UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #26

[Dotta]

He does have a bit of headmaster vibe to him in person. I hope we get the full closing speeches tomorrow and not just Mr Johnson’s greatest hits.

Hahaha
This "headmaster vibe" bit made me burst out laughing!
He is a Prosecutor after all

How did Mr Ben M KC address LL?
By Ms/Miss?

But seriously,
it is a power play IMO, everything is thought out perfectly in the tiniest detail, including addressing the defendant.

In fact,
I raised this subject in one of the threads while discussing Police interviews.
I noticed LL was addressed as "Lucy".

By the way,
in my country during the trial the defendant is called in 3rd person as "Defendant".

"Does the Defendant remember...?"
"Did the Defendant see...?"


JMO

 

[Parker Knoll]

The police tend to use the more “ personal “ touches during interview to draw out information but it’s a different ball game in court obviously.
I know it’s listed tomorrow but does anyone know if the jury are required ?
MOO

 

[Dotta]

but it’s a different ball game in court obviously.

Is there a Courtroom "etiquette" how to address the defendant?

 

[Marantz4250b]

I wondered what people thought about NJ periodically referring to the defendent by her full name?
Is this the norm in court? I thought they usually used 'ms' or 'mister'
It kind of reminded me of in school where the teacher spits out the students full name before telling them to 'stand up'
He was all about 'What do you think of that then, Lucy Letby?'

I thought that weird when I read it but, on reflection, I don't think that he did. I think it was wrongly formatted quotes in the reports. I think the "Lucy Letby" parts were actually the words prefacing her responses rather than the end of his sentences.

 

[Sundial]

How odd … I have read that report myself several times previously but read it again earlier today and saw the crematorium quote. I had never seen it previously.
This case gets darker every day.

On catch-up over here, but I too recall reading something similar around the land or something being searched behind her property, I assumed/can’t quite recall if it was quoted as a field or alleyway or something- but I had not heard about the crematorium part either.

 

[IDK]

I thought that weird when I read it but, on reflection, I don't think that he did. I think it was wrongly formatted quotes in the reports. I think the "Lucy Letby" parts were actually the words prefacing her responses rather than the end of his sentences.

Interesting observation! However, in the Daily Mail Podcast— the individual playing the part of the prosecutor used the full “Lucy Letby” repeatedly. One of the reporters from the podcast actually attended the trial, so she would have known how the prosecutor addressed LL?

 

[squish]

I thought that weird when I read it but, on reflection, I don't think that he did. I think it was wrongly formatted quotes in the reports. I think the "Lucy Letby" parts were actually the words prefacing her responses rather than the end of his sentences.

When I was there he did actually always call her Lucy Letby. I stopped noticing it after a while. I figured he just liked the alliteration. Maybe it was to avoid the casualness of calling her Lucy and the vulnerability implied (young maiden associations) by calling her Miss Letby?

@Dotta I don't know if there are any rules or accepted manners in court. I know he is not allowed to be rude and BM would object to calling her Lucy Letby if it was too problematic.

 

[squish]

My post about Lucy's third bedroom having similar owl wall stickers to nursery 2 had the images deleted as I forgot to include the links.

I will repost them here for anyone interested. Lucy's third bedroom, which had this owl wall art from the previous owners in 2016, and was still there when she sold the house in 2019:

House Price History

Nursery 2, where several babies were allegedly attacked. This specific image relates to Lucy's claims that she could see Baby I was pale in the dark, and the subject of the notorious "I knew what I was looking for - at" slip up.

Nurse Lucy Letby 'murdered two triplets immediately after returning from summer holiday to Ibiza'

 

[katydid23]

My post about Lucy's third bedroom having similar owl wall stickers to nursery 2 had the images deleted as I forgot to include the links.

I will repost them here for anyone interested. Lucy's third bedroom, which had this owl wall art from the previous owners in 2016, and was still there when she sold the house in 2019:

House Price History

Nursery 2, where several babies were allegedly attacked. This specific image relates to Lucy's claims that she could see Baby I was pale in the dark, and the subject of the notorious "I knew what I was looking for - at" slip up.

Nurse Lucy Letby 'murdered two triplets immediately after returning from summer holiday to Ibiza'

I know it could all just be a random coincidence, but it sometimes feels there's a bit more to it than coincidence. How likely was it that the only house she could afford happened to have the owl motif on the wall, and it coincidentally overlooked the cemetery, and more specifically, the babies memorial section, where grieving parents came to mourn their painful losses.
She says those losses under her care were so devastating for her---yet she ends up with a room looking much like her clinic nursery overlooking the graves of babies? Was there really no other home for sale that could avoid that painful view?
It makes me wonder if maybe she liked that feature of the home? JMO
I could be wrong and maybe it was the only house available at her price and maybe she couldn't afford to repaint the wall?

 

[ShireChe]

I know it could all just be a random coincidence, but it sometimes feels there's a bit more to it than coincidence. How likely was it that the only house she could afford happened to have the owl motif on the wall, and it coincidentally overlooked the cemetery, and more specifically, the babies memorial section, where grieving parents came to mourn their painful losses.
She says those losses under her care were so devastating for her---yet she ends up with a room looking much like her clinic nursery overlooking the graves of babies? Was there really no other home for sale that could avoid that painful view?
It makes me wonder if maybe she liked that feature of the home? JMO
I could be wrong and maybe it was the only house available at her price and maybe she couldn't afford to repaint the wall?

I don't think anything about this case would surprise me any more. It's possible it's just all a coincidence and that was a house of affordable value in short commuting distance, yet given the details of the case it's hard not to think there could be some sort of specific attraction to living there.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Those are wall stickers as well so simply peel off them off.

 

[Dotta]

On catch-up over here, but I too recall reading something similar around the land or something being searched behind her property, I assumed/can’t quite recall if it was quoted as a field or alleyway or something- but I had not heard about the crematorium part either.

It might mean the Press is constantly monitoring/checking the online contents of their articles - adding or removing info.
Even those a few years old.

JMO

 

[Anxala]

Interesting observation! However, in the Daily Mail Podcast— the individual playing the part of the prosecutor used the full “Lucy Letby” repeatedly. One of the reporters from the podcast actually attended the trial, so she would have known how the prosecutor addressed LL?

It's as you say. I questioned this a while back and was informed by someone very knowledgeable about such things that this is standard, established form of address in court, the prosecution's use of the accused's full name while outlining the charges against them and while questioning them. I suppose it's to maintain distance and keep the jury focused on Lucy Letby the accused and not let them lose sight of who the prosecution says she is.

It does come across as intimidating, if not actually goading at times though - 'you enjoyed this, didn't you, Lucy Letby', 'you loved it, didn't you, Lucy Letby' - but I think that's more to do with NJ's rather goading and drama-laden manner and his love of playing to an audience.

 

[Dotta]

I guess every Prosecutor in trials with Juries "plays to an audience".
It is his/her job after all to convince Jurors.

And the circumstances of the deaths are dramatic, so I don't understand the comment about Prosecutor's "drama laden" manner.

But it is only my opinion.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

I've just been looking through the Crown Court Compendium which is a pdf file found linked on this page Crown Court Compendium - June 2022 - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, concerning jury directions about defendant's lies.

file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/Crown-Court-Compendium-Part-I-June-2022.pdf starting at page 362

1. A defendant’s lie, whether made before the trial or in the course of evidence or both, may be probative of guilt.888 A lie is only capable of supporting other evidence against D if the jury are sure that: 889

(1) it is shown, by other evidence in the case, to be a deliberate untruth; i.e. it did not arise from confusion or mistake;

(2) it relates to a significant issue;

(3) it was not told for a reason advanced by or on behalf of D, or for some other reason arising from the evidence, which does not point to D’s guilt.890

2. The direction should be tailored to the circumstances of the case, but the jury must be directed that only if they are sure that these criteria are satisfied can D’s lie be used as some support for the prosecution case, but that the lie itself cannot prove guilt.891 It is important that care is taken to make clear these criteria.892

3. If the issue for the jury is whether to believe the prosecution witnesses rather than D, and doing so will necessarily lead them to conclude that D was lying in the account he/she gave, such a direction is not necessary.893 This was reiterated in the case of LW. 894

4. Similarly, a lies direction is not needed where D’s explanation for his/her admitted lies can be dealt with fairly in summing-up.895

[...]

9. Whether a direction should be given to the jury in respect of any admitted or proved lie/s should be the subject of discussion with the advocates before speeches. 901 In particular, care should be taken to identify with the advocates the lie/s in respect of which the direction is to be given.

10. Before the jury may use an alleged or admitted lie against D, they must be sure of all of the following:

(1) that it is either admitted or shown, by other evidence in the case, to be a deliberate untruth: i.e. it did not arise from confusion or mistake;

(2) that it relates to a significant issue; and

(3) that it was not told for a reason advanced by or on behalf of D, or some other reason arising from the evidence, which does not point to D’s guilt.

11. The jury must be directed that unless they are sure of all of the above, the [alleged] lie is not relevant and must be ignored.

12. If the jury are sure of all of the above, they may use the lie as some support for the prosecution case, but it must be made clear that a lie can never by itself prove guilt.

Will the judge explain this to the jury in his final instructions do you think? As IMO there were quite a few times LL was shown by NJ to have been lying. Even though LL tried to backtrack with ‘I don’t recall’..

But wondering if point 3 apply to a lot of the discrepancy in this case?
3. If the issue for the jury is whether to believe the prosecution witnesses rather than D, and doing so will necessarily lead them to conclude that D was lying in the account he/she gave, such a direction is not necessary.893 This was reiterated in the case of LW. 894

IMO from reading this point 3 may well apply for some aspects such as whether to believe Dr J about baby K, baby E’s mother about the 9pm visit, baby N’s father about receiving the call from LL, and other events such as LL saying inappropriate things to parents, the ‘he’s not leaving here alive is he’ to a colleague about baby P and doctors visit that allegedly didn’t happen… I suppose those are discrepancies that the jury can’t assume are lies as it’s just their word against hers.

However I do think there were some moments where it became clear that NJ had caught LL in a lie IMO, maybe the judge could give this direction based on those?

MOO

 

[CS2C]

Are we expecting the Chester standard to be there today ? I see the newspaper hasn’t updated yet.

Scrap that, they are reporting live

 

[Tortoise]

I guess every Prosecutor in trials with Juries "plays to an audience".
It is his/her job after all to convince Jurors.

And the circumstances of the deaths are dramatic, so I don't understand the comment about Prosecutor's "drama laden" manner.

But it is only my opinion.

Prosecution and defence are doing their jobs and IF she had harmed or murdered a child of mine, IF the allegations are true, I wouldn't want her questioned any other way.

It's odd because I don't remember reading complaints about BM KC being "insulting" and "discourteous" (words used by Dr Evans and Dr Bohin) and trying to impugn the integrity of the doctors, which was, I can only imagine, not done in some fainthearted, lackadaisical manner.

JMO

 

[Blondiexoxo]

I know it could all just be a random coincidence, but it sometimes feels there's a bit more to it than coincidence. How likely was it that the only house she could afford happened to have the owl motif on the wall, and it coincidentally overlooked the cemetery, and more specifically, the babies memorial section, where grieving parents came to mourn their painful losses.
She says those losses under her care were so devastating for her---yet she ends up with a room looking much like her clinic nursery overlooking the graves of babies? Was there really no other home for sale that could avoid that painful view?
It makes me wonder if maybe she liked that feature of the home? JMO
I could be wrong and maybe it was the only house available at her price and maybe she couldn't afford to repaint the wall?

Schadenfreude comes to mind, enjoying observing others misfortune. In her work environment LL had the opportunity to witness the immediate aftermath of a death, but the observing would end there. Having the house overlooking the cemetery even if the victims weren’t buried there, she could still witness the grieving process in a way. If she did have a morbid fascination with death then getting the house overlooking the cemetery would mean she could witness burials and ‘be a part of’ the grief of others. If she was suffering with loneliness aswell she could have felt a need to insert herself into the grief of others kind of like a grief vulture wanting to be a part of the process that comes immediately after the death. Providing the support to parents during a traumaTix experience, could have, to LL made her feel more memorable and relevant. Maybe she wanted parents to remember the nice nurse who kept popping in to see how they were doing, the nurse who took hand and foot prints and made them a memory box, the nurse who gave their baby a bath etc…

Personally if guilty I could imagine the above all being part of the enjoyment and part of the reason why these acts allegedly were repeated. Once parents left the hospital after the death of their child, that was the end of LL’s involvement in the death and grief process, if she was fascinated by death, mourning and the affect losing a loved one has on people then maybe the position of the house provided a view into what comes after. The burial, grave visits to lay flowers and tend to graves. This goes on for years especially for parents who’ve lost children, their child’s grave is somewhere they feel close to their child. Being in a position with a view of the baby memorial garden could have, if guilty, given her the chance to witness the result of her alleged actions for years and years to come. Even more so if any victims were buried there, but even if not, just viewing any parents grieving the loss of their child over a period of years could give LL an idea of how the parents of the babies who died were feeling/acting.

The curiosity of what happened to parents once they’ve left the hospital could have been a factor in buying that house with that view IMO. Even if it wasn’t where the victims in this case were buried. Maybe eventually, if the deaths had continued, one or more victims could have ended up in that particular cemetery. If guilty, the enjoyment of witnessing the suffering of others particularly when you’ve inflicted that suffering would be enhanced if you could keep observing for years after the initial event.

All MOO

 

[Tortoise]

Will the judge explain this to the jury in his final instructions do you think? As IMO there were quite a few times LL was shown by NJ to have been lying. Even though LL tried to backtrack with ‘I don’t recall’..

But wondering if point 3 apply to a lot of the discrepancy in this case?
3. If the issue for the jury is whether to believe the prosecution witnesses rather than D, and doing so will necessarily lead them to conclude that D was lying in the account he/she gave, such a direction is not necessary.893 This was reiterated in the case of LW. 894

IMO from reading this point 3 may well apply for some aspects such as whether to believe Dr J about baby K, baby E’s mother about the 9pm visit, baby N’s father about receiving the call from LL, and other events such as LL saying inappropriate things to parents, the ‘he’s not leaving here alive is he’ to a colleague about baby P and doctors visit that allegedly didn’t happen… I suppose those are discrepancies that the jury can’t assume are lies as it’s just their word against hers.

However I do think there were some moments where it became clear that NJ had caught LL in a lie IMO, maybe the judge could give this direction based on those?

MOO

Off the top of my head she admitted lying about having a shredder, wearing pyjamas, and conceded she wasn't isolated from her friends on the unit for 2 years. I'm not sure if these would be considered significant issues. I'm very interested in whether the prosecution has shown she lied to police about knowing what an air embolus is. It's not really clear without the verbatim questions and answers. That would be a significant issue.

I think you're right about point 3, there would be no direction if it's a matter for the jury to decide who to believe.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

Will the judge explain this to the jury in his final instructions do you think? As IMO there were quite a few times LL was shown by NJ to have been lying. Even though LL tried to backtrack with ‘I don’t recall’..

But wondering if point 3 apply to a lot of the discrepancy in this case?
3. If the issue for the jury is whether to believe the prosecution witnesses rather than D, and doing so will necessarily lead them to conclude that D was lying in the account he/she gave, such a direction is not necessary.893 This was reiterated in the case of LW. 894

IMO from reading this point 3 may well apply for some aspects such as whether to believe Dr J about baby K, baby E’s mother about the 9pm visit, baby N’s father about receiving the call from LL, and other events such as LL saying inappropriate things to parents, the ‘he’s not leaving here alive is he’ to a colleague about baby P and doctors visit that allegedly didn’t happen… I suppose those are discrepancies that the jury can’t assume are lies as it’s just their word against hers.

I think it works against LL that there were so many incidents where it was her word against a colleague or a parent ---if it was just once, one cannot assume she was lying. But there are at least 6 people, off the top of my head, she has accused of being 'mistaken' about what she said or did.

However I do think there were some moments where it became clear that NJ had caught LL in a lie IMO, maybe the judge could give this direction based on those?

MOO