UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #25

[Dcflag]

This one text from Doc Choc really stands out to me:

Doc: Lucy, if anyone knows how hard you've worked over the last three days it's me. The standard of care delivered is tertiary nicu level. if *anybody* says anything to you about not being good enough or performing adequately I want you to promise me that you'll give my details to provide a statement. I don't care who it is and I don't care if I've left the trust. Promise?


Reading that makes me wonder ----maybe one reason NJ spent so much time outing him as a boyfriend was he didn't want the doctor to try and be a character witness for her in any way.

I’ve always found this to be strange. For me it’s almost like affirming that when the proverbial hits the fan, he wants to be on the inside.

Much like he was taking information to her as evidenced in court, I wonder if he in turn took information back to others about her.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I’ve always found this to be strange. For me it’s almost like affirming that when the proverbial hits the fan, he wants to be on the inside.

Much like he was taking information to her as evidenced in court, I wonder if he in turn took information back to others about her.

Just to let you know, I had quite a few queries about him (and some opinions too!) and my posts were pulled because we're not allowed to focus on him here on this forum, it's a breach of T&Cs, as he is not the person on trial.

 

[Lincoln34]

I had actually wondered about a claim of ineffective counsel. Almost any person who is found guilty immediately files for appeal so I would expect nothing less if there is any conviction in this case.

Yes but it’s hard to win an appeal. Jeremy Bamber springs to mind. The appeal judgements are damning

 

[katydid23]

This whole pyjama thing... I'm confused, can anyone clarify?

So, IIRC, LL was arrested at her own home the first time - I assume an early morning 'surprise visit' from officers, usually these are in the early hours? Is it this occasion she is claiming to have been in her nightie / PJs?

The second (and third - were there three times?) she was arrested at her parents' home - the final time obviously being taken into custody? Were those also 'dawn raid' type door knocks by the police or at least conducted by surprise? Is it at her parents' home when she was taken into custody that she's claiming she was in her nightwear?

Why are some people saying she said a nightie and others saying pyjamas?

Did she answer the door wearing the 'Lee Cooper lounge wear' (this brand is forever trashed LOL)?

Maybe she really did quickly pull a track suit on over her nightie?

If she was arrested several times, then how is there only one video to view and not two or three to prove she was in matching pants and top?

Or maybe she sleeps in casual jog pants and hoodie as PJs (I personally do this *all* the time because I have PTSD from various issues and find it comforting and reassuring. (In the past there's been times where I've needed to flee outdoors without time to get clothes)

How do the police know what she was wearing when they pounced, she would have taken some time to come to the door I assume? Or did her parents answer?

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just curious, any responses gratefully received.

If she was sleeping in the leisure suit, she still couldn't claim for sympathy, that she was arrested in her pyjamas. That would be misleading.

She was arrested three times I believe, but I don't know much about the circumstances/

 

[notsure]

This whole pyjama thing... I'm confused, can anyone clarify?

So, IIRC, LL was arrested at her own home the first time - I assume an early morning 'surprise visit' from officers, usually these are in the early hours? Is it this occasion she is claiming to have been in her nightie / PJs?

The second (and third - were there three times?) she was arrested at her parents' home - the final time obviously being taken into custody? Were those also 'dawn raid' type door knocks by the police or at least conducted by surprise? Is it at her parents' home when she was taken into custody that she's claiming she was in her nightwear?

Why are some people saying she said a nightie and others saying pyjamas?

Did she answer the door wearing the 'Lee Cooper lounge wear' (this brand is forever trashed LOL)?

Maybe she really did quickly pull a track suit on over her nightie?

If she was arrested several times, then how is there only one video to view and not two or three to prove she was in matching pants and top?

Or maybe she sleeps in casual jog pants and hoodie as PJs (I personally do this *all* the time because I have PTSD from various issues and find it comforting and reassuring. (In the past there's been times where I've needed to flee outdoors without time to get clothes)

How do the police know what she was wearing when they pounced, she would have taken some time to come to the door I assume? Or did her parents answer?

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just curious, any responses gratefully received.

I think you raise interesting questions here. Would the police give you chance to get dressed before leaving the house? Could I have a quick shower, etc.?

 

[katydid23]

I think you raise interesting questions here. Would the police give you chance to get dressed before leaving the house? Could I have a quick shower, etc.?

I don't think they'd ever let someone take a quick shower. But I have seen, on first 48, or Cops, them allow someone to grab shoes or a sweatshirt if they were shoeless or shirtless. Unless they were a violent/dangerous suspect, and they are taken in' as is.'

 

[ShireChe]

This whole pyjama thing... I'm confused, can anyone clarify?

So, IIRC, LL was arrested at her own home the first time - I assume an early morning 'surprise visit' from officers, usually these are in the early hours? Is it this occasion she is claiming to have been in her nightie / PJs?

The second (and third - were there three times?) she was arrested at her parents' home - the final time obviously being taken into custody? Were those also 'dawn raid' type door knocks by the police or at least conducted by surprise? Is it at her parents' home when she was taken into custody that she's claiming she was in her nightwear?

Why are some people saying she said a nightie and others saying pyjamas?

Did she answer the door wearing the 'Lee Cooper lounge wear' (this brand is forever trashed LOL)?

Maybe she really did quickly pull a track suit on over her nightie?

If she was arrested several times, then how is there only one video to view and not two or three to prove she was in matching pants and top?

Or maybe she sleeps in casual jog pants and hoodie as PJs (I personally do this *all* the time because I have PTSD from various issues and find it comforting and reassuring. (In the past there's been times where I've needed to flee outdoors without time to get clothes)

How do the police know what she was wearing when they pounced, she would have taken some time to come to the door I assume? Or did her parents answer?

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just curious, any responses gratefully received.

'6am arrests' are pretty regular as people (depending on work schedule etc) are more likely to be at home rather than it being a wasted visit.

Unless they thought she was any kind of immediate threat or resisting, then it's high likely they would allow her to put on a set of clothes. Can't imagine them allowing a shower. Too much risk of escape/self harm etc.

The arresting officers likely had body cams on.

ETA: I assume the KCs point is she was playing the sympathy vote saying they dragged me out in my pyjamas when from the sounds of the evidence, either she wasn't in pyjamas or was allowed time to change.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

If she was sleeping in the leisure suit, she still couldn't claim for sympathy, that she was arrested in her pyjamas. That would be misleading.

She was arrested three times I believe, but I don't know much about the circumstances/

True enough but then again if I personally buy leisure wear in order to purposefully sleep in it, I automatically think of it as 'my pyjamas'.

Although, I totally get it's not the norm.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I think you raise interesting questions here. Would the police give you chance to get dressed before leaving the house? Could I have a quick shower, etc.?

I seriously doubt a shower as they'd have to keep you under guard but surely if someone's not dangerous then allowing them to pull minimal clothing and footwear on maybe? Dunno

 

[katydid23]

True enough but then again if I personally buy leisure wear in order to purposefully sleep in it, I automatically think of it as 'my pyjamas'.

Although, I totally get it's not the norm.

True, but the only reason someone can claim being victimised if they are arrested in their PJ's as that it is humiliating to walk a person through the streets in their sleepwear. But a leisure suit does not create the same embarrassment.

So LL would have been purposely misleading if she whined about being arrested in her pyjamas if she was actually wearing normal streetwear. And she admitted she had lied, said nothing about having slept in the track suit either.

 

[Dotta]

True, but the only reason someone can claim being victimised if they are arrested in their PJ's as that it is humiliating to walk a person through the streets in their sleepwear. But a leisure suit does not create the same embarrassment.

So LL would have been purposely misleading if she whined about being arrested in her pyjamas if she was actually wearing normal streetwear. And she admitted she had lied, said nothing about having slept in the track suit either.

I really - and I mean really don't get that her Defence didn't object to her claims about PJs.

They must have known there is video of each arrest!

Can she say whatever she wants?
Doesn't the lawyer advise her what to say?
Warn her?

JMO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

True, but the only reason someone can claim being victimised if they are arrested in their PJ's as that it is humiliating to walk a person through the streets in their sleepwear. But a leisure suit does not create the same embarrassment.

So LL would have been purposely misleading if she whined about being arrested in her pyjamas if she was actually wearing normal streetwear. And she admitted she had lied, said nothing about having slept in the track suit either.

That's a good point - it doesn't seem reasonable (in law, or in general) to complain that one has been humiliated or wasn't treated with dignity if removed from home in street wear.

The humiliating bit is being taken out of one's home, being held by police or in cuffs.

Any type of nightie would be embarrassing unless it is a sturdy old fashioned below the knee sort LOL, IMO

 

[notsure]

dbm

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I really - and I mean really don't get that her Defence didn't object to her claims about PJs.

They must have known there is video of each arrest!

Can she say whatever she wants?
Doesn't the lawyer advise her what to say?
Warn her?

JMO

I was surprised by the lack of objection and wondered why this prosecution claim wasn't pulled apart. Unless there is no foundation to argue and all three video footages are known to the defence (one would hope so)?

If I was her defence, imaginary scenario ahead >> I should say well here is my client on first arrest being taken outdoors as we see wearing her favourite teddy bear nightie, here she is on her second arrest wearing a T-shirt and knickers, and here she is on her third arrest wearing flimsy leisurewear that she calls 'pyjamas'. Then I would argue that this is not dignified and that my client was denied her request for more substantial clothing which is breach of god knows what PACE conduct code. << end of imaginary scenario IANAL

 

[katydid23]

I really - and I mean really don't get that her Defence didn't object to her claims about PJs.

They must have known there is video of each arrest!

Can she say whatever she wants?
Doesn't the lawyer advise her what to say?
Warn her?

JMO

I think she blurts out whatever she wants. I am sure they wouldn't have wanted her to say she was in PJ's if she wasn't. But once she said it on the stand, what can Meyers do? Not much.

 

[notsure]

I really - and I mean really don't get that her Defence didn't object to her claims about PJs.

They must have known there is video of each arrest!

Can she say whatever she wants?
Doesn't the lawyer advise her what to say?
Warn her?

JMO

I suppose it's all seen as the difficulty of remembering events from long ago, etc.

 

[Dotta]

Dbm

 

[katydid23]

I was surprised by the lack of objection and wondered why this prosecution claim wasn't pulled apart. Unless there is no foundation to argue and all three video footages are known to the defence (one would hope so)?

If I was her defence, imaginary scenario ahead >> I should say well here is my client on first arrest being taken outdoors as we see wearing her favourite teddy bear nightie, here she is on her second arrest wearing a T-shirt and knickers, and here she is on her third arrest wearing flimsy leisurewear that she calls 'pyjamas'. Then I would argue that this is not dignified and that my client was denied her request for more substantial clothing which is breach of god knows what PACE conduct code. << end of imaginary scenario IANAL

But would her defense team want to show the jurors three videos, back to back, of their client being arrested? It really sears into their brains, the defendant as a prime suspect in a series of child murders. I don't think that is a good image to watch repeatedly.

Attacking the cops in this case is kind of a dead end because it is the hospital and the consultant/doctors that they are claiming were the enemies here---not really the cops.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

But would her defense team want to show the jurors three videos, back to back, of their client being arrested? It really sears into their brains, the defendant as a prime suspect in a series of child murders. I don't think that is a good image to watch repeatedly.

Attacking the cops in this case is kind of a dead end because it is the hospital and the consultant/doctors that they are claiming were the enemies here---not really the cops.

Good points. Her legal team will have long since scrutinised for any breaches of police conduct during her arrests I suppose. In terms of lying under oath, or at least bending the truth under oath, it does look so bad that one would hope if there ever was an occasion she was removed in a state of undress, that could be mentioned in order to correct the perception that she's such a bad liar. She may very well be such a bad liar.

 

[kiwilaura]

I wasn't able to quote across threads, but someone said they didn't get the significance on spelling as when you searched FB incorrectly but clicked on a suggested name, the suggested name showed in your history.
That's not correct. I just searched "Sahra Smith" and clicked on "Sandra Smith" and the incorrect spelling I did still shows in my feed.

So had she spelled it incorrectly, it would show.