UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #24

[Anxala]

What I find odd about this; a lot of her comments have been “no” or “I don’t recall”, when NJ asked about the whole commando thing and then said it was her boyfriend; I was actually surprised that rather than her usual “no” response, she said it was unfair. It just seemed like he touched a bit of an nerve with this today.

JMO

In which case, her response seems reasonable to me. He's poking about in her private business. And having a joke at her expense about it to boot. Why would she be willing to play along with him? I know her 'commando' answer was ridiculous but in the context of it (in her mind) being none of his business, I can understand it.

Apart from which, it adds nothing to anything.

FWIW, I suspect DrChoc was a boyfriend in the relationship sense and I suspect this is a known quantity despite LL claiming otherwise.

 

[Sundial]

In which case, her response seems reasonable to me. He's poking about in her private business. And having a joke at her expense about it to boot. Why would she be willing to play along with him? I know her 'commando' answer was ridiculous but in the context of it (in her mind) being none of his business, I can understand it.

Apart from which, it adds nothing to anything.

FWIW, I suspect DrChoc was a boyfriend in the relationship sense and I suspect this is a known quantity despite LL claiming otherwise.

A fair point, we could also assume that it’s a valid point (poking around in her private business) because we could question; is she lying about the whole “loved like a close friend” thing and was there more to this potential boyfriend/love that triggered the need (if guilty) to have him around? Showboating so to speak.

That said it will be interesting if we will hear “why” it’s necessary to find out if he was just a friend or not. Is there more relevance on this to the trial or is he trying to embarrass her or exposure her further as a liar- or a combination of all these factors.

JMO

 

[esther43]

Sundial =1st quote/ Esther= 2nd quote



This is something I have wondered about all through the trial. IF guilty, she was doing horrid things to the victims she is charged with.
But what about the other babies? Did she do little cruel things which went unnoticed?

Like this example pointed out by Johnson----where LL was so busy texting and she needed two hands for the feeding so she put it on higher speed, for her convenience? At the expense of a preemie who would have trouble with such a fast feed?

Is she's capable of these crimes, then I would have thought there would have been other incidents dating back to when she first started.
I imagine it's likely that other people have stepped forward.

 

[ColourPurple]

A fair point, we could also assume that it’s a valid point (poking around in her private business) because we could question; is she lying about the whole “loved like a close friend” thing and was there more to this potential boyfriend/love that triggered the need (if guilty) to have him around? Showboating so to speak.

That said it will be interesting if we will hear “why” it’s necessary to find out if he was just a friend or not. Is there more relevance on this to the trial or is he trying to embarrass her or exposure her further as a liar- or a combination of all these factors.

JMO

I think it may be twofold. One, if it turns out that Doc Choc was her boyfriend then she's lied under oath. But two if he was her boyfriend, if guilty, it may be provide a motive for some of the alleged attacks, A similar theory was used by the prosecution in another case (Kristen Gilbert).

The prosecutor in her case, Assistant US Attorney William M. Welch II, asserted that Gilbert used these emergency situations to gain the attention of then-boyfriend Perrault,[18] a VA police officer—hospital rules required that hospital police be present at any medical emergency.

That's not to say that, if guilty, LL couldn't have still been trying to impress or spend time with Doc Choc even if he was just a friend, but the prosecution may think it may form a stronger case if it can be shown he was her boyfriend. All JMO , if guilty.

Kristen Gilbert - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[esther43]

I agree with all of the above about her feelings of potential embarrassment with her parents sitting right there. And there does seem to be an interesting family dynamic going on.

Her refusal to acknowledge was also interesting in that it shows she will lie under oath when it suits her emotionally.

It seems to be an obvious lie because of the laughing emojis she used in the messages, indicating she knew what 'commando' meant. Those messages were shown in court already.

So her credibility may have taken another hit by refusing to admit she knew what the term meant, that she was responding to by text. She simply lied ab out it under oath and then continued to lie when confronted about it. And I think that it's why Johnson kept at it with her, to get her to keep lying when it was so obviously a lie. And a lie about nothing at all, which implies her 'oath' to be truthful means little to her.

I think the jury would really watching her tone and manner when lying about the commando and will be assessing whether there is any change in the way she puts her arguments across.
It was a very clever move by NJ, gave him the perfect opportunity to show the jury what LL looks like and does when she's lying.

 

[ColourPurple]

I think the jury would really watching her tone and manner when lying about the commando and will be assessing whether there is any change in the way she puts her arguments across.
It was a very clever move by NJ, gave him the perfect opportunity to show the jury what LL looks like and does when she's lying.

Yes, if it's proven she lied then the jury can see how convincing a liar she was. The same as if she makes any two contradictory statements. They can deduce how convincing she sounds whilst making those statements, knowing that both can't be true.

All JMO

 

[Blondiexoxo]

The nurse agreed she had felt agitated by the arrival of a transport team from Alder Hey Hospital, Liverpool, but only because 'I didn't know who they were'.

She added: 'I'd never experienced other staff come from a different department or hospital. It was a completely new experience'.

Mr Johnson: 'Did you think that eyes from outside might work out what you'd been up to?'

Letby: 'No, I wanted them to help N'. She denied using doctors being in a huddle as an 'opportunity' to make another attempt on Baby N's life.

Lucy Letby gossiped about doctor she 'fancied' in, court hears

Letby, 33, came under questioning at Manchester Crown Court today about her friendship with the registrar while being taken through a series of WhatsApp messages she swapped with a colleague.

www.dailymail.co.uk

If she wanted them to help N then why was she, as she admits, agitated by them being there? Considering she’s nit picked at NJ’s use of words in other instances, if she didn’t agree then I’m positive she would have disputed his use of the word ‘agitated’ IMO.

If guilty then IMO she was agitated because she thought that the unit had got a team in due to the suspicious circumstances of N’s collapse. That’s why she could have been asking ‘Who are these people?’.
A sign of a psychopath experiencing panic thinking that ‘these people’ were investigating something, JMO though.

NJ is doing a stellar job of putting an otherwise complicated sequence of events in full light IMO. I must admit I was finding it quite confusing with how the case had been presented but now he’s demonstrating how this all unfolded and how the text messages are very relevant. I doubt it would have become this clear had she not taken the stand so it’s done the prosecution a favour IMO.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

What does she even mean by she collects paper?
For what purpose?

She collects handover notes. If guilty, a ‘collection’ of trophies IMO.

It wasn’t lost on me how she claimed she shredded bank statements immediately, yet didn’t bother shredding the handovers.
Was she using the shredder that she first denied owning, then claimed to have forgotten existed? The shredder that she had no recollection of ever having even though she had marked the box ‘keep’ and stored handover notes in it?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Is she's capable of these crimes, then I would have thought there would have been other incidents dating back to when she first started.
I imagine it's likely that other people have stepped forward.

IMO it depends what triggered it all but yes of course, if guilty, she would at least have been known to people close to her for using highly coercive and manipulative behaviour to get her needs met.

 

[ColourPurple]

NJ is doing a stellar job of putting an otherwise complicated sequence of events in full light IMO. I must admit I was finding it quite confusing with how the case had been presented but now he’s demonstrating how this all unfolded and how the text messages are very relevant. I doubt it would have become this clear had she not taken the stand so it’s done the prosecution a favour IMO.

RSBM

Absolutely! LL taking the stand has been a godsend for the prosecution. But whatever the jury decide, their decision will be based on so much more information now than it would have been without LL taking the stand.

JMO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I think it may be twofold. One, if it turns out that Doc Choc was her boyfriend then she's lied under oath. But two if he was her boyfriend, if guilty, it may be provide a motive for some of the alleged attacks, A similar theory was used by the prosecution in another case (Kristen Gilbert).

The prosecutor in her case, Assistant US Attorney William M. Welch II, asserted that Gilbert used these emergency situations to gain the attention of then-boyfriend Perrault,[18] a VA police officer—hospital rules required that hospital police be present at any medical emergency.

That's not to say that, if guilty, LL couldn't have still been trying to impress or spend time with Doc Choc even if he was just a friend, but the prosecution may think it may form a stronger case if it can be shown he was her boyfriend. All JMO , if guilty.

Kristen Gilbert - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I totally agree with this concept. However, wouldn't it make the case stronger if Doc Choc was not her boyf but someone she could mostly only interact with in the workplace? Hence requiring the force of the actions taken to gain his attention and be in his company (actions that an average healthy person would and could never take)? If he were married and had a home life outside or work for example. If this is someone she could socialise freely with, why the need for the attention seeking?

JMO MOO

 

[ColourPurple]

I totally agree with this concept. However, wouldn't it make the case stronger if Doc Choc was not her boyf but someone she could mostly only interact with in the workplace? Hence requiring the force of the actions taken to gain his attention and be in his company (actions that an average healthy person would and could never take)? If he were married and had a home life outside or work for example. If this is someone she could socialise freely with, why the need for the attention seeking?

JMO MOO

Good point but, if guilty, if she was trying to impress him with how cool calm and collected she was in emergency situations like a resus, then it only really could be demonstrated at work.

JMO

 

[Tortoise]

If she wanted them to help N then why was she, as she admits, agitated by them being there? Considering she’s nit picked at NJ’s use of words in other instances, if she didn’t agree then I’m positive she would have disputed his use of the word ‘agitated’ IMO.

If guilty then IMO she was agitated because she thought that the unit had got a team in due to the suspicious circumstances of N’s collapse. That’s why she could have been asking ‘Who are these people?’.
A sign of a psychopath experiencing panic thinking that ‘these people’ were investigating something, JMO though.

NJ is doing a stellar job of putting an otherwise complicated sequence of events in full light IMO. I must admit I was finding it quite confusing with how the case had been presented but now he’s demonstrating how this all unfolded and how the text messages are very relevant. I doubt it would have become this clear had she not taken the stand so it’s done the prosecution a favour IMO.

"Agitated" was the word used by the doctor who gave evidence.

A doctor, who cannot be named for legal reasons, told the court she remembered Ms Letby being "agitated" when a team of specialists from Alder Hey Hospital arrived to help with Child N's treatment.
She said: "She approached me a few times and said 'who are these people, who are these people?'.
"From working alongside the nurses and doctors at Chester, I felt that it was out of character from what I'd experienced previously in a medical emergency."
Lucy Letby 'agitated' by specialists' arrival, trial told

Her texts with doc choc that evening might give context to the reason for LL's agitation, if she had, as is alleged, been making multiple attempts to kill baby N that day, IMO


LL: 'Sat having a quiet moment and want to cry. Just mad with so many people and lack of space etc.'

Doc: 'Oh Lucy, poor little thing and you. Are you OK? Have a cry, you'll feel better for it I'm sure. You're welcome to take my car home if you're too tired to walk. I sort out picking it up in the morning. So sorry you've had a rubbish day at the end of your long run - holiday well and truly deserved.'

LL: 'I'm OK just feel like I've been running around all day and not really achieved anything positive for him. Don't want to cry in front of people here, maybe when I'm home! That's very kind re the (car) but should be OK. Have you managed to switch off at all and sleep?'

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

 

[esther43]

In which case, her response seems reasonable to me. He's poking about in her private business. And having a joke at her expense about it to boot. Why would she be willing to play along with him? I know her 'commando' answer was ridiculous but in the context of it (in her mind) being none of his business, I can understand it.

Apart from which, it adds nothing to anything.

FWIW, I suspect DrChoc was a boyfriend in the relationship sense and I suspect this is a known quantity despite LL claiming otherwise.

LL had an interesting book on her bedside cabinet about how to support a friends through loss.

She collects handover notes. If guilty, a ‘collection’ of trophies IMO.

It wasn’t lost on me how she claimed she shredded bank statements immediately, yet didn’t bother shredding the handovers.
Was she using the shredder that she first denied owning, then claimed to have forgotten existed? The shredder that she had no recollection of ever having even though she had marked the box ‘keep’ and stored handover notes in it?

True, when you look at the fact that she has confirmed that the shredder was confined to duties of shredding bank statements only but somehow handover sheets ended up in the shredder box, it does suggest there's a relationship between the 'non existent' shredder and the handover sheets that she collects. It makes me wonder if she has actually used it for shredding other notes.
However, I wonder also if they'd have forensics on that that could identify fibres from the types of papers used.
Bit weird though.. 'i might pop these handover notes that should be shredded into the shredder box' eh?!!

 

[Dotta]

He's poking about in her private business. And having a joke at her expense about it to boot. Why would she be willing to play along with him? I know her 'commando' answer was ridiculous but in the context of it (in her mind) being none of his business, I can understand it.

Is there really anything "private" while being questioned on the stand?
What about victims of sexual abuse/rapes being shredded by Defence during trials?

Sadly, there is no such thing.

A person testifying under Oath is required to tell the truth.
If not, their credibility suffers.

By the way,
Prosecutor is not "poking" but questioning.

It was the defendant (allegedly) poking tiny Babies' with hard objects causing bleeding and internal trauma.

JMO

 

[esther43]

Good point but, if guilty, if she was trying to impress him with how cool calm and collected she was in emergency situations like a resus, then it only really could be demonstrated at work.

JMO

By the account of someone on FB, the book she was reading ( found on her bedside) was all about supporting a friend through grief. someone looked it up on amazon. Take from that what you will.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Good point but, if guilty, if she was trying to impress him with how cool calm and collected she was in emergency situations like a resus, then it only really could be demonstrated at work.

JMO

Yes. And seems she was playing on this Doc Choc emotions to show her acts of kindness directly in relation to distressing events at work. So there had to be distressing events for those style of interactions in which he praised her and offered comfort. So sick and distorted.

For months I was arguing that LL had been scapegoated for hospital failings but now I see it so clearly and vividly. JMO MOO

 

[Anxala]

A fair point, we could also assume that it’s a valid point (poking around in her private business) because we could question; is she lying about the whole “loved like a close friend” thing and was there more to this potential boyfriend/love that triggered the need (if guilty) to have him around? Showboating so to speak.

That said it will be interesting if we will hear “why” it’s necessary to find out if he was just a friend or not. Is there more relevance on this to the trial or is he trying to embarrass her or exposure her further as a liar- or a combination of all these factors.

JMO

My impression of LL's responses in general about DrChoc is that she's... protective of him, almost. They clearly were close, they spent time together, walks, meals, etc, he seemed very fond and supportive of her. Since we're speculating, what about the idea that he remained a friend to her all through this ordeal, that he's someone who stayed on side, in whatever way he could, when more or less everyone else had vanished? Even knowing that he was likely to be called as a witness?

Her emotional reaction to him in the witness box, this 'loved like a close friend' could be explained by that. As could her unwillingness to respond to the provocative line of questioning NJ pursued for, as far as I can see, his own entertainment.

Just a thought, of course.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Maybe the types of papers she collected the most were ones relating to anything featuring herself and Doc Choc? Handover notes with both their initial on, or his writing, or their names printed in the same list etc. Maybe she was 'collecting' indeed but not in relation to the babies? JMO MOO

 

[Blondiexoxo]

IMO it depends what triggered it all but yes of course, if guilty, she would at least have been known to people close to her for using highly coercive and manipulative behaviour to get her needs met.

I can imagine that if guilty, she could be more of an emotional manipulator, instead of having outbursts of rage or violence, if guilty, she may have used gaslighting in the form of saying/doing something then denying it happened, controlling a narrative and influencing people’s opinions of others. Giving multiple versions of a tale and differing versions of herself depending on who she’s speaking to.

To her parents always the hero of the hour and angelic, to acquaintances slightly odd, awkward, maybe arrogant at times. To close friends more arrogance disguised as humour, shy and emotional, maybe a bit needy and emotionally draining but in what those close to her believe is due to being emotionally vulnerable. Any possible enemies would be those who saw straight through her, recognised lies and manipulation, refused to be gaslit and questioned inconsistencies.

Narcissists mainly associate with slightly vulnerable people, genuinely kind and non confrontational people who they know won’t call them out on their behaviour, those they’ve known so long that they can’t or won’t consider that someone may have used them to meet their own needs. They tend to avoid more stubborn, head strong individuals who aren’t afraid to confront them.

This is only if guilty though - she could still be completely innocent and genuinely a quiet, shy and misunderstood person.

All MOO