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

[Phoenix Lazarus]

I get the impression that she's reasonably tall. The pic of her in front if her car and one of two others gives that impression.

I tracked down the Facebook profile of a nurse who was named as her work colleague. She was in a lot of the photos, alongside fellow nurses, and you could indeed see she was lanky in build and taller than most of the others.

 

[katydid23]

Or, she said "no" because he said that he could contradict her by showing a video. A video he said would be of her being led away which is NOT a video of her arrest.

But she did not just say she was arrested in PJ's---she also said taken away in her PJ's---and that is a big fat lie.

 

[Marantz4250b]

You never give up

It was obvious that she opened the door wearing whatever she was wearing.
Or maybe it was her father who did it.

I really doubt that Police officers would humiliate a woman dragging her half naked through the streets for all neighbours to gawp.

Sorry, but "colour me doubtful".

JMO

It's not "obvious" at all.

The prosecution offering to show her being led away is not them offering to show a video of her arrest. Why did he make that offer? Was it to make her look like she was lying about he circumstances of her arrest when she actually wasn't.

It's highly likely that they allow her to change into something more appropriate to leave the house in.

Whatever she may have lied about, I don't think she's lying about this.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Who cares---she said in court she was taken away in her pyjamas. THAT is a lie. She admitted on Friday that she lied about it.

Why the big effort to make her look truthful about something she admitted to be lying about?

She didn't say that, as far as I can find. The CS said that but it was NOT a quote from her. They quoted her words and put the pyjamas part AFTER the quote marks. That means it was their comment rather than her words.

I lived with a person for years who was a court reporter. There is a significance to how quotation marks are used. I see no evidence anywhere which shows her statement of being arrested in nightwear to be untrue going by her quoted words.

 

[Dotta]

It's not "obvious" at all.

The prosecution offering to show her being led away is not them offering to show a video of her arrest. Why did he make that offer? Was it to make her look like she was lying about he circumstances of her arrest when she actually wasn't.

It's highly likely that they allow her to change into something more appropriate to leave the house in.

Whatever she may have lied about, I don't think she's lying about this.

Well,
women usually open the front door wearing something to cover themselves.
I would think she might have put at least a dressing gown over her nightie - you know this pink one shown at the picture of her bedroom.

JMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

If she didn’t lie she wouldn’t have said I don’t know when asked why she lied to the jury! Arrested means taken whether you like it or not by the police. Just admit you’re wrong

It doesn't. It has a specific legal meaning. You can be arrested and not taken anywhere. There was a case of some protesters just a few days ago being arrested and deartested within minutes. They weren't taken anywhere.

Shed have been arrested the moment she answered the door or the moment the police saw her if someone else answered it. If she was wearing nightwear at that point then that is what her memory would have been of, I'm sure.

 

[CS2C]

In regard to her first arrest
Mr Johnson's exact words in court were
"You told this jury you were taken away in your pyjamas"

He starts by asking "How were you dressed when you left the house"

 

[IDK]

If she didn’t lie she wouldn’t have said I don’t know when asked why she lied to the jury! Arrested means taken whether you like it or not by the police. Just admit you’re wrong

I hear what you are saying, however isn’t it also possible she just become flustered ? I can’t imagine what a mess I would be after days of intensive cross examination in a high profile case like this.

 

[Marantz4250b]

But she did not just say she was arrested in PJ's---she also said taken away in her PJ's---and that is a big fat lie.

She didn't. NJ said she was. Got her to admit she was. The CS standard said she was but did NOT quote her as saying that. Please feel free to post an actual quote of her saying she was.

 

[katydid23]

That's never going to happen. This isn't an American court where a lawyer with a degree from a Cherios box is allowed to degend death penalty cases.

Ben Myers is a KC with a stellar reputation. If anything, based on the events so far, he might have a claim for his client undermining his good name!

Sorry to burst your bubble, but lawyers in American courts cannot defend death penalty cases unless they are qualified to do so. And the qualifications do not come from a Cheerios box.

Rule 4.117. Qualifications for appointed trial counsel in capital cases | Judicial Branch of California

(a) Purpose

www.courts.ca.gov

2023 California Rules of Court​

Rule 4.117. Qualifications for appointed trial counsel in capital cases

(a) Purpose

This rule defines minimum qualifications for attorneys appointed to represent persons charged with capital offenses in the superior courts. These minimum qualifications are designed to promote adequate representation in death penalty cases and to avoid unnecessary delay and expense by assisting the trial court in appointing qualified counsel. Nothing in this rule is intended to be used as a standard by which to measure whether the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.

(b) General qualifications

In cases in which the death penalty is sought, the court must assign qualified trial counsel to represent the defendant. The attorney may be appointed only if the court, after reviewing the attorney's background, experience, and training, determines that the attorney has demonstrated the skill, knowledge, and proficiency to diligently and competently represent the defendant. An attorney is not entitled to appointment simply because he or she meets the minimum qualifications.

(c) Designation of counsel

(1) If the court appoints more than one attorney, one must be designated lead counsel and meet the qualifications stated in (d) or (f), and at least one other must be designated associate counsel and meet the qualifications stated in (e) or (f).

(2) If the court appoints only one attorney, that attorney must meet the qualifications stated in (d) or (f).

(Subd (c) amended effective January 1, 2007.)

(d) Qualifications of lead counsel

To be eligible to serve as lead counsel, an attorney must:

(1) Be an active member of the State Bar of California;

(2) Be an active trial practitioner with at least 10 years' litigation experience in the field of criminal law;

(3) Have prior experience as lead counsel in either:

(A) At least 10 serious or violent felony jury trials, including at least 2 murder cases, tried to argument, verdict, or final judgment; or

(B) At least 5 serious or violent felony jury trials, including at least 3 murder cases, tried to argument, verdict, or final judgment;

(4) Be familiar with the practices and procedures of the California criminal courts;

(5) Be familiar with and experienced in the use of expert witnesses and evidence, including psychiatric and forensic evidence;

(6) Have completed within two years before appointment at least 15 hours of capital case defense training approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California; and

(7) Have demonstrated the necessary proficiency, diligence, and quality of representation appropriate to capital cases.

(Subd (d) amended effective January 1, 2007.)

(e) Qualifications of associate counsel

To be eligible to serve as associate counsel, an attorney must:

(1) Be an active member of the State Bar of California;

(2) Be an active trial practitioner with at least three years' litigation experience in the field of criminal law;

(3) Have prior experience as:

(A) Lead counsel in at least 10 felony jury trials tried to verdict, including 3 serious or violent felony jury trials tried to argument, verdict, or final judgment; or

(B) Lead or associate counsel in at least 5 serious or violent felony jury trials, including at least 1 murder case, tried to argument, verdict, or final judgment;

(4) Be familiar with the practices and procedures of the California criminal courts;

(5) Be familiar with and experienced in the use of expert witnesses and evidence, including psychiatric and forensic evidence;

(6) Have completed within two years before appointment at least 15 hours of capital case defense training approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California; and

(7) Have demonstrated the necessary proficiency, diligence, and quality of representation appropriate to capital cases.

(Subd (e) amended effective January 1, 2007.)

 

[Marantz4250b]

Well,
women usually open the front door wearing something to cover themselves.
I would think she might have put at least a dressing gown over her nightie - you know this pink one shown at the picture of her bedroom.

JMO

So, you agree she was arrested in nightwear rather than the Lee Cooper gear, then?

 

[Marantz4250b]

In regard to her first arrest
Mr Johnson's exact words in court were
"You told this jury you were taken away in your pyjamas"

He starts by asking "How were you dressed when you left the house"

Is there a specific quote as to that? She said she was arrested in pyjamas, as far as I can find.

He may, after all be wrong on that.

 

[CS2C]

Is there a specific quote as to that? She said she was arrested in pyjamas, as far as I can find.

He may, after all be wrong on that.

I can only tell you what I heard being there in person but I am confident enough to say that this is word for word exactly what was said.

 

[katydid23]

Is there a specific quote as to that? She said she was arrested in pyjamas, as far as I can find.

He may, after all be wrong on that.

If he was wrong, why did she agree with him? She could have corrected him right then, but she didn't.

It was very clear from their exchange in court---he caught her out in that little lie. And she agreed, out loud, that she had lied about it.

Her barrister did not jump up and say what you are saying now. He seemed to accept that she lied. You are more upset than Meyers was?

 

[Anxala]

Who cares---she said in court she was taken away in her pyjamas. THAT is a lie. She admitted on Friday that she lied about it.

Why the big effort to make her look truthful about something she admitted to be lying about?

Why the big effort to deny her her version of what she experienced at the time? That she opened the door in her nightwear and was told that she was being arrested and taken in for questioning. That she subsequently was allowed time to pull on a tracksuit before being taken off to the police station is neither here nor there. If I opened the door in my pjs in the early hrs of the morning and the law was parked on my doorstep telling me I was under arrest and needed to come down to the station for questioning, regardless of what I wore on the journey to the police station, I'd still feel perfectly entitled to claim I was arrested in my pjs.

All this gnarly nit-picking seems so pointless, particularly when it has so little bearing on anything.

 

[Tortoise]

Posted at 10:53 2 May10:53 2 May

Letby describes moment of arrest​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Myers asks Lucy Letby about the first time she was arrested.
She says: "There was a loud knocking at the door at six o'clock in the morning. My father was staying with me at that point. He was staying there too."
She is crying and wiping her eyes with tissues.
Letby says she was told she was being arrested on suspicion of the murder and attempted murder of multiple babies, and was taken to the police station in her pyjamas.
When she was released she wasn't allowed to return to Chester. She went to live with her parents in Hereford.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65431833/page/3

--

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
May 2

Ms Letby has broke down in tears as she recalls the first time she was arrested - she was woken by officers at 6am in July 201[8]

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
May 2

*2018...She tells the court she was told she was being charged with murder and attempted murder and taken away in her pyjamas. After this first arrest she was released on bail - part of her bail conditions was that she couldn't return to her home, so she moved in with parents

--

12:23

Letby 'lied' to jury about being taken away in pyjamas​

Letby previously told the jury she was first arrested at 6am and taken away in her nightgown.
"How were you dressed when you left the house?"
"I think I had a nightie on and tracksuit bottoms and trainers," she says.
"You were taken away in a blue Lee Cooper Leisure suit."
"I don't remember, I had a nightie on," she says.
"Do you want me to show you a video of it?"
"No."
The prosecution says Letby wasn't taken away in her pyjamas at all. Letby agrees this was the case.
"Why did you lie to the jury about it?" Mr Johnson asks.
"I don't know."
Mr Johnson calls Letby a "very calculating woman" who "tells lies deliberately".
"No," she replies.
"The reason you tell lies is to try to get sympathy from people," says Mr Johnson.
"No."
He then adds: "Killing these children you got quite a lot of attention."
"I didn't kill these children," Letby replies.
"You are getting quite a lot of attention now, aren't you?"
Silence from Letby.

Lucy Letby trial: Facebook searches of nurse accused of murdering babies read out in court

NJ: "You have also deliberately misled them about the circumstances of your arrest, haven't you?"
LL: "No."
Letby says the police knocked on her door at 6am when they arrested her. She says she thought she had a nightie and a tracksuit and trainers.
Mr Johnson says Letby was taken away in a blue Lee Cooper leisure suit. Letby says she is not sure. Mr Johnson says video footage can be played of her arrest. Letby agrees she was taken away in that leisure suit.
For the 2019 arrest, Letby agrees she was not taken away in her pyjamas.
NJ: "Why did you lie to the jury about this?"
LL: "I don't know."
Letby says it was the first arrest when she was taken in her pyjamas.
NJ: "Do you want to watch the video?" Letby does not respond.
NJ: "You are a very calculating woman, aren't you"
LL: "No."
NJ: "You tell lies deliberately."
NJ: "And the reason you tell lies is to get sympathy and attention from people."
Mr Johnson says Letby was killing children to get attention.
LL: "I didn't kill the children."
NJ: "You're getting quite a lot of attention now, aren't you?"

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 9 - cross-examination continues

 

[IrisAtwood65]

Posted at 10:53 2 May10:53 2 May

Letby describes moment of arrest​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Myers asks Lucy Letby about the first time she was arrested.
She says: "There was a loud knocking at the door at six o'clock in the morning. My father was staying with me at that point. He was staying there too."
She is crying and wiping her eyes with tissues.
Letby says she was told she was being arrested on suspicion of the murder and attempted murder of multiple babies, and was taken to the police station in her pyjamas.
When she was released she wasn't allowed to return to Chester. She went to live with her parents in Hereford.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65431833/page/3

--

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
May 2

Ms Letby has broke down in tears as she recalls the first time she was arrested - she was woken by officers at 6am in July 201[8]

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
May 2

*2018...She tells the court she was told she was being charged with murder and attempted murder and taken away in her pyjamas. After this first arrest she was released on bail - part of her bail conditions was that she couldn't return to her home, so she moved in with parents

I have seen this claim described as being part of an attempt to appear the victim.

 

[Dotta]

This Pyjamas thing took nearly 4 pages of discussion.

Next, hot on its heels, there was Dr A and his martial status/boyfriend issue.

Many topics still till Wednesday.

 

[CS2C]

The point Mr Johnson was making was that she told the jury she had been taken away in her pyjamas, she actually disputed it initially and then Mr Johnson said "Do you want to look at the video" and she immediately replied "No"

He then said for the second time "You were taken away in your blue lee cooper leisure suit, weren't you..." to which she replied "Yes"

He then asked her why she had lied to the jury to which she replied "I don't know"

He remarked or asked (can't recall which) That Letby lied by giving this recollection of events as a sob story or to gain sympathy from the jury.

He THEN said "You are a very calculating woman aren't you Lucy Letby"

 

[Blondiexoxo]

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’m sure LL said on Friday that it was the first arrest she was taken away in her pyjamas. Back at the beginning of may when she was being questioned by BM she specifically said ‘taken away in my pyjamas’, I take that to mean she is claiming that she was taken from her home in her pyjamas.

Someone else made a valid point about her maybe being read her rights in her pyjamas but then able to put her tracksuit on before leaving the house, but from LL’s own mouth she claims to have been taken away in her pyjamas. And then she volunteered the information on Friday that that was the first arrest. Which NJ asked her again ‘would you like to see the video’ and she didn’t answer. So IMO she knows perfectly well that she was not just wearing pyjamas when she left the house.

I’ll try and find the exact quotes now, but IMO she was caught out lying, just like she was caught out lying about being isolated and in despair, NJ methodically and effectively IMO has refuted each and every one of her attempts at sympathy.

It all suggests IMO someone who lies that much they can’t remember what they’ve said to whom. As I always say ‘the truth doesn’t change’, and she volunteered the information on direct examination about having no social life and being taken away in her pyjamas, it’s not asif NJ was asking her to agree with him, she gave that information willingly on her first day on the stand when BM was asking about how this has all affected her so she can’t claim to have been under pressure from the prosecution, it was her own barrister and she was happy to give what we now know was false information to the jury.

MOO