To think that Lucy Letby will get a new trial?

Fair enough - I'm not attached to the "I went" theory, because I've never been very interested in the notes. Because I'm always scribbling a mixture of fact, nonsense, and interesting phrases myself during meetings and phone calls, I've just never thought they proved anything. To the extent that experts in the field have commented, they seem to agree on that point

Yeah she comes back from Ibiza and within just a couple days two of the triplets have died on her watch. Then another baby collapsed after the last triplet was moved away from her. And she wrote a note addressed to all triplets by name saying "today is your birthday but you're not here" (even though one was alive) then despite all this "distress" apparently, she refuses to take any time off and is happy as larry to come in again after a big staff meeting where everyone else is distraught and Dr Breary says he expects she'll take some time off.

There are different theories on this one. I've seen someone point out that she may have scrawled - they went, ie they said before it.

It's not "they went" it's "they won't"-it's a continuation of the previous sentence "how will things ever be liked they used to be-they won't" you can even see the apostrophe.

Murderers are also distressed when they think they're about to get caught. We know she got distressed over things that affected her in court. She wouldn't have done the things she did in the first place if she was a robot. Why are you discounting the fact she could be guilty AND distressed and having intrusive thoughts? Surely it's far more likely in that case.

As I said, intrusive thoughts

When you cut out accusations made in hindsight after she was accused of murder, I'm not sure I see any disturbing behaviour.

But you have a bit of a point. I work supervising mostly young people, up to Lucy Letby's age. I've worked with hundreds of them. In that context, none of her behaviour strikes me as terribly unusual. Social media addiction? Hoarding notes and papers? The odd gauche comment, over years of work? I'm just not seeing anything sensational here. I am sure there are lots of nurses out there who are "odder" than Lucy Letby - I'm sure lots of them are great nurses.

She was encouraged to write her doubts and fears. We don't know what she was thinking.

I remember a baby that I was caring for being absolutely fine. Then the baby absolutely wasn't fine. They had NEC, which can creep up, but the signs are quite sudden. My first reaction when I got a large aspirate prior to feeding them and their OBS were bad was 'did I break the baby?' I was frantically looking over my notes to see what I'd missed. My nurse in charge had to reassure me that the baby just broke and that I didn't break them. You have no idea how awful it is to be in charge of a baby that breaks.

Also, in emergency situations, everything is distorted. Time goes really slowly as well as speeding up. That sounds stupid, but it's true. A different part of your brain kicks in to allow you to deal with the emergency, which can make you feel a bit cold and detached, but at the same time you're witnessing the incident you're dealing with and it's like watching a car crash in slow motion. You know what's happening, you know it's really bad, and you know that unless you do something there will be a catastrophe. In good teams you debrief, sometimes several times, looking at the situation from different angles.

I don't think it's any wonder that every member of staff told a different story about emergencies. I also think it makes it really unreliable as evidence. If anyone is a Grey's Anatomy fan, think back to the scene where April Kepner gets distracted by the guy rolling past with an axe in his chest and doesn't visually check her patient's airway, and all the different accounts of that incident.

Yep and we have very specific language when it's about her guilt. "I didn't do anything wrong" is pretty vague in comparison. There's no excusing it, there just isn't. She wrote it because it's true.

There are different theories on this one. I've seen someone point out that she may have scrawled - they went, ie they said before it.

But to me it is fairly straightforward. She was distressed and having intrusive thoughts and writing them down to expunge them. You're asking for a reasonable explanation, but nobody is reasonable all the time, especially when under pressure.

False confessions are common. Brainstorming and doodling are common. I scribble constantly, and they aren't all straightforward statements of fact. Why should they be?

I didn't mention race. She gets all her disturbing behaviour excused. I'd love to know why if it's not to do with the fact she reminds so many people of how they were in their 20s or their daughter/daughter's friends?

Uou do realise that you are showing your own racism whne you are saying that no-one would give so much thought if she was from a "different demographic".

Surely you would be on here posting about her innocent if you believed that she was. Or would you not because of that "different demographic"?

If you have ever been accused of something that you haven't done that has caused you extreme mental distress you would understand why the thoughts that people write down are often not very logical, or written in such a way that makes for easy reading,

But again you are ignoring the other noites that she wrote clkaiming that she was innocent.

No she gets excuse after excuse made for her that other people wouldn't. No one would even be entertaining the idea of her being innocent if she didn't come from a certain demographic.

Just imagine people trying to excuse that post it note if it was a guy or an ugly middle-aged woman. Wouldn't happen!

That why I said it was a beige flag, I wasn't claiming it amounted to a piece of evidence that would hold up in court. But you do need to build a bit of profile of the defendant, to understand who and what you're dealing with. As I said, I'm not sure of her guilt or innocence, I'm merely pointing out a detail I found to be a bit odd frankly. And the comment during training about "looking forward to her first death, to get it out of the way". That was an odd one too.

And carrying a little first aid kit for your own children is wholly different and completely appropriate for that that context. Kids get knocks, cuts and scrapes all the time (mine do). But taking one on a night out, when the injuries and illnesses are usually going to be the result of an excess of booze and drugs is a an entirely different kettle of fish. Your little handbag first aid kit is going to be completely useless in those circumstances. Much better the first aid chests that clubs, bars and pubs have to carry.

The Italian police looked liked fools for all that satanic nonsense without any evidence.

Maybe they were just following all lines of enquiry as they were trying to get a handle on a very odd and disorientating case. But your revealing comment does take me back to that time and all the "Johnny Foreigner doesn't know what he's doing" rhetoric. It's easy to snipe to from the sidelines I guess...

I hope that the attention her case is getting will highlight problems with the expert witness system, the Court of Appeal and the CCRC, and help others who have been unjustly convicted.

Meanwhile, there's simply far more information out there on her case than on others. It's a pity it takes an unusual situation to precipitate that. I believe that all trial transcripts (appropriately redacted,) should be freely available for scrutiny

Right, so to address racism and inequality we permit miscarriages of justice in order to ensure fairness?

Sorry - I hate posts like this. I don’t seek to deny racism is a real problem; I do strongly object to the suggestion that we therefore shut up if a potential miscarriage of justice happens to someone white.

How could you possibly not be moved by the opinion of an independent panel of experts regarding the reasons why these babies tragically passed away? The deaths were not, in their opinion, suspicious. Consequently it wouldn't matter if Lucy had the opportunity or not. There is nothing to explain except why that hospital was taking on babies this premature without appropriately experienced consultants on the ward and why the ward was under staffed and failing to meet basic hygiene requirements.

It is a very sad technicality that the legal definition of what constitutes new evidence does not equal a more informed interpretation of evidence that was misrepresented the first time.

I would imagine that a heavily medicated person who had been through what Lucy has been through would be very easy for a barrister to make mincemeat of.

The deaths were cherry picked. Circumstances that were not initially thought to be suspicious were later reviewed as suspicious. An eye witness testimony from a doctor was later found to be in direct contradiction with an account he gave in an email.

I'm not sure what aspect of that satisfies you that justice has been done.

So you don't think the case of baby E could stand up on its own?

(Scientists have proposed natural explanations for the insulin test results since the trial. Both twins were vulnerable following a complex pregnancy and premature birth, of course, so it's not surprising that both had medical crises)