Lucy Letby Case #41

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Ok so…

Obviously this is all just my own opinion.
Full disclosure, before the trial I thought “innocent”, because I didn’t believe a person could do such things on such a scale. Early on in the trial I was G but not for all counts, and for the past 6 months I have been firmly “guilty” for all charges, just so you have an idea of my biases.

I went to court today annoyed that I was only watching BMs closing and annoyed I couldn’t get off work to see BNEs closing or LL on cross. I was thinking “CBA listening to this tosser” but also wanting to see history being made as this case will be massive once it’s over.

My opinion of BM (not LL) has changed a lot today. I was impressed by him, if I was on trial I would want him as my defence.

Yes, he is bombastic, arrogant, and clutching at straws, but really that’s all he has to clutch at. He’s doing the best with what he has. He is a great orator, I found him to weave a compelling narrative (although I didn’t find most of it plausible). I think he’s very good at what he does, and having just read the Standard write up l have to say he comes across much better in person than the write up portrays.
I would describe him as being like that odd amazing teacher or lecturer you get who makes a boring, difficult subject easy to understand, that’s his style of speaking.

For the actual content of what he was saying I’ve done a bit of a thematic analysis, it broadly slots into 4 areas:

  1. “The Prosecution has a theory and they’re bending everything to fit with it.”
Basically saying LL is damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t, and no matter what happens the prosecution say that means she’s guilty. Bringing up things
like wrong or missed entries made by other nurses “but when LL does it, GUILTY!”, saying the prosecution are ignoring harm events that happens when LL was off duty (on the table of events he said there was 2 or 3 missing). A lot of implying the prosecution had cherry picked stats (but BM actually did the same in his closing).
He really laboured the “innocent till proven guilty” point and was quite compelling in how he presented it, it was a stirring speech about one’s duty to the accused.

  1. “Experts ain’t tit
The crux of this argument was that the expert witnesses were not impartial, had an agenda and were firmly on the prosecution team. Also questioning how expert they actually were.
As others have said he really went to town on Dewi Evans, however I have to say this was the one thing he said today in his closing that he actually had a bit of evidence to back up. I was quite surprised by some of what I heard and saw about this expert witness. I want to check back in the live reporting to see what was said as I don’t want to say anything I’m not allowed to, but the things he said did give me doubt in the motivations of the witness (not of LLs guilt).
However he over-extrapolated this and tried to paint Sandy Bohin as unreliable “by association” but then had nothing to back this up, so then did not sound credible.


  1. “Buttering up the jury”
I think he over-egged the pudding massively here and I think this is where observers found him condescending. I think he was trying to ride on the coat-tails of BNEs success with “you’ll tell us if we got it right”. He kept on with things like “if you think a piece of evidence isn’t important or doesn’t fit, then you disregard it, it’s up to you, it doesn’t matter what I or anyone else say” (paraphrasing). But he said this too much, going on about how he has faith in the jury and how it’s up to them what evidence is important and what isn’t. He used it as a tool when he couldn’t explain a piece of evidence, e.g. Lucy saying she wasn’t allowed to talk to work colleagues and then being pictured out with them, “you’ll decide if that’s really important or not”.
IMO he missed the mark here and tried to kiss a too much, it came across insincere.

  1. “If you can’t attack what someone is saying, attack the way they say it”
He mentioned often how the prosecution have been hostile to LL in their cross examination. Went as far as almost mimicking BNEs voice when saying
“I do” after LL said “you think I pushed it [the feed] in”.
Said a lot of things about how they belittled LL, how they seemed outraged that she had dared argue back and defend herself.
The “go commando” comment was fairly well covered in the live reporting.
He also kept alluding to this being the first chance the defence has had to really properly address the jury and get their points across, like they haven’t had chance to bring things up until now.



Onto Lucy herself, this was a big motivation for me to visit court, to actually see this person (on video) with my own eyes. Others have commented on her appearance through the trial, and yes she looked more tired, miserable and heavier than her social media pictures. What struck me is how still she was. We all sat in hot courts for hours today and naturally people shifted around in chairs, scratched, drank water, fidgeted. LL could go >1 hour before any perceptible movement, just stock still and staring straight ahead for hours. It just seemed a bit weird.
Later in the day it looked like she dabbed her eyes with a tissue 3 times, but it was during the time BM was tearing Dewi Evans apart, so it seemed like an odd time to be emotional.
There was a point this afternoon where the speakers went wrong and made a horrible noise first and then quite a funny echo when BM was speaking, most people in court laughed briefly, even BM and the police and counsel. LL made no perceptible reaction. She did use that moment after when they were trying to sort the IT to have a bit of a look around the court.

Impact of todays closing on the jury:
There was only two points today that gave
me cause for concern.
Firstly; if somebody found the heaps of medical evidence to be too confusing or difficult to consider, then BM gives a neat
excuse for all this, I.e. that it was all cherry picked anyway to fit the “guilty till proven innocent theory”, and then you don’t have to trouble your mind thinking about it all, because the jury gets to decide what’s important and what’s not. I think this is why he’s popular on the Facebook groups. Hopefully there is nobody on the jury like this.
Secondly; the Dewi Evans discussion visibly swayed some of the people sitting on my side of the court and I think could have the potential to put doubt in the jury’s minds.
Otherwise anyone with half a brain could see all BM did today was well constructed, theatrical waffle.

Personally I think BM knows she’s toast and knows she’ll be up again on more charges before long. He’s just doing his job and honestly I quite enjoyed watching
him do it, as much as one can with such a dark subject matter.
---
Hmm 🤔 did you stay over last night and drive back today?
Yes I did, too much for one day
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 70
Ok so…

Obviously this is all just my own opinion.
Full disclosure, before the trial I thought “innocent”, because I didn’t believe a person could do such things on such a scale. Early on in the trial I was G but not for all counts, and for the past 6 months I have been firmly “guilty” for all charges, just so you have an idea of my biases.

I went to court today annoyed that I was only watching BMs closing and annoyed I couldn’t get off work to see BNEs closing or LL on cross. I was thinking “CBA listening to this tosser” but also wanting to see history being made as this case will be massive once it’s over.

My opinion of BM (not LL) has changed a lot today. I was impressed by him, if I was on trial I would want him as my defence.

Yes, he is bombastic, arrogant, and clutching at straws, but really that’s all he has to clutch at. He’s doing the best with what he has. He is a great orator, I found him to weave a compelling narrative (although I didn’t find most of it plausible). I think he’s very good at what he does, and having just read the Standard write up l have to say he comes across much better in person than the write up portrays.
I would describe him as being like that odd amazing teacher or lecturer you get who makes a boring, difficult subject easy to understand, that’s his style of speaking.

For the actual content of what he was saying I’ve done a bit of a thematic analysis, it broadly slots into 4 areas:

  1. “The Prosecution has a theory and they’re bending everything to fit with it.”
Basically saying LL is damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t, and no matter what happens the prosecution say that means she’s guilty. Bringing up things
like wrong or missed entries made by other nurses “but when LL does it, GUILTY!”, saying the prosecution are ignoring harm events that happens when LL was off duty (on the table of events he said there was 2 or 3 missing). A lot of implying the prosecution had cherry picked stats (but BM actually did the same in his closing).
He really laboured the “innocent till proven guilty” point and was quite compelling in how he presented it, it was a stirring speech about one’s duty to the accused.

  1. “Experts ain’t tit
The crux of this argument was that the expert witnesses were not impartial, had an agenda and were firmly on the prosecution team. Also questioning how expert they actually were.
As others have said he really went to town on Dewi Evans, however I have to say this was the one thing he said today in his closing that he actually had a bit of evidence to back up. I was quite surprised by some of what I heard and saw about this expert witness. I want to check back in the live reporting to see what was said as I don’t want to say anything I’m not allowed to, but the things he said did give me doubt in the motivations of the witness (not of LLs guilt).
However he over-extrapolated this and tried to paint Sandy Bohin as unreliable “by association” but then had nothing to back this up, so then did not sound credible.


  1. “Buttering up the jury”
I think he over-egged the pudding massively here and I think this is where observers found him condescending. I think he was trying to ride on the coat-tails of BNEs success with “you’ll tell us if we got it right”. He kept on with things like “if you think a piece of evidence isn’t important or doesn’t fit, then you disregard it, it’s up to you, it doesn’t matter what I or anyone else say” (paraphrasing). But he said this too much, going on about how he has faith in the jury and how it’s up to them what evidence is important and what isn’t. He used it as a tool when he couldn’t explain a piece of evidence, e.g. Lucy saying she wasn’t allowed to talk to work colleagues and then being pictured out with them, “you’ll decide if that’s really important or not”.
IMO he missed the mark here and tried to kiss a too much, it came across insincere.

  1. “If you can’t attack what someone is saying, attack the way they say it”
He mentioned often how the prosecution have been hostile to LL in their cross examination. Went as far as almost mimicking BNEs voice when saying
“I do” after LL said “you think I pushed it [the feed] in”.
Said a lot of things about how they belittled LL, how they seemed outraged that she had dared argue back and defend herself.
The “go commando” comment was fairly well covered in the live reporting.
He also kept alluding to this being the first chance the defence has had to really properly address the jury and get their points across, like they haven’t had chance to bring things up until now.



Onto Lucy herself, this was a big motivation for me to visit court, to actually see this person (on video) with my own eyes. Others have commented on her appearance through the trial, and yes she looked more tired, miserable and heavier than her social media pictures. What struck me is how still she was. We all sat in hot courts for hours today and naturally people shifted around in chairs, scratched, drank water, fidgeted. LL could go >1 hour before any perceptible movement, just stock still and staring straight ahead for hours. It just seemed a bit weird.
Later in the day it looked like she dabbed her eyes with a tissue 3 times, but it was during the time BM was tearing Dewi Evans apart, so it seemed like an odd time to be emotional.
There was a point this afternoon where the speakers went wrong and made a horrible noise first and then quite a funny echo when BM was speaking, most people in court laughed briefly, even BM and the police and counsel. LL made no perceptible reaction. She did use that moment after when they were trying to sort the IT to have a bit of a look around the court.

Impact of todays closing on the jury:
There was only two points today that gave
me cause for concern.
Firstly; if somebody found the heaps of medical evidence to be too confusing or difficult to consider, then BM gives a neat
excuse for all this, I.e. that it was all cherry picked anyway to fit the “guilty till proven innocent theory”, and then you don’t have to trouble your mind thinking about it all, because the jury gets to decide what’s important and what’s not. I think this is why he’s popular on the Facebook groups. Hopefully there is nobody on the jury like this.
Secondly; the Dewi Evans discussion visibly swayed some of the people sitting on my side of the court and I think could have the potential to put doubt in the jury’s minds.
Otherwise anyone with half a brain could see all BM did today was well constructed, theatrical waffle.

Personally I think BM knows she’s toast and knows she’ll be up again on more charges before long. He’s just doing his job and honestly I quite enjoyed watching
him do it, as much as one can with such a dark subject matter.
---

Yes I did, too much for one day
Thanks for sharing, that was an interesting read. Some parts of the reporting today were just rubbish so it’s good to read a firsthand account.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 23
Thanks for sharing, that was an interesting read. Some parts of the reporting today were just rubbish so it’s good to read a firsthand account.
Glad it’s interesting. If you get the chance to go then defintely do, it’s amazing how much there is to take in and listen to, and I’m not surprised that those of us sitting in the same
room end up with different perceptions of what went on.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 22
I’m grateful to those of you have been to court and willing to share as it’s really helpful to have a few different perspectives. The live reporting is sometimes difficult for me to decipher, you lot always seem to get to the crux.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 25
Glad it’s interesting. If you get the chance to go then defintely do, it’s amazing how much there is to take in and listen to, and I’m not surprised that those of us sitting in the same
room end up with different perceptions of what went on.
Thank you so much for your amazing detailed report
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 16
I'm sure you've discussed this before, but I'm curious from any of m'learned friends on here about defence barristers and the cab rank rule - as I understand it, you have to take the case that's before you. I think this is an essential part of our justice system and even monsters deserve a fair trial. But I'm curious as to how it works if you're not convinced by their innocence, but if they've pled NG you still have to build a case for their defence? It must be very hard psychologically, especially if you're a 'winner' kind of personality (which, in my experience, a lot of lawyers are).
The purpose of it was to make sure no one was without legal representation - you can’t a situation where everyone refuses to take on a case. You can’t act it you’re conflicted or too busy - it’s not strictly enforced though, it’s easy enough to say you aren’t going to have time/capacity to take something on. Whether you think someone is innocent or guilty is irrelevant. Unless you know for a fact a client is lying to you then you simply proceed with presenting the case. It’s a job. And an important one!
---
It doesn’t matter, you still have to defend them even if you think they’re guilty - EVERYONE is entitled to legal counsel now matter how much proof there is or how obvious it is that they’re guilty.
If they admit guilt to you whilst pleading innocence that’s a different story, then that’s a different story and you can no longer defend them.
You can still act, you just can’t present an alternative set of facts to the jury as your main duty is to the court. So if someone admits guilt you cannot then proceed with a defence of, for example, alibi to say they were not there as you know that to be false.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 14
Ok so…

Obviously this is all just my own opinion.
Full disclosure, before the trial I thought “innocent”, because I didn’t believe a person could do such things on such a scale. Early on in the trial I was G but not for all counts, and for the past 6 months I have been firmly “guilty” for all charges, just so you have an idea of my biases.

I went to court today annoyed that I was only watching BMs closing and annoyed I couldn’t get off work to see BNEs closing or LL on cross. I was thinking “CBA listening to this tosser” but also wanting to see history being made as this case will be massive once it’s over.

My opinion of BM (not LL) has changed a lot today. I was impressed by him, if I was on trial I would want him as my defence.

Yes, he is bombastic, arrogant, and clutching at straws, but really that’s all he has to clutch at. He’s doing the best with what he has. He is a great orator, I found him to weave a compelling narrative (although I didn’t find most of it plausible). I think he’s very good at what he does, and having just read the Standard write up l have to say he comes across much better in person than the write up portrays.
I would describe him as being like that odd amazing teacher or lecturer you get who makes a boring, difficult subject easy to understand, that’s his style of speaking.

For the actual content of what he was saying I’ve done a bit of a thematic analysis, it broadly slots into 4 areas:

  1. “The Prosecution has a theory and they’re bending everything to fit with it.”
Basically saying LL is damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t, and no matter what happens the prosecution say that means she’s guilty. Bringing up things
like wrong or missed entries made by other nurses “but when LL does it, GUILTY!”, saying the prosecution are ignoring harm events that happens when LL was off duty (on the table of events he said there was 2 or 3 missing). A lot of implying the prosecution had cherry picked stats (but BM actually did the same in his closing).
He really laboured the “innocent till proven guilty” point and was quite compelling in how he presented it, it was a stirring speech about one’s duty to the accused.

  1. “Experts ain’t tit
The crux of this argument was that the expert witnesses were not impartial, had an agenda and were firmly on the prosecution team. Also questioning how expert they actually were.
As others have said he really went to town on Dewi Evans, however I have to say this was the one thing he said today in his closing that he actually had a bit of evidence to back up. I was quite surprised by some of what I heard and saw about this expert witness. I want to check back in the live reporting to see what was said as I don’t want to say anything I’m not allowed to, but the things he said did give me doubt in the motivations of the witness (not of LLs guilt).
However he over-extrapolated this and tried to paint Sandy Bohin as unreliable “by association” but then had nothing to back this up, so then did not sound credible.


  1. “Buttering up the jury”
I think he over-egged the pudding massively here and I think this is where observers found him condescending. I think he was trying to ride on the coat-tails of BNEs success with “you’ll tell us if we got it right”. He kept on with things like “if you think a piece of evidence isn’t important or doesn’t fit, then you disregard it, it’s up to you, it doesn’t matter what I or anyone else say” (paraphrasing). But he said this too much, going on about how he has faith in the jury and how it’s up to them what evidence is important and what isn’t. He used it as a tool when he couldn’t explain a piece of evidence, e.g. Lucy saying she wasn’t allowed to talk to work colleagues and then being pictured out with them, “you’ll decide if that’s really important or not”.
IMO he missed the mark here and tried to kiss a too much, it came across insincere.

  1. “If you can’t attack what someone is saying, attack the way they say it”
He mentioned often how the prosecution have been hostile to LL in their cross examination. Went as far as almost mimicking BNEs voice when saying
“I do” after LL said “you think I pushed it [the feed] in”.
Said a lot of things about how they belittled LL, how they seemed outraged that she had dared argue back and defend herself.
The “go commando” comment was fairly well covered in the live reporting.
He also kept alluding to this being the first chance the defence has had to really properly address the jury and get their points across, like they haven’t had chance to bring things up until now.



Onto Lucy herself, this was a big motivation for me to visit court, to actually see this person (on video) with my own eyes. Others have commented on her appearance through the trial, and yes she looked more tired, miserable and heavier than her social media pictures. What struck me is how still she was. We all sat in hot courts for hours today and naturally people shifted around in chairs, scratched, drank water, fidgeted. LL could go >1 hour before any perceptible movement, just stock still and staring straight ahead for hours. It just seemed a bit weird.
Later in the day it looked like she dabbed her eyes with a tissue 3 times, but it was during the time BM was tearing Dewi Evans apart, so it seemed like an odd time to be emotional.
There was a point this afternoon where the speakers went wrong and made a horrible noise first and then quite a funny echo when BM was speaking, most people in court laughed briefly, even BM and the police and counsel. LL made no perceptible reaction. She did use that moment after when they were trying to sort the IT to have a bit of a look around the court.

Impact of todays closing on the jury:
There was only two points today that gave
me cause for concern.
Firstly; if somebody found the heaps of medical evidence to be too confusing or difficult to consider, then BM gives a neat
excuse for all this, I.e. that it was all cherry picked anyway to fit the “guilty till proven innocent theory”, and then you don’t have to trouble your mind thinking about it all, because the jury gets to decide what’s important and what’s not. I think this is why he’s popular on the Facebook groups. Hopefully there is nobody on the jury like this.
Secondly; the Dewi Evans discussion visibly swayed some of the people sitting on my side of the court and I think could have the potential to put doubt in the jury’s minds.
Otherwise anyone with half a brain could see all BM did today was well constructed, theatrical waffle.

Personally I think BM knows she’s toast and knows she’ll be up again on more charges before long. He’s just doing his job and honestly I quite enjoyed watching
him do it, as much as one can with such a dark subject matter.
---

Yes I did, too much for one day
I've enjoyed reading your very perceptive view on your visit to court. As you say he very much maligned the experts. I just don't understand why he didn't bring his own experts to back this up if they were so bad. I think BNE saw some of this coming last week when he told the jury they could put aside Evans' testimony if they wished because the other witnesses' testimony backed everything up. I hadn't noticed LL's stillness or her dabbing her eyes. I agree he cherry picked by way of citing the most innocuous part of her notes i.e. "not good enough" and his perceived meaning of this and not mentioning the more damning comments she had written. I also thought it was quite pathetic when he showed the picture of her noticeboard with normal things on it. It was like he was saying it would contain pictures of serial killers if she was guilty. He also mentioned the insulin and it sounded like he was saying the second attack was a lesser injected amount than the first. This seemed to be opposite to what BNE said last week and I found this difficult to understand. However I had a look on Reddit earlier to see what people were posting and someone has posted what sounds to me like a very knowledgeable explanation about the insulin and this person is saying that BM has misunderstood the insulin results and it is the way BNE has described (why didn't BM recruit an expert to assist him with this) therefore she claims BM has misinformed the jury today about the insulin. He also inferred the texting at work was normal and everyone did this but BNE's in depth breakdown last week of LL's texting was not normal or appropriate. My friend said she thinks BM does not for one minute believe LL is NG which is what you've said and is just doing his job. It will be interesting to see what the next four days brings from him and whether he'll have the jury "eating out of his hand" and I really hope this will not be the case.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 30
Just a quick question, does anyone know? Given that it appears BM appears to have misunderstood the two insulin results and as such, potentially misled the jury in respect of the two " insulin incidents", will there be any opportunity for the prosecution to correct him/make things clear to the.jury,given that this is a fairly crucial piece of evidence?
Surely he can't get away with that, intentional.or nit?
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 28
Hopefully the jury remember the collapses followed her from nights to days.
If I get one wish this year it’s to headbutt these two scabby bleepin no marks RG and Dole Green

Just piss off and crawl back under your weird 🪨 rocks
I’m so so sorry I’m the person who first posted her many threads back… I literally typed “lucy letby trial” into twitter and it was her swastika garden post.:LOL:
---
The green ghoul needs a job or a stay on the psych ward.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 14
Personally I think BM knows she’s toast and knows she’ll be up again on more charges before long. He’s just doing his job and honestly I quite enjoyed watching
him do it, as much as one can with such a dark subject matter.
---

Yes I did, too much for one day
This was really interesting, thank you for taking the time to write it. I agree I'd love to see BM in action he's obviously got a very different court persona to BNE (I think to a certain extent they will both be acts - I don't think you could represent some of the ghouls they have had to without having to separate it from your identity in some way).
I def thought he overdid buttering up the jury from reading the Standard. I bet it's almost a compliment when someone clearly super intelligent and talented is talking directly to you desperately trying to appeal to you but I personally find BNE more 'genuine' (although I hate that word)!

@tay65 I was confused by his insulin comments too. Hopefully BNE will have the opportunity to correct him. I'm sure I saw a timeline somewhere which said that the prosecution get a final go after defence closing although know idea where I read that or why that would be 🤷🏼‍♀️
 
  • Like
Reactions: 19
I'm sure I saw a timeline somewhere which said that the prosecution get a final go after defence closing although know idea where I read that or why that would be 🤷🏼‍♀️
I REALLY hope this is the case. I am so nervous that BM is going to sway the jury and undo all BNE’s work.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: 14
The jury have sat all this time listening to all the witnesses and evidence. I don't think a closing statement will change the overall decision. It might make the deliberating longer as they cross all the ts and dot all the i.
Fatigue must be setting in, I bet the jury was hoping for a quick closing statement and summing up. If they're set she's guilty already it must be annoying for them to keep it going on another 2 weeks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 22
I have relooked at Reddit and there are now more comments about the insulin which BM talked about yesterday. If he has misled the jury because of his ignorance of the subject I hope this is put right because it is an important part of the trial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 21
Question. *obz said in the style of beyonce*

Anyone got tiktok? I found green goblins page “tinyplastichands”

I assume tiktok is full of people spouting”she iz inoscent”
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3
I have relooked at Reddit and there are now more comments about the insulin which BM talked about yesterday. If he has misled the jury because of his ignorance of the subject I hope this is put right because it is an important part of the trial.
Hope so and it almost sort of will be the defence affirming one of the arguments of the prosecution, which will strengthen it
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.