names are still being heard in court. They're just anonymous to us, the public. I used the word anonymous in that context, as did David Banks in the podcast.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think the car & LLs court reaction shows they were certainly close, whether that's as friends or potentially more, but also she lived within a few miles of the hospital so it's not like she was being loaned the car to drive miles across the country in. At the time most insurance policies allowed you to drive other people's cars on a third party cover basis

I'm not sure that last bit is the case; it used to be a common allowance on most policies but for quite a few years it never kicked in until the person was 25. Was this 2015 or 2016?

His offer of the car comes over as it being not the first time she'd driven his car - as though it's something he's offered before and she'd accepted but I may be reading more into it than is there. I think it's perhaps the case that she was a named driver on his policy?

 

[Sweeper2000]

I'm not sure that last bit is the case; it used to be a common allowance on most policies but for quite a few years it never kicked in until the person was 25. Was this 2015 or 2016?

His offer of the car comes over as it being not the first time she'd driven his car - as though it's something he's offered before and she'd accepted but I may be reading more into it than is there. I think it's perhaps the case that she was a named driver on his policy?

2016. I agree its quite an offer to someone who you have only little connection to. Offer them the car and you taxi it home or otherwise. Then taxi in the morning to pick it up. Allot of effort for people who are only workmates.

 

[DinerMite]

We'll have to differ on that because I definitely think it's something to do with trying to impress him or be flirty in some way or other.

It's very obvious that these two know each other rather well so it's way past the "trying to impress him" stage, though, I think.

I'd disagree on that. The texts show; LL disclosing she has thyroid problems, LL disclosing she doesn't eat chocolate, discussing shared experiences of costal towns and also disclosing that she likes things "tidy" and "calm".

These texts show to me they are only just getting to know eachother and the texts are included to help set the scene, for the jury, of this 'relationship' and how it may impact the events. All my own irrelevant thoughts ofc.

Offering to lend the car is just an over eager move on the doctors part imo. Appear chivalrous and all that. Doesn't infer a close relationship imo, more a budding one.

 

[Marantz4250b]

A rose with thorns has a meaning:
Love cannot exist without sacrifice and pain.

Every real rose has its thorns

"Every Rose Has it's Thorn" - song by hair metal band Poison, Flesh and Blood album, I think. Referenced in Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey when St Peter asked them what the true secret of life was or something.

 

[Marantz4250b]

She has hypothyroidism which is different IMO.

And I don’t think we can definitely say they knew each other well at this stage. My interpretation is they’re getting to know each other at this point, so i don’t think we’re sure yet. JMO

The "do you want to borrow my car" thing to me says they know each other pretty well. People don't lend cars to people they're just flirting with.

 

[Dotta]

I'm not sure that last bit is the case; it used to be a common allowance on most policies but for quite a few years it never kicked in until the person was 25. Was this 2015 or 2016?

His offer of the car comes over as it being not the first time she'd driven his car - as though it's something he's offered before and she'd accepted but I may be reading more into it than is there. I think it's perhaps the case that she was a named driver on his policy?

Oh dear

That is why I prefer bikes haha
Much healthier and environmentally friendly!
And she could burn some calories after all that chocolate!

JMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

The babies and their parents are also named in court. However they are not allowed to be reported. Same as the witnesses. I believe that’s what the OP was referring to when they said ‘anonymous’. Or at least that’s how I read it. JMO

The comments about anonymity were in response to me saying something along the lines of, apologies for being pedantic but these witnesses are not anonymous, it's just that their names can't be reported. Yes, I was being pedantic but accuracy of language matters in reporting of legal proceedings.

 

[ColourPurple]

I'm not sure that last bit is the case; it used to be a common allowance on most policies but for quite a few years it never kicked in until the person was 25. Was this 2015 or 2016?

His offer of the car comes over as it being not the first time she'd driven his car - as though it's something he's offered before and she'd accepted but I may be reading more into it than is there. I think it's perhaps the case that she was a named driver on his policy?

I think it's a bit of a leap to think she was a named driver on his car insurance or that she'd driven it before. It's not unusual in the circles I mix in for people to use each others' cars. He probably just assumed she had third party cover to drive it.

 

[Dotta]

I'd disagree on that. The texts show; LL disclosing she has thyroid problems, LL disclosing she doesn't eat chocolate, discussing shared experiences of costal towns and also disclosing that she likes things "tidy" and "calm".

These texts show to me they are only just getting to know eachother and the texts are included to help set the scene, for the jury, of this 'relationship' and how it may impact the events. All my own irrelevant thoughts ofc.

Offering to lend the car is just an over eager move on the doctors part imo. Appear chivalrous and all that. Doesn't infer a close relationship imo, more a budding one.

And all these lovey dovey texts during working hours in an understaffed unit.
Phew!
A Ward "Matron" must have objected.

JMO

 

[DinerMite]

I think it's a bit of a leap to think she was a named driver on his car insurance or that she'd driven it before. It's not unusual in the circles I mix in for people to use each others' cars. He probably just assumed she had third party cover to drive it.

Personally I think the Doctor knew she wouldn't take him up on the offer of using his car but it makes him appear like the nice guy willing to do that - brownie points in his book, standard woo'ing tactics haha.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think everybody knows that when we refer to either the babies or certain witnesses being anonymous, we know that their names are still being heard in court. They're just anonymous to us, the public. I used the word anonymous in that context, as did David Banks in the podcast.

He didn't, he said that the prosecution, defence and judge would know who they were but that their identities were otherwise not released. He also seemed to quote parts of the CPS guidance (which was previously linked to here) which deals with actual anonymity of witnesses. Witness identities can only be withheld under very narrow and specific circumstances and that is not what is happening here.

The public do know their identities because they are stated in open court. It's merely a restriction on publishing those identities.

Like I say, accuracy in these things matters. Whatever verdict the court arrives at there will likely be some conspiraloonatics out there who will happily claim that it was the wrong verdict and that justice was interfered with by having "anonymous" witnesses give evidence. Accuracy in legal reporting matters.

 

[ColourPurple]

The babies and their parents are also named in court. However they are not allowed to be reported. Same as the witnesses. I believe that’s what the OP was referring to when they said ‘anonymous’. Or at least that’s how I read it. JMO

Exactly. This all started from a throw away comment I made about not being surprised that the doctor chose to remain anonymous. It was (ironically lol) just a quick way for me to refer to the fact that he's anonymous to us, the GBP, (even though he's named in court).