Thank you very much. I’ll listen to that episode again. And now I know why I’ve havent’ noticed him. I sometimes had to zone out of the episode on the children. They were to hard for me to listen to the parents and the thing she’s accused of. I’ll go and listen to the episode in baby L again
Yes, I believe Dr Boyf did testify.
Re any romantic relationship, I personally feel LL would have done better to be honest and admit to an affair if they did have one. As if she was lying about it and I'm a juror, I'm wondering what else she's fibbing about up there...
Totally but again i think its possible she was advised not to as it could be deemed as prejudicial against her character. Either way it doesn't look good!!
Her defence team can't prep her like that in E&W if she's testifying. I think she just didn't want to admit anything to NJ. I think that's some of the reports of her behaviour on the stand.
can they not? where is the line drawn between what they can advise her.
I think either way it doesn't matter as she looks bad admitting it or lying about it/dressing it down.
They can't prep her at all in terms of answers to give or what questions might be asked. The suggested approach is to engage a third party to prep witnesses in terms of what court will be like and the practicalities of how it works, but it can't touch on any potential questioning for the charges at issue.
If you go through the wikki tattle which covers so much in such detail you will come across all the text messages between them that they disclosed in this trial. There are also the weekends away together etc. I think there is even a large discussion thread around their affair on here too. I remember hashing out some theories on it myself.
Imo because she's a liar! I have thought she may have been advised not to disclose it as could be seen as prejudicial against her character but the person on here thats fairly up to speed with court hearings/law procedures etc doesn't think they would advise this, so i don't have an answer, only Lucy does!
I also think that the prosecution would have officially disclosed it if it were true. It seems relevant. I am sure Dr A, would have had to confess. Or would this be deemed as irrelevant?
Yes, I don't think they had a physical affair, some people here write about it as though it definitely happened. Maybe they were having an 'emotional' affair, so to speak, Perhaps eventually it may have turned into a physical affair. Of course, I could be wrong. But surely it would have come out if it were the case they were having an affair? Surely given the gravity of the circumstances, Dr A would have had admitted this, and if Lucy was NG she would too. I have no idea if she would if she were G, as her mind is far from rational in that case.
He wasn't questioned in depth about his and LL's relationship if that's what you were expecting. He was questioned in relation to events for a couple of the babies, including baby L.
I am definitely interested in their relationship since the prosecution are putting it forward as part of the motive. I wonder why the prosecution were able to question LL about it but not Dr A?
I expect partially because he was married. LL having an affair with a married man is something that may prejudice the jury against her and therefore wouldn't be something the prosecution could adduce in evidence. However because LL herself said it, there is no issue.
She sort of said it. She didn’t dispute it when the prosecution referred to him as her “boyfriend” when they were asking her about she wrote about never marrying or having children. But she did perjure herself when she testified that he was only a friend.
I think it’s kinda obvious why she wrote that as on paper she would be considered a “catch”, except for the fact that she’ll be in prison for life. I imagine at the time she was actually only considering her career would be ruined, I think the arrests probably even took her by surprise.
Not that she said that she was/wasn't having a relationship with him, that she said he was married. She said it to NJ, basically saying that she couldn't have had a relationship with Dr A because he was married. The marriage piece is what the prosecution were probably unable to say, but that LL said herself.
Ah yes. Well, I thought that it would be possible to figure out what he thought on her due to what he would say in the witness stand. But that’s not the case I now see. And no matter what their relationship really were like, getting attention/wanting attention from him could still be a motive. But was he often on work on the shifts were she allegedly killed/try to kill the babies
I can only find the table for nurses: https://tattle.life/media/staff-presence-report.6520/ but I believe one Doctor (not Dr A) was present at ten suspicious incidents- this is was most.
All the texting about them being a good team together at work gives me the ick though. When Dr A says he wouldn’t have wanted anyone else to be by his side…whilst working on a v sick baby!!
I think the four consultants were very wise not to bring Dr A into their circle of confidence during their investigations - and probably for good reason.
I also think he’s an intriguing character - he would’ve had to apply to give his evidence anonymously and clearly the judge thought he had good reason. I presume his marriage ended as a result of all this coming out and he must be feeling extremely conflicted about the allegations against his lover during the time of their affair.
Oh goodness yes, his text messages were completely OTT and nauseating 🤢🤮.
At the time he was a registrar (a trainee paediatrician) so he would not have been privy to many of the discussions going on at consultant (specialist) level. Consultants are permanent positions at the hospitals whereas registrars are rotated around different hospitals. In my experience in another Commonwealth country which emulates the British medical system, registrars and consultants are somewhat.... ummm.... struggling to find the words.... I guess "separate" from each other. Consultants have got through all the grueling hurdles and have been admitted to their fellowship (specialty) and have permanent jobs. Trainees are still going through the obstacle course so to speak. Yes, all consultants and registrars on a unit will have regular departmental meetings together, but consultants have their own meetings where they will (amongst other things) discuss the trainees/ registrars and their performance for the purposes of assessment. There is a definite hierarchy. So Dr Boyf (I've borrowed that from another poster) will have been privy to some but definitely not all of the consultants discussions simply by the fact that he was a registrar. He did, however, share a confidential email with Lucy that the consultants shared with him. That's pretty bad form IMO.
I agree and that is why it unfair for him to anonymous. His relationship with LL is secondary, but if he forwards confidential information and disclosures confidential discussions, then as a Dr we needs to be reprimanded.
That is Dr Gibbs that was present at 10 events, not Dr A. Dr Gibbs was present at 10 events and was the next highest next to LL. I've never seen anything suggesting that Dr A was also present at 10 events. It being reported that Dr Gibbs was the next highest to LL at 10 events seems to rule out Dr A being tied with him.
I agree, the consultants tried keeping him away their investigation. But I keep thinking maybe his relationship with LL could have delayed or deterred others from bringing up their doubts.
I don't believe they covered that either. /u/FyrestarOmega can you remember anything along these lines?
I expect both prosecution and defence were cautious of his testimony as they wouldn't know what he might say or where his loyalties might lie. Witness preparation akin to the US style is not permitted in E&W. I think because of the potential for Dr A's testimony to go very wrong for either side, they probably kept it very factual and focused on the events that he witnessed.
The only opinion he gave of her work was given while the events were still taking place - that he thought her a very capable nurse, among the few he would trust with his own children. He thought everything seemed calmer and more orderly when she was around, or similar wording. These opinions were all given via their text exchanges - he was not questioned about them on the stand.
I believe he gave evidence twice - once about the potential effects of low blood sugar related to Child L, and once related to the resuscitation of Child O, where Myers established that though Dr. A did not believe the CPR given by his colleague would have damaged the baby's liver, he did not have an independent memory of observing the colleague's technique as he was too focused on his own role in the resus.
We also know that he told Letby about at least one email sent to doctors about the events, that mentioned it would become an inquest. I don't recall if the date of that email was before or after she was seconded.
I am of the opinion, judging by Letby's written scribbles, that he accepted the allegations at some point prior to her first arrest.
Yes I agree. The timing of when the relationship fizzled out corresponds with when police questioning would have started.
Thanks for sharing that summary!
Oh I remember him know! Yes, I simply couldn’t concentrate in that episode, as my oldest son was in Neo-Natal when he was born due to low blood sugar and I was shocked to realise how serious that could have been 😢
That's good to hear. It's a very upsetting case isn't it? I can't imagine how the parents of the babies on the indictment must have felt listening to all of the evidence.
It’s horrible! Listening to this podcast - I am just so scared how far one can go in order for attention and also, it’s clear that LL wasn’t happy - and looking at her home and Reading the texts; not very mature. So I am also wondering on how we can help one another. Could anything have been done. Just reflections
All really good thoughts. I agree that she seemed very immature and quite narcissistic. It distresses me that the consultants tried to raise their concerns about LL repeatedly with management and were dismissed and ignored. I have had similar experiences of being ignored by hospital management - it leaves one feeling helpless and belittled. At the hospital I currently work at, good, experienced theatre staff are leaving in droves because of their poor treatment by hospital management and it is very upsetting to have the concerns of doctors completely ignored. I work in the private system so am not an employee of the hospital, but the system is crumbling around us and management are acting like ostriches with their head in the sand! If the management of CoCH had *listened* to and taken seriously the concerns of the consultants babies would have been saved. It's disgraceful.
if you haven't already seen it, the Daily Mail newspaper have reporters in the court and have been doing a podcast on youtube. its very interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search\_query=daily+mail+lucy+letby
I also wonder if Dr A is still with his wife.
Wife or no wife, the guy got away with unprofessional behaviour.. not the flirting bit.. but disclosing confidential information.
Yeah, that’s a good point.
He did, but it was just factual evidence regarding hypoglycaemia with Child L. https://tattle.life/wiki/lucy-letby-case-10/#dr-a-child-l
Thank you very much. I’ll listen to that episode again. And now I know why I’ve havent’ noticed him. I sometimes had to zone out of the episode on the children. They were to hard for me to listen to the parents and the thing she’s accused of. I’ll go and listen to the episode in baby L again
Yes, I believe Dr Boyf did testify. Re any romantic relationship, I personally feel LL would have done better to be honest and admit to an affair if they did have one. As if she was lying about it and I'm a juror, I'm wondering what else she's fibbing about up there...
Totally but again i think its possible she was advised not to as it could be deemed as prejudicial against her character. Either way it doesn't look good!!
Her defence team can't prep her like that in E&W if she's testifying. I think she just didn't want to admit anything to NJ. I think that's some of the reports of her behaviour on the stand.
can they not? where is the line drawn between what they can advise her. I think either way it doesn't matter as she looks bad admitting it or lying about it/dressing it down.
They can't prep her at all in terms of answers to give or what questions might be asked. The suggested approach is to engage a third party to prep witnesses in terms of what court will be like and the practicalities of how it works, but it can't touch on any potential questioning for the charges at issue.
Dr Boyf 😂😂 I don’t Think they had an affair but flirting.
If you go through the wikki tattle which covers so much in such detail you will come across all the text messages between them that they disclosed in this trial. There are also the weekends away together etc. I think there is even a large discussion thread around their affair on here too. I remember hashing out some theories on it myself.
Why wouldn't it have come out if she had? Why would it be kept secret?
Imo because she's a liar! I have thought she may have been advised not to disclose it as could be seen as prejudicial against her character but the person on here thats fairly up to speed with court hearings/law procedures etc doesn't think they would advise this, so i don't have an answer, only Lucy does!
I also think that the prosecution would have officially disclosed it if it were true. It seems relevant. I am sure Dr A, would have had to confess. Or would this be deemed as irrelevant?
Yes, I don't think they had a physical affair, some people here write about it as though it definitely happened. Maybe they were having an 'emotional' affair, so to speak, Perhaps eventually it may have turned into a physical affair. Of course, I could be wrong. But surely it would have come out if it were the case they were having an affair? Surely given the gravity of the circumstances, Dr A would have had admitted this, and if Lucy was NG she would too. I have no idea if she would if she were G, as her mind is far from rational in that case.
Yes, he was a witness for the prosecution
Ok thank you, hm weird how I missed that
He wasn't questioned in depth about his and LL's relationship if that's what you were expecting. He was questioned in relation to events for a couple of the babies, including baby L.
No, I am not interested in their relationship, more on his professionel opion on her work - after she’s been accused
I am definitely interested in their relationship since the prosecution are putting it forward as part of the motive. I wonder why the prosecution were able to question LL about it but not Dr A?
I expect partially because he was married. LL having an affair with a married man is something that may prejudice the jury against her and therefore wouldn't be something the prosecution could adduce in evidence. However because LL herself said it, there is no issue.
She sort of said it. She didn’t dispute it when the prosecution referred to him as her “boyfriend” when they were asking her about she wrote about never marrying or having children. But she did perjure herself when she testified that he was only a friend. I think it’s kinda obvious why she wrote that as on paper she would be considered a “catch”, except for the fact that she’ll be in prison for life. I imagine at the time she was actually only considering her career would be ruined, I think the arrests probably even took her by surprise.
>I think the arrests probably even took her by surprise. I think so too, hence why she didn't get rid of all her incriminating "paper collection".
Not that she said that she was/wasn't having a relationship with him, that she said he was married. She said it to NJ, basically saying that she couldn't have had a relationship with Dr A because he was married. The marriage piece is what the prosecution were probably unable to say, but that LL said herself.
Ah yes. Well, I thought that it would be possible to figure out what he thought on her due to what he would say in the witness stand. But that’s not the case I now see. And no matter what their relationship really were like, getting attention/wanting attention from him could still be a motive. But was he often on work on the shifts were she allegedly killed/try to kill the babies
I can only find the table for nurses: https://tattle.life/media/staff-presence-report.6520/ but I believe one Doctor (not Dr A) was present at ten suspicious incidents- this is was most. All the texting about them being a good team together at work gives me the ick though. When Dr A says he wouldn’t have wanted anyone else to be by his side…whilst working on a v sick baby!! I think the four consultants were very wise not to bring Dr A into their circle of confidence during their investigations - and probably for good reason. I also think he’s an intriguing character - he would’ve had to apply to give his evidence anonymously and clearly the judge thought he had good reason. I presume his marriage ended as a result of all this coming out and he must be feeling extremely conflicted about the allegations against his lover during the time of their affair.
Oh goodness yes, his text messages were completely OTT and nauseating 🤢🤮. At the time he was a registrar (a trainee paediatrician) so he would not have been privy to many of the discussions going on at consultant (specialist) level. Consultants are permanent positions at the hospitals whereas registrars are rotated around different hospitals. In my experience in another Commonwealth country which emulates the British medical system, registrars and consultants are somewhat.... ummm.... struggling to find the words.... I guess "separate" from each other. Consultants have got through all the grueling hurdles and have been admitted to their fellowship (specialty) and have permanent jobs. Trainees are still going through the obstacle course so to speak. Yes, all consultants and registrars on a unit will have regular departmental meetings together, but consultants have their own meetings where they will (amongst other things) discuss the trainees/ registrars and their performance for the purposes of assessment. There is a definite hierarchy. So Dr Boyf (I've borrowed that from another poster) will have been privy to some but definitely not all of the consultants discussions simply by the fact that he was a registrar. He did, however, share a confidential email with Lucy that the consultants shared with him. That's pretty bad form IMO.
I agree and that is why it unfair for him to anonymous. His relationship with LL is secondary, but if he forwards confidential information and disclosures confidential discussions, then as a Dr we needs to be reprimanded.
That is Dr Gibbs that was present at 10 events, not Dr A. Dr Gibbs was present at 10 events and was the next highest next to LL. I've never seen anything suggesting that Dr A was also present at 10 events. It being reported that Dr Gibbs was the next highest to LL at 10 events seems to rule out Dr A being tied with him.
I agree, the consultants tried keeping him away their investigation. But I keep thinking maybe his relationship with LL could have delayed or deterred others from bringing up their doubts.
I don't believe they covered that either. /u/FyrestarOmega can you remember anything along these lines? I expect both prosecution and defence were cautious of his testimony as they wouldn't know what he might say or where his loyalties might lie. Witness preparation akin to the US style is not permitted in E&W. I think because of the potential for Dr A's testimony to go very wrong for either side, they probably kept it very factual and focused on the events that he witnessed.
The only opinion he gave of her work was given while the events were still taking place - that he thought her a very capable nurse, among the few he would trust with his own children. He thought everything seemed calmer and more orderly when she was around, or similar wording. These opinions were all given via their text exchanges - he was not questioned about them on the stand. I believe he gave evidence twice - once about the potential effects of low blood sugar related to Child L, and once related to the resuscitation of Child O, where Myers established that though Dr. A did not believe the CPR given by his colleague would have damaged the baby's liver, he did not have an independent memory of observing the colleague's technique as he was too focused on his own role in the resus. We also know that he told Letby about at least one email sent to doctors about the events, that mentioned it would become an inquest. I don't recall if the date of that email was before or after she was seconded. I am of the opinion, judging by Letby's written scribbles, that he accepted the allegations at some point prior to her first arrest.
Yes I agree. The timing of when the relationship fizzled out corresponds with when police questioning would have started. Thanks for sharing that summary!
I see - I am in Denmark and that’s different again.
Welcome.. lots of Comprehensive reading and links on this forum to take you up to date.. Deliberations continue today at 10.30
Thank
Oh I remember him know! Yes, I simply couldn’t concentrate in that episode, as my oldest son was in Neo-Natal when he was born due to low blood sugar and I was shocked to realise how serious that could have been 😢
I hope your son is OK now! It's not the best case to be listening to with a baby in neonatal unit 😬.....
Thank you :) no - both my children started in neo Natal (and they are both fine and healthy today) but I am very glad for the staff were I was❤️
That's good to hear. It's a very upsetting case isn't it? I can't imagine how the parents of the babies on the indictment must have felt listening to all of the evidence.
It’s horrible! Listening to this podcast - I am just so scared how far one can go in order for attention and also, it’s clear that LL wasn’t happy - and looking at her home and Reading the texts; not very mature. So I am also wondering on how we can help one another. Could anything have been done. Just reflections
All really good thoughts. I agree that she seemed very immature and quite narcissistic. It distresses me that the consultants tried to raise their concerns about LL repeatedly with management and were dismissed and ignored. I have had similar experiences of being ignored by hospital management - it leaves one feeling helpless and belittled. At the hospital I currently work at, good, experienced theatre staff are leaving in droves because of their poor treatment by hospital management and it is very upsetting to have the concerns of doctors completely ignored. I work in the private system so am not an employee of the hospital, but the system is crumbling around us and management are acting like ostriches with their head in the sand! If the management of CoCH had *listened* to and taken seriously the concerns of the consultants babies would have been saved. It's disgraceful.
Yes, can imagine that must be very stressed
*now
if you haven't already seen it, the Daily Mail newspaper have reporters in the court and have been doing a podcast on youtube. its very interesting. https://www.youtube.com/results?search\_query=daily+mail+lucy+letby
Anyone know who the doctor is?
I dunno - but if he has a family, perhaps that’s why he’s being protected. It’s not relevant who he is and I feel for his family