Cack_Conroe
Well-known member
REFUSED!!!!
- Notice
Cack_Conroe
Well-known member
Hi everyone, sorry this has taken me a while. I had a busy day afterwards and ended up super tired. Round up of yesterday's hearing:
Ben Myer's whole argument was that the media saturation after her initial convictions made the retrial irreparably unfair, and that Judge Goss was wrong to deny the defense's application for the whole thing to be thrown out. His arguments included:
Nick Johnson's rebuttal:
Looked dog rough, like in the retrial. Hollow under eyes, fat jowly cheeks, and her pout has become very downturned like a bulldog. She looked much worse in reality than the court sketch. The artist didn't capture the grieving-bulldog-chewing-a-wasp look at all.
She's cut her hair all the way back to shoulder length - a bad decision as the long hair was youthful and flattering and actually rather nice. She's too haggard for those frumpy mid-length cuts now. Also it was tied up in a high ponytail (like in the famous nurse publicity photo) which does her forehead and face shapes no favours at all. The ponytail was messy as well, which is unnecessary for someone with such shiny hair.
I don't understand why she's so insistent on looking like shit when she's bothering to wear smart clothes and has naturally nice hair. I thought it was a dark teal wrap around top at first but it was actually a cowl-neck. It was ok.
She's not chubby any more (like during the last leave to appeal in April) and was about the usual size that she was prior to prison. The double chin was still present but a tiny bit reduced. Her hair isn't dyed, the lighting in the room just made it look dark. She was in the same Bronzefield room as during the spring hearing, and I wondered back then if her hair was dyed, but seeing it in real life two months later showed it wasn't. It's very light brown.
She was blinking extremely slowly and looked bored, tired, depressed and disinterested. She often looked downwards. She sometimes did closed mouth disguised yawns. I didn't hear her speak at the beginning (she would have confirmed her name and that she could hear), I think the audio wasn't working for viewers at that point.
She didn't react to the judgement. She occasionally wriggled her mouth and nose from side to side like it was itchy, but other than that, only had one solitary facial expression the whole time: this was when Nick Johnson said something about that she had had nine months to get medical experts to disprove her 14 convictions, but she didn't. This caused an immediate look of annoyance and disagreement on her face, which lasted about 1-2 seconds before fading to blank. I'm not sure if she quickly controlled herself, or if her emotions really are that sparse and fleeting.
She did speak very briefly at the end after the judgement, answering "Yes" when the French court clerk asked "Mees Letby, can you hear me?", and after a little delay, quietly replying "ok" when the clerk said her counsel would be talking to her after the hearing. She sounded unusually quiet and subdued. She usually speaks stridently and with great confidence, even just for one word answers.
She always looks like she's lost in her own world, but she did look like that during the last leave to appeal and she actually wasn't at all: when her attention was called she didn't snap out of anything and had actually been listening intently the whole time. They didn't talk to her during this hearing, so no proof, but I assume the same and this is just the way she always appears.
When the judgement was being read out, there was a loud alarm and robot voice warning something like "This is the incident room. A fire has been found in east wing. Be ready for evacuation". Lucy was very interested when this first happened! She was looking intently at her screen, with her big downward sloping eyes like a South Park character's. Probably hoping for some live entertainment.
The judge tried to speak through it, saying that it wasn't in that part of the building, but gave up trying to talk over it in the end. The voice and alarm came back a couple of times, with the final one saying the fire had been dealt with and the incident was over. Lucy lost interest after the first time.
Miscellaneous
Ben Myer's whole argument was that the media saturation after her initial convictions made the retrial irreparably unfair, and that Judge Goss was wrong to deny the defense's application for the whole thing to be thrown out. His arguments included:
- Horrifying evidence of media vitriol, deeply hostile to poor Lucy. This involved the use of hurty words such as "evil" "cold-blooded" "killer nurse" "manipulative" "reign of terror"...
- Even worse, there was a Loose Women segment titled "Was Lucy Letby Born Evil?"
- He bitched that the police promoted their side after convictions using emotive and prejudicial language, despite knowing that they were considering retrials.
- He bitched that the police did not attempt to control their lead witness Dr. Jayaram, who put out a huge volume of self-serving material perpetuating his own narrative and bolstering his own position.
- He bitched about Rishi Sunak commenting on the case.
- While he stated at the very beginning that Letby maintains her innocence of all convictions, it was glorious to hear him keep having to acknowledge unreservedly "the appalling nature of the crimes", "the heinous nature of the crimes is no answer to the application", "multiple convictions of the gravest of offenses" etc.
- This was because the prosecution countered that the crimes are so uniquely shocking that these reactions are the natural descriptions, which he had to agree with, and the submission was that they were arguing regardless of this.
- He said "we accept the coverage was appalling because the crimes were shocking, but it's a matter of fairness, no matter what a defendant has done".
- Even more so, Myers kept having to acknowledge that their submission does not dispute the actual truthfulness/accuracy of these "vitriolic" articles!
- He also had to admit that the media environment is one hell of a lot different for Lucy now, and in the lead up to her retrial. He focused only on the articles in the immediate aftermath of her convictions.
- At one point, the judge interrupted BM because he seemed to be insinuating that the police had said they were investigating 4000 cases. The judge corrected him that it was just going to be a review of every baby she'd ever nursed, not saying that all 4000 were potential crimes.
- This caused BM to mention the 4000 babies in the correct context several times later on, as if to make clear that he wasn't trying to insinuate otherwise. I do think he misspoke rather than trying to deliberately mislead.
- Generally, despite the farcical supporting evidence, Ben Myers was impassioned, coherent and really put his all into making this fairly weak argument sound as strong, common sense and logical as possible.
- He supported his case with reference to some other case where they got an appeal due to an unfair trial. It was all dry legalese and I struggled to follow.
- BM speaks nice and loudly which is very useful for us remote viewers. NJ on the other hand is a bit monotonous and quiet.
Nick Johnson's rebuttal:
- NJ started by saying "we've answered this already" and asking Ben Myers did he not agree to the disclosure of Letby's convictions at the start of the retrial? BM had to agree that he did.
- NJ said that Letby's previous convictions being relevant evidence for the retrial answers a whole chunk of the submission.
- The main part of NJ's verbal rebuttal was summarizing the contents of the sixty-something pieces of evidence that the defense submitted, saying that many were not vitriolic at all. Ben Myers hadn't bothered to go through them at all during this hearing.
- A lot were about the hospital management letting her get away with it, lots about her refusal to come up for sentencing, some about her grievance, some about the role of prosecution witnesses, some about there being a future inquiry.
- One was just an article entitled "Inside Lucy's Beige Home"
- He also pointed out the fade effect (as had Judge Goss, which was a small part of the reason for denying it in the first place), with the articles peaking in the days after her conviction and quickly petering out. He said today's news is tomorrow's chip paper.
- There were reporting restrictions as soon as the retrial was announced in late September 2023, then everything negative stopped.
- Magnificently, Nick Johnson referred to the New Yorker article - which was extremely pro-Letby and anti-prosecution and got a lot of traction shortly before her retrial - as proof that the media wasn't hostile or unfair to her.
- He said if anything disproves unfairness, it's David Davies using his parliamentary privilege to bring the New Yorker article up in parliament despite the reporting restrictions. It's delightfully ironic that Letbyist propaganda has directly contributed to denying her an appeal!!
- He defended Rishi Sunak commenting on the whole case, I can't remember what NJ said but I think it was to do with Letby's refusal to attend sentencing and the calls to change the law. Also that it was a case of national importance.
- NJ and BM agreed somewhat congenially that it's the norm nowadays for police to comment emotively following convictions, and that it didn't used to be a thing.
- NJ referred back to BM's cited case, and said that the grounds for an unfair trial were very high. Since BM has already acknowledged that it was a "delicate balancing act" for Judge Goss to decide, that stops it getting off the ground because it needs to be demonstrably wrong.
- He took a bit less time than Ben Myers which had me worried, but obviously it was a weak enough argument that he didn't need to bother.
Looked dog rough, like in the retrial. Hollow under eyes, fat jowly cheeks, and her pout has become very downturned like a bulldog. She looked much worse in reality than the court sketch. The artist didn't capture the grieving-bulldog-chewing-a-wasp look at all.
She's cut her hair all the way back to shoulder length - a bad decision as the long hair was youthful and flattering and actually rather nice. She's too haggard for those frumpy mid-length cuts now. Also it was tied up in a high ponytail (like in the famous nurse publicity photo) which does her forehead and face shapes no favours at all. The ponytail was messy as well, which is unnecessary for someone with such shiny hair.
I don't understand why she's so insistent on looking like shit when she's bothering to wear smart clothes and has naturally nice hair. I thought it was a dark teal wrap around top at first but it was actually a cowl-neck. It was ok.
She's not chubby any more (like during the last leave to appeal in April) and was about the usual size that she was prior to prison. The double chin was still present but a tiny bit reduced. Her hair isn't dyed, the lighting in the room just made it look dark. She was in the same Bronzefield room as during the spring hearing, and I wondered back then if her hair was dyed, but seeing it in real life two months later showed it wasn't. It's very light brown.
She was blinking extremely slowly and looked bored, tired, depressed and disinterested. She often looked downwards. She sometimes did closed mouth disguised yawns. I didn't hear her speak at the beginning (she would have confirmed her name and that she could hear), I think the audio wasn't working for viewers at that point.
She didn't react to the judgement. She occasionally wriggled her mouth and nose from side to side like it was itchy, but other than that, only had one solitary facial expression the whole time: this was when Nick Johnson said something about that she had had nine months to get medical experts to disprove her 14 convictions, but she didn't. This caused an immediate look of annoyance and disagreement on her face, which lasted about 1-2 seconds before fading to blank. I'm not sure if she quickly controlled herself, or if her emotions really are that sparse and fleeting.
She did speak very briefly at the end after the judgement, answering "Yes" when the French court clerk asked "Mees Letby, can you hear me?", and after a little delay, quietly replying "ok" when the clerk said her counsel would be talking to her after the hearing. She sounded unusually quiet and subdued. She usually speaks stridently and with great confidence, even just for one word answers.
She always looks like she's lost in her own world, but she did look like that during the last leave to appeal and she actually wasn't at all: when her attention was called she didn't snap out of anything and had actually been listening intently the whole time. They didn't talk to her during this hearing, so no proof, but I assume the same and this is just the way she always appears.
When the judgement was being read out, there was a loud alarm and robot voice warning something like "This is the incident room. A fire has been found in east wing. Be ready for evacuation". Lucy was very interested when this first happened! She was looking intently at her screen, with her big downward sloping eyes like a South Park character's. Probably hoping for some live entertainment.
The judge tried to speak through it, saying that it wasn't in that part of the building, but gave up trying to talk over it in the end. The voice and alarm came back a couple of times, with the final one saying the fire had been dealt with and the incident was over. Lucy lost interest after the first time.
Miscellaneous
- The deadline to apply was actually 4pm the previous day, but the clerk replied at 7:15am saying if I filled the form in quickly he would ask the judge anyway to see what he said. I was approved!
- I joined the video call very early as I didn't trust that I'd been given the correct time. I was treated to a riveting half an hour of the court staff trying to figure out how to to set it all up properly.
- They were confused at my presence on the call and asked each other "who's (name)?"
- They then asked if I could hear them, I replied in the chat that I could, and they seemed very relieved.
- During the break the court staff were gossiping without realising they needed to turn their audio off. Sadly the sound quality wasn't good enough for me to really make out what they were saying, but I think they were talking about the case, and bitching about the observer who accidentally turned their camera on.
Last edited:
Cack_Conroe
Well-known member
Has anyone else applied to attend the hearing later? I'm hoping it's not too late for me, I only applied yesterday evening, but that worked for me back in May.
Surprised it's 3 judges and public already, they seem to have skipped a step.
In terms of her grounds, I was only at the trial two days, but the thing I remember Ben Myers getting angry about was the prosecution taking the opportunity to question Letby about another mysteriously de-tubed baby not on the indictment. I think the judge did agree to instruct the jury to disregard that though, so don't know what the grounds could be.
I wasn't there but apparently BM also got very angry about Dr Jayaram having contributed to TV shows about Letby, but the judge dismissed it as Dr J is a normal witness, not an official expert, and BM agreed to not bother about it.
The only other things I can guess are disruption incidents from the trial watchers? Or new evidence?
The original incorrect door swipe data was in the defense's favour so don't think it can be that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some thoughts about the last few days:
Any way, that is my latest twopenneth. I'll give an update if I get into the leave to appeal hearing.
Surprised it's 3 judges and public already, they seem to have skipped a step.
In terms of her grounds, I was only at the trial two days, but the thing I remember Ben Myers getting angry about was the prosecution taking the opportunity to question Letby about another mysteriously de-tubed baby not on the indictment. I think the judge did agree to instruct the jury to disregard that though, so don't know what the grounds could be.
I wasn't there but apparently BM also got very angry about Dr Jayaram having contributed to TV shows about Letby, but the judge dismissed it as Dr J is a normal witness, not an official expert, and BM agreed to not bother about it.
The only other things I can guess are disruption incidents from the trial watchers? Or new evidence?
The original incorrect door swipe data was in the defense's favour so don't think it can be that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some thoughts about the last few days:
- I am disgusted by the high-up nurses being so butthurt at not being considered as important as consultants that they immediately dismissed and railed against any suggestion that a fellow nurse might possibly be less than kosher.
- The status of being nurses went to their heads. A little (medical) knowledge is a dangerous thing. They are so fucking ignorant that they don't even know what they don't know. They were not qualified to evaluate whether evidence exists or not - which is exactly why the doctors couldn't give them definitive reasons: they knew it needed to be investigated because they knew the context they were lacking. The nurses just didn't get it.
- (Anecdotally, I've found there is a problem with some nurses getting ideas above their station just because they have a modest amount of medical knowledge. Every time I've had to see some fancy nurse because the NHS is cheaping out on letting anyone see doctors, it's been a disaster. They're clueless about anything outside of actual nursing, and they don't even realise).
- Repetitively saying "there was no evidence" is fucking infuriating when they were preventing the one thing that could provide this evidence. Is there ever any solid evidence of wrongdoing when a kid repeatedly turns up to school with black eyes? When money always goes missing when a certain person is around? No. It may or may not be of significance, and that's exactly why you investigate.
- A few weeks ago, Dr Gibbs (IIRC) saying "it wouldn't be appropriate" to bring their concerns up during CQC inspections, comparing it to teachers complaining during Ofsted inspections. Actually, if they thought a teacher was murdering pupils they should be shouting it from the rooftops at every opportunity.
- There was generally so much concern about propriety and internal processes being followed correctly. None of this shit matters: a serial killer was potentially at large, hunting babies. They were so caught up in their workplace culture that they couldn't see how batshit it was for them to be fannying about seeking their managers' and colleagues' approval instead of going to police.
- Karen Rees clearly felt very maternal towards Letby. I think this goes some way to explaining Letby cultivating older friends, and the method by which she sucked up to managers.
- It could also explain why she was bringing Mummy and Daddy along to work meetings: to present herself as young and vulnerable to all these older chumps who were enthralled by her, and inspire them to feel protective and coddle her.
- Multiple friends in the inquiry have said they were the only, or among the only, friends/support Letby had. I suspect this was deliberate, to make them feel obligated and loyal to her, believing they were important enough to be the only one this secretive, vulnerable person was opening up to.
- In the last day of cross examination, it came out that Letby had plenty of friends and was going out several nights a week. This is at odds with Nurse T thinking that she and one other person were Letby's only friends.
- I'm not impressed with Dr Brearey claiming he doesn't remember the conversation about not having Letby on nights for Baby I (and Yvonne Griffiths subsequently altering her statement last minute). I think he's arse covering.
- Susan Letby has obviously taught Letby that to get your own way, you throw histrionic toddler tantrums. Irritatingly, it obviously works. It worked for Janet Cox as well, when she tantrumed to get herself special treatment in court.
- I feel really vindicated at seeing all these descriptions of Letby being not very bright, failing as a nurse, and having to work very hard academically. I knew she was a sandwich short of a lunchbox when I first saw her on the stand and everyone describing her as intelligent was maddening!
- I do feel a bit sorry for child Letby; it must have been very hard growing up as somebody who presents as intelligent, but actually is really not, and never, ever being able to live up to expectations. It's not surprising she has a complex about it all.
- Not only that but she has terrible parents who did not instill self-esteem, or learn how to cope with her weaknesses in a healthy way. Instead she denies her weaknesses exist, and lashes out at the world for making her feel inadequate. This is due to her parents never allowing her to feel like she's done anything wrong or insufficient, no matter the reality.
Any way, that is my latest twopenneth. I'll give an update if I get into the leave to appeal hearing.
Last edited:
MmmB777
VIP Member
I find the way she talks about the unit basically as odd as Letby’s way.
“You have to be quirky to survive the unit”
A) what the fuck are you talking about
and
B) anyone that describes themselves as QuIrKy is usually a cunt
ThePowderMonkey
Chatty Member
They’re unhinged, the whole family. The audacity of that psychopathic bitch demanding personal apologies.
Lynn’ssnazzycardigan
VIP Member
So am I to understand that they had to convene a meeting at one point because her father had rung up to rant, and they could hear her mother weeping and wailing in the background, to the extent they were concerned for her wellbeing?! Fucking hell 🫣
Wellthisisinteresting
VIP Member
“The decision marks the end of the road for Letby, who is serving 15 whole life tariffs, and will die in jail”
Secretbrillopad
VIP Member
As a mother who was on postnatal when her baby was in NICU, this ENRAGES me. I was definitely made to feel like I should have been at his side every single second he was in there. There was one occasion where I was just exhausted, in agony post c-section, crying my eyes out from fear and tiredness and I said I had to get out of there as the heat was stifling me. The nurse was not happy, and demanded "are you going to set an alarm for 2am to come and try feeding him again then?" And then I slept through that alarm. I woke up in horror in the morning, they'd tried to ring my mobile once. When I rang them in a state they were so judgemental. This is a completely separate trust many miles away from COCH but I resonate a lot with the things the families have said about the way they were treated or made to feel by staff on the unit.
Fuck Eirian Powell. I hope she shits hedgehog like turds forever.
AManWalksDownTheStreet
Active member
Senior judges:
OoglyBoogly
Chatty Member
I'm a bit behind, sorry, but I've been working NNU adjacent for hospitals in our local area for ten years now and I can count on one hand the number of babies we've lost all those years. These people that assume premature babies just die all the time are so wrong.
KatieMorag
Well-known member
That phrase from Karen Rees - 'Your nursing team are fully behind you'. It's so fucking offensive isn't it? Firstly - no they weren't. Plenty of the nursing team thought she was odd, cold, egotistical, cliquey and unpleasant, as we've heard. Secondly - they weren't 'her' team. I know it's a minor linguistic thing but it sounds like queen bee and her drones - your team. She's not in charge, she's not powerful, she's not a band 6 and she's not even a good nurse. Glad she'll die in jail.
Secretbrillopad
VIP Member
I can't imagine what it must feel like for the families of the babies that came after March 2016, to have someone stand there and say "oh well, I'm jolly well not obliged to read my emails and do my job, I'm not responsible for any deaths at all because I wasn't told!"
It's so outrageous.
It's so outrageous.
Lucy Letby joked about ‘tips’ on how to get away with murder, inquiry told
The nurse was messaging about the TV show How to Get Away with Murder
The texts are also up on the thirwell site.
Ms Griffiths messaged Letby: “I’m currently watching a programme called how to get away with murder. I’m learning some good tips.
Letby replied: “I could have given you some tips x
This is disgusting, knowing you were being investigated for murder of small babies, who the hell would joke like this.
Is Hayley Griffiths still employed as a union rep?
Cant imagine how the parents must feel hearing this,
---
Statement from her parents, this is bloody weird why are they involved at all.
Last edited:
PositivelyVonnegutesque
Active member
In a document written by EP on 5/5/16, she states in relation to LL, "there are no performance management issues, and there are no members of staff that have complained to me or others regarding her performance."
Surely by May 2016, EP was aware of what was being said about LL on the unit and had doctors by this point raised concerns with her? So the above statement isn't true?
In another document she says that in a 26th May '16 meeting, someone stood up, pointed at her and said, "you are harbouring a murderer". How would it go from no complaints, nothing reaching EP about concerns over LL by 5th May 2016, to full blown accusations just 19 days later?
Just searched the transcript from yesterday and it is clearly a total lie in that 5/5/16 document, because she'd already moved her to day shifts! She HAD heard complaints about LL by that point and so did her little experiment of moving to day shifts. Surely there are consequences to misrepresenting or writing untrue statements in a neonatal review document? She should be stripped of her NHS pension and prosecuted.
Surely by May 2016, EP was aware of what was being said about LL on the unit and had doctors by this point raised concerns with her? So the above statement isn't true?
In another document she says that in a 26th May '16 meeting, someone stood up, pointed at her and said, "you are harbouring a murderer". How would it go from no complaints, nothing reaching EP about concerns over LL by 5th May 2016, to full blown accusations just 19 days later?
Just searched the transcript from yesterday and it is clearly a total lie in that 5/5/16 document, because she'd already moved her to day shifts! She HAD heard complaints about LL by that point and so did her little experiment of moving to day shifts. Surely there are consequences to misrepresenting or writing untrue statements in a neonatal review document? She should be stripped of her NHS pension and prosecuted.
Last edited: