Lucy Letby Case #71

[Pulltheotherone]

Thanks for the update … wow !
I bet BM is utterly sick of the sight of her.
This time next week she will be back in Bronzefield with another G to add to her repugnant pile.

 

[dorydaryl]

If found G, wonder if she'll show up for the sentencing. Highly doubt it, although she should be made to, this time (but enforced attendance hasn't been brought in yet, has it?).

 

[helcob1977]

@Cack_Conroe Wow. Thanks for your account. Hearing about B.M shouting at L.L has made my year. I wonder if she's got attitude about him representing her because he couldn't get her off on the charges she's been convicted of and just refuses to play ball.

I hope you're feeling better and I'm sorry to hear about how Janet spoke to you. It really grinds my gears when people pick on people because they are assuming an easy target speaks volumes about who she is though. That's interesting that she's been "befriended" by a pro-guilty viewer. She sounds very gullible (and a complete bell-end!)

 

[Fruitshop]

Thank you Cack for such a detailed report. Hope you are feeling better

 

[Wellthisisinteresting]

Thank you so much @Cack_Conroe
Hope you are feeling better lovely 🩷
You are our QUEEN

 

[Takemetoyourbuffet]

Wow!

Janet can get to duck. You do not get to take the moral high ground when you're there support a convicted baby murderer. Horrible old hag.

@Cack_Conroe Thanks so much for your amazing reporting. Hope you're feeling better. We you.

 

[kikixxxxx]

Well I’ve been refreshing tattle for two-days-straight waiting for the goss and it certainly didn’t disappoint. Thank you so much for this long post!!!!. I appreciate the details because I’m one of those ppl who just need to know everything so thank you so much

I’m so happy to hear prison life has turned her into an even uglier, wonky eyed, double chinned hunter. You say she’s lost her looks so quickly, and considering she didn’t them to start with I can only imagine the absolute state of her now.

Someone on Reddit posted about the “we’re just going round in circles now” and said it was a really jarring moment in court, and raised a few eyebrows around the room. I’ve not seen it mentioned in any of the reporting, but I’m hoping the jury also picked up on it too. The attitude on her stinks, she’s being questioned about murdering a 25 week baby girl who weighed 500g. How dare she speak to the barrister in that way considering what she’s being accused of (+ convicted of!!!!)

I am praying she gets found guilty. Although I am not as confident as last time. I feel like last time the jury could see the patterns forming, the less likelihood of it being innocent coincidences when there was just so many babies who would suddenly collapse minuites after a parent or nurse left the room. In this case; they have only heard about baby k. And I worry it’s less convincing it’s not to me. But to a jury who didn’t follow the first trial I worry it might be.

Absolutely thrilled to hear Janet’s been duped by someone from the pro guilty camp. Absolutely Love that for her. What a mug

 

[craig84]

Surely this can’t be true. If evidence in the original trial was wrong that would warrant her a new trial surely??? And we know she’s been declined

I remember from the previous trial not sure which charge that the mother said she remembered someone who looked like LL being around her baby about 07:10 but the swipe data didn’t have her entering the unit for her shift until 07:26. Her defence made a big thing about her not being there. If the swipe data from the previous trial was all wrong they’d have kicked off about it by now.

 

[MmmB777]

Thanks so much @Cack_Conroe
I think this has made it much clearer to me why old Janet is hanging in there with Letby. Little mediocre Jan is feeling very special. It’s so special to be a serial killer’s best mate isn’t it. I bet all the NG chin fapping ghouls make old Janet feel so so special.
What a sad little life Jane Janet 🫠

 

[O'lee]

The Not guilty brigade, were saying on mumsnet and in the New Yorker article, that the bloodtest for C peptide shouldn't have been used as evidence as there is another recommended test, that wasn't done. So that's probably what D wanted to write to BM about. BM appears to have no interest at all in any of science on trial bull theories.

Letby herself again accepted this week that Baby F and Baby L were deliberately poisoned with insulin

 

[MmmB777]

Letby herself again accepted this week that Baby F and Baby L were deliberately poisoned with insulin

She’s the gift that keeps on giving! Refreshing everyone’s memories that she thinks two babies were poisoned by someone on two of her shifts.. or maybe two different people were poisoners and also saying she thinks someone else dislodged baby K’s tube. Sooo many murderous people at that hospital! Anyone and everyone except her eh!

 

[Liverbird2003]

I really want to see a pic of letby as she is now!

 

[Beigerac]

Hey everyone, I'm so sorry for how long it has taken me to get back to you and leave you all waiting. I live a very long way from Manchester and had a funny turn on the way home, and have been sleeping for most of the past couple of days. I just keep falling back to sleep, then in between trying to catch up on missed jobs.

It was me that Janet had a go at (after I defended her on here the other day! Little does she know!). I'm a little bit worried you will all be disappointed after all the anticipation, it's not that dramatic and was quite brief! It was just her entitlement and hostility, considering who she is. There's a bit of context for why I think I was targeted, but I will get to that later in the post. It feels like I should talk about court before talking about myself too much, so scroll down if you want to skip to Janet content - but don't get too excited, it's not that interesting! Much more "interesting" is the very well known trial watcher who has taken up residence in Janet's rectum, "looking after" her and managing to get themself in the position of being officially considered a "friend or family", so getting guaranteed front row seats in court.

Spoiler: Lucy

Lucy... there is just so much to say I barely know where to start! Disregarding the quality of her answers for now, overall her performance has been more polished than last year. Last year she seemed like a cross between a teenager and a politician, using blatant, juvenile tactics like asking stupid pointless questions to stall for time, while being evasive and trying her utmost to give non-answers to everything. Her answers were very impulsive last year and she seemed like an imbecile.

This trial, she took her time to answer, was being extra careful to not paint herself into any corners (failing spectacularly, which I'll get to) and has reduced the stupid questions to only occasionally pretending she doesn't understand things she particularly doesn't want to answer. Also, she didn't cry at all on the stand. I'm wondering if this is because her parents aren't present to perform for, or because she was criticised last year by NJ for only crying for herself and not the victims. So I have still never seen her in snivel mode, she's been a poker-faced harpy every time I've seen her.

Last year, I was absolutely flabbergasted at her behaviour. She was so unshakably confident and unflappable, I had honestly never seen anybody like her. The way she would say two contradictory things at the same time, and give the most ridiculous answers with such complete confidence and conviction, makes you doubt your own mind at the words you're hearing and makes your brain think it must be reasonable somehow? She made her non-answers sound like proper answers just by using the tone of her voice to imply things she didn't actually say. You had to really listen to the content of what she was saying, rather than how she said it, which I do do due to my interest in statement analysis. But I could really tell how she could be convincing to some people.

She is pretty much the same this year, though it loses the effect somewhat when she becomes too hostile. It also loses the effect once you are used to her: she was my first time witnessing a female psychopath in action, but I'm desensitized to it now (if anyone's interested, listen to Beverley Allitt's police interviews on Daily Motion to experience similar chutzpah, and use of vocal intonations). Nevertheless, one of the jurors appeared transfixed by watching her, and I like to think they were just as dumbstruck as I first was.

Lucy wouldn't have had much feedback on her previous testimony; she has very little access to the internet, so wouldn't have seen the critical comments mocking her performance. Her only access to the outside world is limited phone calls with Mummy, Daddy, and maybe Janet, who will only tell Diddums what a great job she did and how they're all big meanie pants for not believing her. She was in a separate court, so wouldn't have heard the police laughing at her. Bowel Movement is not supposed to advise her on her giving testimony, so I wonder if her slight improvements came from attempts at self-reflection.

On the other hand, this time she made less effort to pretend to be polite, and was openly contemptuous and abrupt with NJ from the word go. I guess she doesn't need to worry about the outcome so much, so she's feeling less stressed and just being herself. She was really arrogant at points.

One example is when NJ was repeatedly questioning her and Lucy was failing to give a proper answer (as usual), Lucy responded by saying "We're going round in circles" as though it was his fault. She has no humility or shame whatsoever for the position she is in: a convicted serial baby killer on the stand for attacking another baby. It's as if she thinks it's her place to criticise him daring to question her, rather than her being in the position of somebody who really, really needs to account for herself.

Another is that she has a real thing about being briefly trained at Liverpool Women's Hospital.

Despite polishing her performance, her answers remained as ridiculous as ever. "I don't recall" and "I can't answer that" were repeated ad nauseum. Despite not recalling the entire event, she does recall that she didn't know Baby K was having an x-ray (proving her tube was in the correct position minutes before her second tube displacement). This was quite funny, she answered "no" then corrected to "I don't recall". NJ pulled her up on it, and she played it off, completely undaunted.

She also recalls that she was informed of Baby K's death within days of it happening; that she didn't see Baby K move on the night she doesn't recall; that the handover hadn't happened yet at her third tube displacement; that Baby K did have her given name before leaving the CoC; and that she doesn't recall why she Facebooked the K family surname of the family and baby who she doesn't recall.

She tried so hard to not paint herself into a corner that she ended up causing herself more trouble and tanking her defense. She utterly refused to commit to her defense statement that Dr Jayaram had it in for her and was not acting in good faith. She refused to say he was incorrect, fabricating, or whatever, only that she couldn't recall, and couldn't answer for Dr. Jayaram.

I don't really know why this is, but the fact she wouldn't stick to her defense statement obviously must be very important because both NJ and BM fixated on it in their questioning. The defense statement is that Dr J isn't acting in good faith, and she thinks this because of his previous conduct towards her. NJ tried to pin her down on exactly when he was not acting in good faith. She tried her best to be evasive and non-committal, but eventually said it refers to her grievance and his behaviour surrounding that whole situation. NJ questioned her repeatedly on this; she did change her answer a bit, but the grievance produce was her most regular answer.

Spoiler: Ben Myers shouts at Lucy

The most obvious interpretation and inference of the defense statement is that Dr J is making tit up because he has it in for Lucy. That's it, that plus "I don't recall" is her defense.

In re-examination, BM questioned her repeatedly, desperately trying to lead her to saying the right thing: that the not-good faith also refers to the police interviews about her, not just the whole grievance thing in 2016. It was so blatantly obvious what he wanted her to say, but she just wasn't co-operating. She was as evasive with him as she was with NJ in refusing to get to the point.

BM lost his tit! He bleeping shouted at her! He was getting so bleeping frustrated, shouting MISS LETBY, EXPLAIN!! and trying to lead his horse to water but it just wouldn't bleeping drink! He finally, finally pinned her down to the crux of the matter, a yes or no question: does it include the police interviews or not? She was so obviously supposed to say yes. But she said no. I swear I literally felt Ben Myers deflate in that moment. He just went silent then swiftly moved on to avoid drawing attention to it (lol).

It was the stand-out moment of her testimony for me, and I can't believe it wasn't conveyed in the reporting. Last year it was "I knew what I was looking for - at" and the dance-the-dance exchanges with NJ. This year it came courtesy of her own defense! What the duck must the jury think of that?? I think Myers' anger just made her look even worse, because it's so ducked up for a defense barrister to be driven to shouting at his client like that.

What the duck was she playing at???? I can only imagine that she thinks being consistent with her answers between NJ and BM will look good? But she's too arrogant to listen to her barrister: if he thinks it's important for her to say, there must be a reason for that, and she should have played ball. Lucy though she knew better.

Little Miss PTSD didn't flinch, by the way. I think Ben Myers has trouble containing his anger. It's a very unpleasant trait in a man. A lot of women would have been a rattled.

Spoiler: The legal case for attempted murder

So once again, Lucy has nuked her own defense into orbit by giving her tuppence worth:

• on Monday she admitted that displacing a breathing tube in a baby that age is deadly (satisfying the intent part of attempted murder)
• on both days she's contradicted her defense statement that Dr J is not acting in good faith
• she refuses to criticise Dr J or commit to anything regarding him
• she says she can't recall the whole thing even though she recalls some very specific bits
• she pretty much accepts a nurse's witness account that Lucy was the one to alert the third desaturation
• and, she's made an a of herself on the stand.

I honestly thought that she had a good chance of getting away with it all, before she got on her broomstick and flew to the stand. I think the chances of conviction have increased from maybe 40% to 80%.

It's obvious she did it: that much is proven by timed computer records proving that she was at Baby K's cot side just before the collapse, while an x-ray minutes before showed the breathing tube was perfect before Lucy was there. The baby was definitely sedated for this.

However, the charge is only for the first desaturation; the second and third ones, the prosecution say, were just her attempts to make it look like there was a chronic problem with the tube after she was caught red handed during the first incident. The problem is, the first desaturation is basically Dr Jayaram's word vs Lucy's. Unfortunately, apparently Dr J didn't do a very good job on the stand and I've been told he was nervous, with BM giving him a really hard time. I believe Dr J, but there is a lot of potential for people to consider him not credible (thankfully, Lucy's made herself look even worse). Also the timeline for the first desaturation is very confusing, and the prosecution can't prove that the baby was given morphine beforehand, though it's a possibility.

The jury have to believe Dr J's account of the first breathing tube displacement is proven, and intent to kill is proven (this second bit is ticked off - thanks Lucifer!). I really hope the jury consider that the second incident is proven, which increases the likelihood of the first. I wish the second and third incidents were considered lesser charges in their own right.

Spoiler: hunter

It bears repeating that Lucy is now a hag. Last year she looked a bit plain and haggard, but now she's a full-blown unfortunate. Her police interviews were played again on Tuesday and I was once again still shocked at the change in appearance. In court, you can only see her from the side, and there are TV screens showing her from the front, so it switches straight from seeing a double-chinned, googly-eyed, saggy-lipped, droopy-lidded crone, to the pretty young woman she was just a few years ago, and back again. I have never seen someone lose their looks so completely in such a short space of time.

Her eyes are so weird. They are droopy, wonky, heavy-lidded, deeply recessed into her skull, blinking and rolling about all over the place. Her lids are so droopy they make her eyes look half-closed from the side, which makes them look like the eyes of a newly dead person.

It must be hard to go from being decent-looking to outright weird in just a few years, and to lose whatever interpersonal benefits she was used to receiving. Having said that, she seems to think the sun shines out of her own a and doesn't care about anything. She wasn't self conscious about unleashing the Nigel Farage frog throat whenever she tilted her head down, an action which would also cause her mouth to pucker.

Spoiler: Me being told off by ushers

I had a two horrible moments in court which led to being told off by ushers. One was when I tried to drink from my part-used water bottle. It was a very thin plastic material with a pull-up lid, and when I opened it, it suctioned air in and de-crumpled with a very loud CRACK, that was apparently heard on the audio in the satellite court (Miss PTSD didn't flicker at this, or any other loud noise). It was so embarrassing, the last thing anyone wants is cause any disturbance. The usher GLARED at me for two minutes straight. I don't know what he hoped to achieve, there was nothing I could do after the event. The other one is when a break was called, before the public had been let out (you're supposed to wait to be released), the woman positioned next to me said "excuse me" relatively loudly for the situation, and tried to get by. I stood up to let her pass and thought she might have an emergency. She was told by other observers she needed to wait, and sat back down. The court staff were scoffing and judgmental about this mistake. I think I was considered as somebody who was also trying to leave ahead of time, rather than somebody letting someone else pass. I got told off (or really, pulled to one side and had polite words with) for these some time after they happened.

I didn't see the other woman come back. They were excessively harsh about in innocent mistake from somebody who didn't know the court system. It's not like they tell you much about the in-out protocols, you're mostly just expected to know. Also, the mistake didn't actually cause any real problems. I think she might not have come back because she was embarrassed, which is a shame.

There is a general aura of unwelcomeness for trial watchers, I could feel right from the beginning that we are not wanted there. I think this might be because the place is swarming with Lucy's fans, so there's probably an assumption that all court watchers are of that persuasion. I had to keep reminding myself that being able to observe court is an essential part of open justice, and that I have every right to be there.

I felt very conspicuous because of the aforementioned incidents, and also because I am visibly autistic, plus was mostly sitting diagonally as one of my eyes is very short sighted.

Spoiler: Janet!

So after a break, in the corridor, I was talking to an older NG man about Lucy's performance and was saying what had improved since last year. (I had previously talked to him in the morning, establishing - like all the new NGs - he had not actually followed the previous trial, and I had said how it all looked much worse for her evidence-wise during that trial, which surprised him). Anyway I think the bits I mentioned were less impulsivity, and less pointless questions. I was in the middle of the corridor, and Janet was facing me, though I wasn't paying her any attention. She suddenly confronted me, saying something like "if you want to talk, can you do it somewhere else" in an angry/upset/anxious tone. I said something like I'm allowed to talk in the corridor. She repeated something like what she previously said, but added something like "keep your voice down because it's not appropriate". I again stated " I am talking in the corridor, are we not allowed to talk in corridors?" which she didn't answer. I'm not sure what she did next and I resumed talking to the NG.

I felt really curtailed in what I could say because I didn't know for sure if Janet would be given any special considerations as a friend of the defendant, plus I was on the backfoot after the previous court problems and didn't want to risk being kicked out. I wanted to say, "what is your authority to be telling me what to do?" She was so entitled to think it's her place to tell anyone else off! Who the duck does she think she is, she's just a fool who's ruining her own life to prostrate herself to a serial baby killer.

I was really butthurt about her mentioning "keep your voice down" because I have an unfortunate voice and have had non-stop mistreatment and judgement for it since I was 12. It is a physical fact that high-pitched voices are perceived as louder at the same decibels as regular voices (this is because each cilia in the ear collects sounds at specific frequencies, and in a nutshell the cilia collect more sound waves of a high pitched frequency, so it becomes amplified in the ear) so I'm always being silenced, despite speaking normally. It also stands out and is heard above all other voices. I think Janet was gone by this point, while I was bending the ear of the NG about this, suspecting this was why Janet targeted me as opposed to anyone else in the corridor speaking about her queen.

In hindsight I think she might have also known I was an easy target because of the things mentioned in the previous section. More importantly, I had previously spoken to her new bestie about Lucy in front of her. Which leads me to this whole other strange situation:

Spoiler: Janet's new BFF

So a pro-guilty trial watcher has gained entry into Janet's inner circle and become her confidant. Allegedly, Janet is "vulnerable" and this person is officially supporting them. This enables the trial watcher to enter court first with "friends and family", and to gain inside knowledge about the Letby's. All the other trial watcher stalwarts are pretending to not know each other to facilitate this, creating a very weird atmosphere.

I don't know myself whether Janet is "vulnerable" as I didn't see much of her aside from that altercation. However, she is at the very least a complete fool who is easy to mug off. It is possible to be both an entitled bleep, and vulnerable. If it's true that she is vulnerable, then I personally disapprove of the deception.

The NGs

I spoke to a lot of the NGs, and actually liked a few of them. Some fit the stereotypes, and some don't - I think the mainstream media articles have done one hell of a lot of damage. I will save the NGs for another post, because this is already too long.
---
I also met some fellow Tattlers @Wine o'clock, @Dolly Daydream, a couple who don't have usernames, and of course @SarahG300 back last year.

Thanks for taking the time to write this. One thing I have to ask, as trivial as it sounds: the blinking thing. Would you describe it as ‘hard’ blinking, ie her eyes scrunching up as she does it, with her eyeballs rolling back a bit upon opening? I don’t know if that makes sense but the way you describe her really reminds me of someone I used to know, it’s very very eerie.

 

[MavisBeacon]

The thing I find amazing about the NG folk is how they think they know better than all the legal team that have been working with Letby for all this time. Like, you think if it was as obvious as a

She’s the gift that keeps on giving! Refreshing everyone’s memories that she thinks two babies were poisoned by someone on two of her shifts.. or maybe two different people were poisoners and also saying she thinks someone else dislodged baby K’s tube. Sooo many murderous people at that hospital! Anyone and everyone except the convicted multiple baby murderer.

FTFY, Mmmbops.
I had a long car journey today so caught up on the new Daily Mail podcast series - I was just mouthing "What the duck?? You remember nothing?????"
They didn't cover the bit about BM shouting at her though - feels like important colour to have missed?

 

[oldjamfan]

@Cack_Conroe
Thanks you so much for your amazing report. So much detail it actually felt like being there. I'm sorry you were made to feel uncomfortable a couple of times but the phrases "poker-faced harpy" and "double-chinned, googly-eyed, saggy-lipped, droopy-lidded crone" are more effective and graphic than any court artist could conjure up and literally made me splutter tea all over my keyboard ha ha.

Hope you're feeling better. A visit to Manchester can have that effect on anybody

 

[Secretbrillopad]

@Cack_Conroe you legend, that's a c(r)acking write up. I'm also autistic and those incidents happening to me would have absolutely ended me.

Letby herself again accepted this week that Baby F and Baby L were deliberately poisoned with insulin

Jesus Christ

 

[IGiveUp22]

Letby herself again accepted this week that Baby F and Baby L were deliberately poisoned with insulin

Just must have been that other pesky serial killer right?

 

[Cack_Conroe]

Thanks for taking the time to write this. One thing I have to ask, as trivial as it sounds: the blinking thing. Would you describe it as ‘hard’ blinking, ie her eyes scrunching up as she does it, with her eyeballs rolling back a bit upon opening? I don’t know if that makes sense but the way you describe her really reminds me of someone I used to know, it’s very very eerie.

I recognise what you're describing, but no it is just normal blinking, just more of it. I don't think it affects her eye movements, though they are also excessive.

 

[tay65]

Hey everyone, I'm so sorry for how long it has taken me to get back to you and leave you all waiting. I live a very long way from Manchester and had a funny turn on the way home, and have been sleeping for most of the past couple of days. I just keep falling back to sleep, then in between trying to catch up on missed jobs.

It was me that Janet had a go at (after I defended her on here the other day! Little does she know!). I'm a little bit worried you will all be disappointed after all the anticipation, it's not that dramatic and was quite brief! It was just her entitlement and hostility, considering who she is. There's a bit of context for why I think I was targeted, but I will get to that later in the post. It feels like I should talk about court before talking about myself too much, so scroll down if you want to skip to Janet content - but don't get too excited, it's not that interesting! Much more "interesting" is the very well known trial watcher who has taken up residence in Janet's rectum, "looking after" her and managing to get themself in the position of being officially considered a "friend or family", so getting guaranteed front row seats in court.

Spoiler: Lucy

Lucy... there is just so much to say I barely know where to start! Disregarding the quality of her answers for now, overall her performance has been more polished than last year. Last year she seemed like a cross between a teenager and a politician, using blatant, juvenile tactics like asking stupid pointless questions to stall for time, while being evasive and trying her utmost to give non-answers to everything. Her answers were very impulsive last year and she seemed like an imbecile.

This trial, she took her time to answer, was being extra careful to not paint herself into any corners (failing spectacularly, which I'll get to) and has reduced the stupid questions to only occasionally pretending she doesn't understand things she particularly doesn't want to answer. Also, she didn't cry at all on the stand. I'm wondering if this is because her parents aren't present to perform for, or because she was criticised last year by NJ for only crying for herself and not the victims. So I have still never seen her in snivel mode, she's been a poker-faced harpy every time I've seen her.

Last year, I was absolutely flabbergasted at her behaviour. She was so unshakably confident and unflappable, I had honestly never seen anybody like her. The way she would say two contradictory things at the same time, and give the most ridiculous answers with such complete confidence and conviction, makes you doubt your own mind at the words you're hearing and makes your brain think it must be reasonable somehow? She made her non-answers sound like proper answers just by using the tone of her voice to imply things she didn't actually say. You had to really listen to the content of what she was saying, rather than how she said it, which I do do due to my interest in statement analysis. But I could really tell how she could be convincing to some people.

She is pretty much the same this year, though it loses the effect somewhat when she becomes too hostile. It also loses the effect once you are used to her: she was my first time witnessing a female psychopath in action, but I'm desensitized to it now (if anyone's interested, listen to Beverley Allitt's police interviews on Daily Motion to experience similar chutzpah, and use of vocal intonations). Nevertheless, one of the jurors appeared transfixed by watching her, and I like to think they were just as dumbstruck as I first was.

Lucy wouldn't have had much feedback on her previous testimony; she has very little access to the internet, so wouldn't have seen the critical comments mocking her performance. Her only access to the outside world is limited phone calls with Mummy, Daddy, and maybe Janet, who will only tell Diddums what a great job she did and how they're all big meanie pants for not believing her. She was in a separate court, so wouldn't have heard the police laughing at her. Bowel Movement is not supposed to advise her on her giving testimony, so I wonder if her slight improvements came from attempts at self-reflection.

On the other hand, this time she made less effort to pretend to be polite, and was openly contemptuous and abrupt with NJ from the word go. I guess she doesn't need to worry about the outcome so much, so she's feeling less stressed and just being herself. She was really arrogant at points.

One example is when NJ was repeatedly questioning her and Lucy was failing to give a proper answer (as usual), Lucy responded by saying "We're going round in circles" as though it was his fault. She has no humility or shame whatsoever for the position she is in: a convicted serial baby killer on the stand for attacking another baby. It's as if she thinks it's her place to criticise him daring to question her, rather than her being in the position of somebody who really, really needs to account for herself.

Another is that she has a real thing about being briefly trained at Liverpool Women's Hospital.

Despite polishing her performance, her answers remained as ridiculous as ever. "I don't recall" and "I can't answer that" were repeated ad nauseum. Despite not recalling the entire event, she does recall that she didn't know Baby K was having an x-ray (proving her tube was in the correct position minutes before her second tube displacement). This was quite funny, she answered "no" then corrected to "I don't recall". NJ pulled her up on it, and she played it off, completely undaunted.

She also recalls that she was informed of Baby K's death within days of it happening; that she didn't see Baby K move on the night she doesn't recall; that the handover hadn't happened yet at her third tube displacement; that Baby K did have her given name before leaving the CoC; and that she doesn't recall why she Facebooked the K family surname of the family and baby who she doesn't recall.

She tried so hard to not paint herself into a corner that she ended up causing herself more trouble and tanking her defense. She utterly refused to commit to her defense statement that Dr Jayaram had it in for her and was not acting in good faith. She refused to say he was incorrect, fabricating, or whatever, only that she couldn't recall, and couldn't answer for Dr. Jayaram.

I don't really know why this is, but the fact she wouldn't stick to her defense statement obviously must be very important because both NJ and BM fixated on it in their questioning. The defense statement is that Dr J isn't acting in good faith, and she thinks this because of his previous conduct towards her. NJ tried to pin her down on exactly when he was not acting in good faith. She tried her best to be evasive and non-committal, but eventually said it refers to her grievance and his behaviour surrounding that whole situation. NJ questioned her repeatedly on this; she did change her answer a bit, but the grievance produce was her most regular answer.

Spoiler: Ben Myers shouts at Lucy

The most obvious interpretation and inference of the defense statement is that Dr J is making tit up because he has it in for Lucy. That's it, that plus "I don't recall" is her defense.

In re-examination, BM questioned her repeatedly, desperately trying to lead her to saying the right thing: that the not-good faith also refers to the police interviews about her, not just the whole grievance thing in 2016. It was so blatantly obvious what he wanted her to say, but she just wasn't co-operating. She was as evasive with him as she was with NJ in refusing to get to the point.

BM lost his tit! He bleeping shouted at her! He was getting so bleeping frustrated, shouting MISS LETBY, EXPLAIN!! and trying to lead his horse to water but it just wouldn't bleeping drink! He finally, finally pinned her down to the crux of the matter, a yes or no question: does it include the police interviews or not? She was so obviously supposed to say yes. But she said no. I swear I literally felt Ben Myers deflate in that moment. He just went silent then swiftly moved on to avoid drawing attention to it (lol).

It was the stand-out moment of her testimony for me, and I can't believe it wasn't conveyed in the reporting. Last year it was "I knew what I was looking for - at" and the dance-the-dance exchanges with NJ. This year it came courtesy of her own defense! What the duck must the jury think of that?? I think Myers' anger just made her look even worse, because it's so ducked up for a defense barrister to be driven to shouting at his client like that.

What the duck was she playing at???? I can only imagine that she thinks being consistent with her answers between NJ and BM will look good? But she's too arrogant to listen to her barrister: if he thinks it's important for her to say, there must be a reason for that, and she should have played ball. Lucy though she knew better.

Little Miss PTSD didn't flinch, by the way. I think Ben Myers has trouble containing his anger. It's a very unpleasant trait in a man. A lot of women would have been a rattled.

Spoiler: The legal case for attempted murder

So once again, Lucy has nuked her own defense into orbit by giving her tuppence worth:

• on Monday she admitted that displacing a breathing tube in a baby that age is deadly (satisfying the intent part of attempted murder)
• on both days she's contradicted her defense statement that Dr J is not acting in good faith
• she refuses to criticise Dr J or commit to anything regarding him
• she says she can't recall the whole thing even though she recalls some very specific bits
• she pretty much accepts a nurse's witness account that Lucy was the one to alert the third desaturation
• and, she's made an a of herself on the stand.

I honestly thought that she had a good chance of getting away with it all, before she got on her broomstick and flew to the stand. I think the chances of conviction have increased from maybe 40% to 80%.

It's obvious she did it: that much is proven by timed computer records proving that she was at Baby K's cot side just before the collapse, while an x-ray minutes before showed the breathing tube was perfect before Lucy was there. The baby was definitely sedated for this.

However, the charge is only for the first desaturation; the second and third ones, the prosecution say, were just her attempts to make it look like there was a chronic problem with the tube after she was caught red handed during the first incident. The problem is, the first desaturation is basically Dr Jayaram's word vs Lucy's. Unfortunately, apparently Dr J didn't do a very good job on the stand and I've been told he was nervous, with BM giving him a really hard time. I believe Dr J, but there is a lot of potential for people to consider him not credible (thankfully, Lucy's made herself look even worse). Also the timeline for the first desaturation is very confusing, and the prosecution can't prove that the baby was given morphine beforehand, though it's a possibility.

The jury have to believe Dr J's account of the first breathing tube displacement is proven, and intent to kill is proven (this second bit is ticked off - thanks Lucifer!). I really hope the jury consider that the second incident is proven, which increases the likelihood of the first. I wish the second and third incidents were considered lesser charges in their own right.

Spoiler: hunter

It bears repeating that Lucy is now a hag. Last year she looked a bit plain and haggard, but now she's a full-blown unfortunate. Her police interviews were played again on Tuesday and I was once again still shocked at the change in appearance. In court, you can only see her from the side, and there are TV screens showing her from the front, so it switches straight from seeing a double-chinned, googly-eyed, saggy-lipped, droopy-lidded crone, to the pretty young woman she was just a few years ago, and back again. I have never seen someone lose their looks so completely in such a short space of time.

Her eyes are so weird. They are droopy, wonky, heavy-lidded, deeply recessed into her skull, blinking and rolling about all over the place. Her lids are so droopy they make her eyes look half-closed from the side, which makes them look like the eyes of a newly dead person.

It must be hard to go from being decent-looking to outright weird in just a few years, and to lose whatever interpersonal benefits she was used to receiving. Having said that, she seems to think the sun shines out of her own a and doesn't care about anything. She wasn't self conscious about unleashing the Nigel Farage frog throat whenever she tilted her head down, an action which would also cause her mouth to pucker.

Spoiler: Me being told off by ushers

I had a two horrible moments in court which led to being told off by ushers. One was when I tried to drink from my part-used water bottle. It was a very thin plastic material with a pull-up lid, and when I opened it, it suctioned air in and de-crumpled with a very loud CRACK, that was apparently heard on the audio in the satellite court (Miss PTSD didn't flicker at this, or any other loud noise). It was so embarrassing, the last thing anyone wants is cause any disturbance. The usher GLARED at me for two minutes straight. I don't know what he hoped to achieve, there was nothing I could do after the event. The other one is when a break was called, before the public had been let out (you're supposed to wait to be released), the woman positioned next to me said "excuse me" relatively loudly for the situation, and tried to get by. I stood up to let her pass and thought she might have an emergency. She was told by other observers she needed to wait, and sat back down. The court staff were scoffing and judgmental about this mistake. I think I was considered as somebody who was also trying to leave ahead of time, rather than somebody letting someone else pass. I got told off (or really, pulled to one side and had polite words with) for these some time after they happened.

I didn't see the other woman come back. They were excessively harsh about in innocent mistake from somebody who didn't know the court system. It's not like they tell you much about the in-out protocols, you're mostly just expected to know. Also, the mistake didn't actually cause any real problems. I think she might not have come back because she was embarrassed, which is a shame.

There is a general aura of unwelcomeness for trial watchers, I could feel right from the beginning that we are not wanted there. I think this might be because the place is swarming with Lucy's fans, so there's probably an assumption that all court watchers are of that persuasion. I had to keep reminding myself that being able to observe court is an essential part of open justice, and that I have every right to be there.

I felt very conspicuous because of the aforementioned incidents, and also because I am visibly autistic, plus was mostly sitting diagonally as one of my eyes is very short sighted.

Spoiler: Janet!

So after a break, in the corridor, I was talking to an older NG man about Lucy's performance and was saying what had improved since last year. (I had previously talked to him in the morning, establishing - like all the new NGs - he had not actually followed the previous trial, and I had said how it all looked much worse for her evidence-wise during that trial, which surprised him). Anyway I think the bits I mentioned were less impulsivity, and less pointless questions. I was in the middle of the corridor, and Janet was facing me, though I wasn't paying her any attention. She suddenly confronted me, saying something like "if you want to talk, can you do it somewhere else" in an angry/upset/anxious tone. I said something like I'm allowed to talk in the corridor. She repeated something like what she previously said, but added something like "keep your voice down because it's not appropriate". I again stated " I am talking in the corridor, are we not allowed to talk in corridors?" which she didn't answer. I'm not sure what she did next and I resumed talking to the NG.

I felt really curtailed in what I could say because I didn't know for sure if Janet would be given any special considerations as a friend of the defendant, plus I was on the backfoot after the previous court problems and didn't want to risk being kicked out. I wanted to say, "what is your authority to be telling me what to do?" She was so entitled to think it's her place to tell anyone else off! Who the duck does she think she is, she's just a fool who's ruining her own life to prostrate herself to a serial baby killer.

I was really butthurt about her mentioning "keep your voice down" because I have an unfortunate voice and have had non-stop mistreatment and judgement for it since I was 12. It is a physical fact that high-pitched voices are perceived as louder at the same decibels as regular voices (this is because each cilia in the ear collects sounds at specific frequencies, and in a nutshell the cilia collect more sound waves of a high pitched frequency, so it becomes amplified in the ear) so I'm always being silenced, despite speaking normally. It also stands out and is heard above all other voices. I think Janet was gone by this point, while I was bending the ear of the NG about this, suspecting this was why Janet targeted me as opposed to anyone else in the corridor speaking about her queen.

In hindsight I think she might have also known I was an easy target because of the things mentioned in the previous section. More importantly, I had previously spoken to her new bestie about Lucy in front of her. Which leads me to this whole other strange situation:

Spoiler: Janet's new BFF

So a pro-guilty trial watcher has gained entry into Janet's inner circle and become her confidant. Allegedly, Janet is "vulnerable" and this person is officially supporting them. This enables the trial watcher to enter court first with "friends and family", and to gain inside knowledge about the Letby's. All the other trial watcher stalwarts are pretending to not know each other to facilitate this, creating a very weird atmosphere.

I don't know myself whether Janet is "vulnerable" as I didn't see much of her aside from that altercation. However, she is at the very least a complete fool who is easy to mug off. It is possible to be both an entitled bleep, and vulnerable. If it's true that she is vulnerable, then I personally disapprove of the deception.

The NGs

I spoke to a lot of the NGs, and actually liked a few of them. Some fit the stereotypes, and some don't - I think the mainstream media articles have done one hell of a lot of damage. I will save the NGs for another post, because this is already too long.
---
I also met some fellow Tattlers @Wine o'clock, @Dolly Daydream, a couple who don't have usernames, and of course @SarahG300 back last year.

Thank you Cack for your very detailed and highly insightful report which I've been looking forward to reading since you attended the court. The depth and quality of your report is great. I hope the jury are as intelligent and perceptive as you and the other Tattlers who attended and posted their findings. Assuming they are then surely a guilty verdict should follow. It's hard to understand how Janet and the other NG people can possibly believe she is NG having listened to Letby's contradictions, selective recall and her arrogance. It could be deep down Janet no longer thinks she's NG but is enjoying her notoriety as BF. Thank you again.

 

[Weebles Wobble]

@Cack_Conroe, thank you so much for your amazingly detailed post.

I hope you're fully recovered.