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.

It’s interesting what you say about her social media behaviour. Could you comment more on tgat? From what I’ve seen she did look up the families, yes, after babies died, but she looked up lots of people and the family searches were dwarfed by other searches of itger people she’d come across.

What court documents refer to her behaviour in court? I’m aware that certain journalists made much of her demeanour in their coverage but you seem to mean something else?

What is it about the social media behaviour you find compellingly points towards her being a serial killer?

I was certain she was guilty. Then I saw a debunking of the statistics involved, now I think it needs investigation. It's possible the evidence is better than we realize, if so great. But it needs a decent look to make sure it's a safe conviction and if it's not....

Feels to me like they should have picked one baby with the best evidence for murder and tried her for that alone. Lumping a load of deaths with weakish evidence together is sketchy.

@GentleNavel I am also a psychologist and I agree with you, both on your interpretations of LL and the OP. It is very clear there is a rigid agenda here and any opposing or nuanced viewpoints are aggressively shut down by the OP.

I’m unwatching this thread. It’s a bit gross seeing all the posts defending a convicted baby killer.

It’s concerning if you are a psychologist that you see clear factual responses and links to alternative information as aggressive shut downs, and critical analysis of the junk science and statistics as gross. I don’t see anyone defending a baby killer, I see a great deal of concern about potential failures of the NHS and justice system which affect us all.

On the off chance that you haven’t hidden this thread, I’m wondering whether either of the posters stating that they are psychologists could answer my question from earlier.

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.

To be clear, this is not defending a baby killer. This is questioning whether there has been an MoJ. Is there any evidence of murder, let alone whether Letby is guilty of it. My concern is for the safety of the judicial system, and therefore all citizens.

Thank you @Plastictreees . Likewise I have unfollowed as I was not expecting in an open discussion to be so readily shut down. From a psychological perspective, there are multiple experts that have provided in-depth analysis that is publicly available. I am happy to discuss with those that actually want open discussion in private message.

Lastly, the person who called me outdated and shameful (!). I have nothing to be ashamed of for stating my opinion and perhaps that is your projection. Also, FYI: MSBP/MSP is widely accepted terminology in the literature. I can forward you some peer-reviewed journal articles from 2025, if you like.

https://laceysolicitors.com/high-court-judge-frustrated-at-the-use-of-expert-witnesses-in-personal-injury-action/

This is interesting regarding expert witness within trials. Judge Peter Charleton is an Irish Supreme Court judge and the legal system in Ireland, common law, is almost identical to that in England and Wales and Northern Ireland but there's no KCs for obvious reasons and Ireland is a member of the EU.

I am not clear how the psychology is even relevant, if the expert panel, and several other British experts, are not convinced there were any murders in the first place.

It seems incredible to me that people can be so certain that the convictions were safe, and I’m very interested in understanding why you are so sure that murders happened.

You may PM me if you wish.

Correct. There are several rota mismatches where Letby was shown as present even though she wasn’t actually on that shift, or the “suspicious incident” was later moved to a shift she did work. Most notable is Baby C. Letby was not working on the day the “incriminating” X-ray of Baby C was taken and had not been on shift since before the baby was born.

In his summing up, months after the evidence had been heard, the judge made clear to the jury this X-ray had been taken the day before Baby C collapsed, though he didn’t remind them Letby hadn’t been on shift. At appeal, the prosecution said Letby could have visited the hospital while off shift, but didn’t put forward any evidence for this theory. There are other errors:

• Baby I – 30 Sep 2015, 22:00 incident: Letby had worked the day shift and left about two hours earlier. In the trial chart this night-shift incident disappeared and was replaced by a day-shift incident on the same date when she was present.
• Baby Q – the chart lists a night-shift incident on 24 Jun 2015 when Letby was not on duty; during the trial this became a day-shift incident on 25 Jun 2015 when she was on duty.
• Baby N – a police/press account had her on a night shift when the baby kept collapsing, but she wasn’t on that night shift and was actually on the day shift next day.
• Baby J – one of the two “on-shift” listings later turned out to be mistaken.

The Cheshire Police data handling in general has been a mess.They also got the door swipe data wrong throughout the entire first trial. This data was meant to show exactly who was where and when. Once this became known they waved it away saying the data “didn’t affect anything”, despite the prosecution having used it repeatedly to ‘prove’ Letby’s ‘opportunities’ or ‘lies’.

They have never publicly demonstrated how it “didn’t affect anything”. It’s egregious.

@Typicalwave that was in response to you.

I’ve asked you two perfectly civil questions about your posts. Are you willing to answer them? Or point to the in depth analyses from experts? As I said I’ve only seen some somewhat lurid court reporting on the subject of her demeanour.

It’s a bit gross seeing all the posts defending a convicted baby killer.

I am surprised that a statement like this would come from a psychologist.

Thank you. I felt certain I hadn’t imagined it.

The x-ray evidence allegedly incriminating Letby I find incredible.

Here you go @nomas

Letby was wrongly noted as being on shift in more than one of the ‘incidents’ on the prosecutions rotated sheet.

I’m happy to take you through the medical data - no evidence of intentional harm - but there’s no need when an international panel of neonatal experts has done it for me. I wonder why you think your job qualifies you to over-ride the findings of these experts.

@GentleNavel

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.

What has analysis of LL’s behaviour in court (were you there?) and on social media got to do with the fundamental issue of a complete lack of evidence scientific or circumstantial of murder in any of the cases?

You seem to have put the cart before the horse.

”This thread is about people offering their perspective, right?”

Yes, you are perfectly entitled to offer your perspective just as others are entitled to challenge it. The same is true of all of us.

“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.”

First, I don’t share personally identifying information on the internet, including my background/job. I have personal reasons for this that I’m not getting into.

That said, I do not offer certainty about anything unless it is factual. These “multiple contexts and shades of grey” you refer to, can you give an example? Because I’m confident that I haven’t done this. I never say anything that I’m either qualified to say, or that I haven’t fact checked thoroughly. I hold myself and others to a high standard when it comes to facts and evidence.

I am rigorous in argument, which you can call ‘argumentative’ if you want (my mum certainly does!) I don’t let much slide, but it isn’t “defensive”. My points and rebuttals are always fact checked and genuine. If you (or anyone else) can counter argue or prove something I say to be wrong, then that is part of the process of arguing and no one is stopping that from happening. That’s not the same as being “defensive”. I welcome factual challenges to any of my assertions. You, on the other hand, are clearly upset by my (I thought polite) and factual comment. That might be called “defensive”.

“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.”

I’m not interested in changing your opinion, but I will challenge you (or anyone) if anything you present is incorrect or can’t be supported. Your opinion is your own business.

Given you have a degree in criminology I’m surprised that you don’t know that how the burden of proof works in criminal law. If you don’t think that guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that IS a ‘not guilty’ position in British courts. I’m not telling you what to vote. That’s your decision. I’m explaining why your position does fall into ‘not guilty’ in a legal sense, which is the framework I chose to use for the poll in order to avoid too many sub categories when the question here is essentially ‘do you think the case should be reviewed or not’? If you do that is a description of reasonable doubt in a court of law. This is merely a statement of truth. I don’t know why you’re fixated on it tbh. Nobody is forcing you to vote.

“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.”

I don’t know how this is relevant here. Letby HAS been convicted. The question is should she have been. There’s a difference between “flawed evidence” and no evidence at all, which is true in this case. Far from being “black and white” on this, I have come to this conclusion after over a year of following this case during which time my mind changed from assuming she was guilty, to thinking “surely she must have done this, I’m overlooking something” to “I have searched far and wide, read everything I can, and I still haven’t seen anything that stands up in this case”. I have an opinion formed following a rigorous process and it is my opinion that she is probably innocent, but it is a certainty that her guilt hasn’t been evidentially proven. We wouldn’t be having this conversation if that weren’t true. I don’t have to pretend to hem and haw about that. My take is nuanced and thorough and well researched. 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.”

When did I infer that you invented anything? I did not say that.

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

Perhaps you need to turn this analytical lens on yourself. You took my comment far more personally than was reasonable. Maybe reflect on that?

The grandstanding and egos on this thread are a riot. I would love to find it again once the CCRC find there is no reason to refer the case for an appeal.

Pot/kettle.

What makes you 100% certain that the verdict was correct?

All that you gave kept on saying is that it was proven in court. But you haven’t been willing to discuss any further. It’s been pointed out that there have been miscarriages of justice.

No one here is saying that she is innocent. But it is very unusual for so many people to be questioning a guilty verdict.

Absolutely no one on this thread is defending a baby killer. I also haven’t seen anyone claim that they believe LL is innocent.

There has been a TV programme which highlighted many flaws in the prosecution case there has been a panel of medical experts that have spoken out about the prosecution case.

It is only right and fair that the public can discuss this and question the verdict.

It is in no ones interest for there to be a wrongful conviction.

You keep talking vaguely in a critical tone like this but never giving any examples.

“I would love to find it again once the CCRC find there is no reason to refer the case for an appeal.”

You can use Google Alerts for key phrases like "Lucy Letby CCRC decision" or "Criminal Cases Review Commission”. Save this thread link in your notes or reminders app. When you get the alert about the decision, that’s your trigger to check the thread.

You should do that 👍🏻

@EmmaB13 This is the most bizarre thing though because at any given moment you all appear prepared to say “we’re not saying she’s innocent” and yet the OP and poll is guilty or not guilty.

If we are going to face the squeamishness of what this actually boils down to, how do you feel about potentially - yes potentially - undermining the conviction of a guilty woman? What does that look like on the other side?

And yes, the tone of the thread is aggressive - contrary at the very best. This hasn’t really been a discussion.

Quite! It’s simply not logical at this point for anyone to have absolutely zero doubts about this case. There is clearly, at the very least, doubt.

If you read the explanation in the OP, Not guilty is a legal conclusion about whether or not the state met its burden of proof.

It's not about whether people think she's actually guilty or not, it's about whether people think guilt was proven

I'm not the one you asked but personally I am a strong believer in blackstones ratio, that it's better for 10 guilty people to go free rather than 1 innocent person be locked up.