Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind?

[Kittybythelighthouse]

I’ve been sensing a shift in opinions on the Lucy Letby case and I’m interested in hearing from people who have changed their mind either way.

Did you used to think she was guilty and now you don’t, or you aren’t sure? What changed your mind?

Also vice versa: did you used to think she was not guilty but then changed your mind to guilty? What convinced you?

The reason I’m using the term ‘not guilty’ rather than ‘innocent’ is because courts don’t prove innocence. Not guilty is a legal conclusion about whether or not the state met its burden of proof.

But other people were there too, doctors, cleaners, visitors not on the list why? This list was handed to police by the doctors why was it not questioned? There were other deaths too when she wasn’t there. They cherry picked the deaths to coincide with her being there. The Royal Society of statisticians say it was flawed data the jury was given misleading data, it has come out now the swipe data on doors was also wrong they had interpreting inaccurately (counting the out rather than incoming) I posted a YT link to one of the ex managers from the ward who breaks down the problems with the ‘evidence’

That’s incorrect. Direct evidence proves a fact without needing any inference. Both are admissible in court, and circumstantial evidence can be just as powerful as direct evidence, but they are not the same thing by definition.

For example:

• Direct evidence: A credible witness testifies, “I saw Lucy Letby inject air into the baby’s IV.”
• Circumstantial evidence: A chart shows she was on shift for a series of unexplained collapses, and she had access to the babies’ IV lines. Here the jury must infer this means she caused the collapses.

If you go to bed and the ground is clear, then wake up to find the lawn covered in fresh snow, you didn’t see it snow, but you know it snowed. That’s strong circumstantial evidence. it’s a logical conclusion drawn from facts you can see. You don’t need to see the snow fall to know it fell.

In a strong circumstantial case (like Teacher’s Pet), each fact fits the same conclusion and alternative explanations are implausible. In Letby’s case, many links are shaky, based on inference stacked on inference. The circumstantial evidence in this case doesn’t stand up by itself in the absence of direct evidence. The medical evidence would be enough if it was solid, but that’s been proven to be untrue. There is no evidence of murder in the first place, let alone that she did it.

There’s a saying: if you hear hooves expect a horse before you expect a zebra, expect a zebra before you expect a unicorn. Serial killer nurses are unicorns. Spikes in deaths in poorly run NHS hospitals are horses, they are far too common. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and we just don’t have that in this case.

As I say, both types of evidence can be used in court and circumstantial evidence can indeed be very strong, but we don’t have any such strong circumstantial evidence in the Letby case.

I believe Letby is probably a killer but technically "not guilty" because her conviction sounds unsafe. So the poll is too binary.

My credentials: I hold a first in Criminology (bachelors) and a doctoral degree in psychology, but to be clear not forensic psychology. I am not qualified to comment on the medical evidence but my lay opinion is that it sounds there may be enough reasonable doubt and therefore, by that burden of proof, Letby is "innocent". However, showing possible alternatives is not the same as Letby not being a killer.

Firstly, Barrister Mark McDonald obviously has ulterior motives. There are dozens/hundreds of unsafe convictions. Why has he got such a bee in his bonnet about Letby? My opinion is he is ego-centric and primary motivation is to make a name for himself. He has his eye on a gravy train of fame, television panels, and book deals. Very much a self-serving man in the pretence of rescuing an innocent person from a miscarriage of justice.

Something I can comment on with more certainty albeit still subjective is that the psychological evidence, from what I know of it, chills me to my bones. Admittedly it is circumstantial and certainly not enough to convict someone.

Thinking of Letby from an "object relations theory" and an understanding of "narcissistic supply". I believe Letby's motive was the playing God theory, or perhaps a sort of munchausens by proxy.

I understand Letby grew up being told she is a miracle baby saved by a nurse. If this is true, it is not coincidence she decided to become a neonatal nurse. These types of events do become a key driver in someone's life, I have seen it many times. Moreover, like most serial killers, you don't go from nothing to serial killing. So if this fact about her birth is true, in my opinion Letby started practicing "saving babies" and this became a big part of her fantasy/phantasy life.

The babies are like objects in her ego and sense of self. Everything about them, the parents, the nurses and doctors, the drama, this is feeding Letby in a narcissistic way. Fuel for her ego. This for me is the explanation for her obsessional searching for families on facebook (both survivors and the deceased), and why during the trial it was reported she showed a numb affect when speaking about the deaths but then emotional lability when she referred to how she was affected.

Again, my information on this is all second hand and there may be more detail on the psychological aspects I am missing. But just from the face value and having worked with a number of offenders that deny their crimes, I am confident to say she is probably a killer.

I'm not talking about the statistics, that is what LL's defence team would have or should have considered with a statistician.

The poster I responded to said the on duty list was inaccurate, which is not true. She was on duty.

@junkmaail people love to ‘know a thing’, to feel like they know better than those in the know.

I appreciate that you’re at least being measured in that you’re saying you think the case should be reviewed. To clarify the poll: in legal terms (which perhaps you’re already familiar with) ‘not guilty’ is the measure of reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is what you have if you think the case needs to be reviewed.

I didn’t want to split the poll into too many categories that’s why I used the standard legal binary of guilty/not guilty. If anyone thinks she’s guilty, but they think the case needs to be reviewed, that would necessarily mean a ‘not guilty’ verdict as it carries implicit reasonable doubt. British courts don’t find people ‘innocent’. This is why Scottish courts have the controversial third ‘not proven’ option.

You’ve concluded Letby is “probably a killer” but you admit you haven’t examined the core medical evidence and are relying on second-hand prosecution allegations, which are not the same as proven facts. Allegations about Facebook searches, affect in court, or a “miracle baby” backstory come from one side’s narrative and don’t become evidence until independently verified.

Building a psychological profile on unproven claims is unsafe reasoning and mapping her behaviour to datasets of known offenders is meaningless if the conviction itself may be unsafe. It’s circular logic. Behavioural cues like numbness or emotional shifts are inherently ambiguous and can be read in opposite ways depending on the assumption you start with. The ordinary non-offending population also show many of these traits.

Motive theories like “playing God” or “Munchausen by proxy” only have weight if there is credible proof the acts occurred. A serial killer nurse is an extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We don’t have it here.

Finally, personal attacks on Mark McDonald’s motives are irrelevant to whether the trial evidence was reliable.

In short, you’re taking an unproven allegation set, running it through an offender-profiling lens that only applies if she is guilty, and using that to reaffirm guilt, which you must be aware is the exact inversion of how burden of proof works.

I don't know whether she murdered the babies, it's quite possible she did, but the information I have seen and the fact so many experts are willing to get involved does suggest the conviction is unsafe.

It seems like a lot of information and evidence was given to the jurors over a very long period of time and that the information wouldn't be easy for the average person to understand. I can well imagine that a fair bit of fatigue and even inability to remember what was told to them would kick in too.

I'm also sad to say that I know a lot of people who would simply rush to judgement without listening properly anyway. They're quick to say stuff like 'well, look at them, you can just tell they're guilty'.

In this particular case, I think a retrial or another investigation would be helpful for everyone. As it is at the moment there's no REAL closure for those parents. If the babies weren't murdered by Lucy Letby and in fact died due to bad medical care, then there's lessons to be learnt there. If she did in fact murder them, there's different lessons to be learnt there too. The focus should be on preventing something like this from happening again in the future.

This is a very level and thoughtful position to take. I agree with many of your points.

Yep, there's a lot of that on this thread. Lots of smug, patronising comments.

I often find that people who are narrow minded, quick to conclude and dogmatic in their beliefs are inclined to find any level of enquiry or thoughts that are in contradiction to their own to be ‘patronising’ or ‘smug’

She was on duty for hundreds of other nights and days that were not on the chart. There were also other deaths when she was not on duty.

“I’m not talking about the statistics, that is what LL's defence team would have or should have considered with a statistician.”

I’m afraid you’re incorrect. The defence do not have to prove innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Not to present misleading evidence, which is what this chart is.

Again - a poster told me the on duty list was inaccurate. I simply made the point that it was correct, LL was on duty all those shifts.

And of course a defence team would challenge the prosecution provided list if they felt it was inaccurate.

Pretty much what I think. I haven't reviewed all the details, it would take too long.

But what these new experts are saying seems at odds to what was presented originally. And the fact there are a large number of them, plus the author of the original research involved lends a large amount of credibility to their claims.

If there were a retrial it will be interesting to see whether there would be any experts willing to go up in opposition against these new experts, or whether that entire evidence would have to be removed. If that is the case, where does it leave the safety of the conviction ?

People in “Facebook groups” are irrelevant to this discussion. No one here that I’m aware of is pretending to know anything. If facts are presented and you don’t like it, either counter this with facts if you can, or consider why you don’t like being presented with facts that challenge your views.

I often find that people who are quick to throw around insults are usually smug and patronising.

Have you even RTFT? There are posters like Leafy who suggested I do my research by reading this thread by laymen/laywomen. Which is laughable in itself.

A chart showing that Letby was on a cherry picked number of shifts is of zero evidential value. The fact that it exists doesn’t mean it was never challenged by the defence, but even if it wasn’t (and remember it’s likely that not all of judge Goss’s directions are known to us) a failure in the original defence strategy is simply more evidence that a full review is needed.

Think you are out of order, if you were anyway professional you couldn’t be so definitive in your accusations on a public forum. Touting your professional qualifications. They do not use the term muchensens by proxy anymore so you are outdated. Think if anyone that has an agenda it’s you. Shameful.

It was inaccurate as it is giving only part of a story. Is a truth part of which withheld accurate ? I think it is lying by omission it is still a lie.

The BBC report linked upthread is interesting. The journalist seems to me to be defending their earlier position whilst walking back just enough to allow room for manoeuvre.

As many of us have recognised, we don’t actually know what really happened. And an unsafe conviction does not equal innocence. But there is enough evidence that the conviction is not sound to trouble me and I would be glad to see the case looked at again. As a nurse, I don’t ever want to find myself convicted for systemic failures and others lack of competence.

I find this really interesting. Lots of people are odd and do things out of the ordinary, but that doesn't make them murderers. My BIL often gets pulled at airport security because he looks suspicious, however in reality he's autistic and can often be completely out of touch with what's going on because he's overwhelmed. He also makes inappropriate jokes or odd facial expressions at weird times, especially when stressed, and his emotional expression is often unusual. I don't blame security, he does often look and come across as suspect. That doesn't make him a terrorist, though. And I'm pretty sure most people's search history could look suspect given the right conditions - mine sure could, anyway. Haven't murdered anyone to date, nor do I plan to.

As someone with a degree in criminology, would you say people who are - unusual in some way, or present unusually - are more likely to be wrongly accused or convicted? As I said earlier, Amanda Knox had this as a factor in her case, and I can think of a few people in my country that had decades old convictions overturned as forensic evidence now shows actually, they weren't involved, just low IQ or ND or otherwise not considered to be 'normal'. I'm always a bit suspicious when belief in someone's guilt rests on how they emote or behave, because 'normal' is a social construct that has let a number of people down very badly over the years.

Yes, even the headline of Coffey’s article:

“Lucy Letby's new expert supporters claim no babies were deliberately harmed. Who should we believe?”

is a description of reasonable doubt. It looks like he is trying to walk back his previous position in a way that preserves both the sales of the Moritz/Coffey Letby book, and his own journalistic reputation.

This thread is about people offering their perspective, right?

Kittybythelighthouse what is your background? Are you a lawyer? You seem extraordinarily certain and very defensive in circumstances that have multiple contexts and shades of grey.

The poll is "100% guilty" or "not guilt, case needs review". I am neither, and nothing you have stated multiple times warrants me changing my opinion.

My choice for the poll is: "Probably a killer. It sounds like an unsafe conviction. If she is eventually released, may she not be allowed anywhere near babies".

Lots of people are not convicted because of flawed evidence, but they committed the crimes they have been accused of. I am unsure if you can acknowledge this fact because you have made your mind up and it is black and white. It is not black and white.

My psychological analysis is based on publicly available court documents referring to Lucy's observed behaviour both in court and, her documented social media behaviour that was factual; it was not invented as you seem to infer. I was very clear that, while I have an informed opinion, it is subjective and psychological elements regarding state-of-mind and motive are not enough to convict someone.

I don't think you are able to read this through your own defensiveness, where ever or why you feel that way.

I will end my last post by saying again, I hope she is never allowed near another vulnerable child or baby again.

@Kittybythelighthouse

Did I dream that actually at least one of the incidents on that statistically sound rota sheet occurred when Letby was actually not on duty? Happy to have dreamed it.

Peopld disagreeing and suggesting you read XYZ are patronising?

If that’s your bar then I cannot help you.

i do not want to live in a world where our criminal system’s baseline isn’t the truth.

if you do, I cannot help only say be careful what you wish for.

Why do you think she’s a killer? Obviously it’s not because of the observed somewhat weird behaviour, so what is is about the prosecution’s case that persuades you?

From everything I’ve read the evidence against her is flimsy, and much of it based on misused or misunderstood information.