Lucy Letby: Have you changed your mind?

[Kittybythelighthouse]

The other thread has had a lot of really interesting discussion but we are running out of pages so here’s a new one for those who are interested in continuing the conversation.

Whether you’re sure she’s guilty, sure she isn’t, or are somewhere in between, I’m interested in hearing how your opinion has evolved (or hasn’t!) since you first heard about the case,

Please try to be respectful - this is a heated topic. Its a matter of huge public interest with a lot of strong opinions, but we are all adults and can disagree with each other in a respectful manner.

Old thread is here (the poll still has a few days left):
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5388914-lucy-letby-have-you-changed-your-mind?page=38&reply=146359313

Barrel well and truly scraped there I think.

Yes I will try to get to that. It might be a long one hence why I've not got around to answering it yet. But the jist of it is that a lot of the babies collapsed during special occasions (babies 100th day of life, father's day IIRC, when they were about to go home) and she would make comments to parents that she didn't like them to get their hopes up. It makes sense from a perspective of her being a narc that anyone being happy or hopeful is a huge threat to her ego. She also would go in rooms she wasn't supposed to go in a lot (had to be removed from the room a grieving family were in) and she would seemingly get very frustrated at not being able to work in room 1. It's the sort of thing that shows her crossing a lot of professional boundaries. There's far more I'll address when I get the time.

A.) I answered your point not once but twice.

B.) you didn't ask me to clarify my point. You hurled a load of emotive insults at me and were incandescent ,asking what being drunk had to do with being a serial killer.

"100th day of life" 🙄 If that isn't "clutching at straws" I don't know what is..

I don't remember any emotive insults at all. But sorry if it came across that way. I did wonder what being drunk had to do with being a serial killer, yes.

1 - Are you a professional psychiatrist?

2 - If you were you would know how deeply unprofessional and specious it is to attempt to diagnose a total stranger at a distance based on lurid tabloids, a podcast, a true crime fascination, and prosecution allegations/framing.

3 - None of what you posted here is of any relevance if there were no murders.

Looks like The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy has entered the chat, again.

I'm surprised she hasn't run out of straws to clutch and barrels to scrape. There is no point in presenting logical, well-evidenced, medically sound arguments. She's clearly decided LL is guilty "just because she is" and, like Dewi, will make the evidence fit however she can, even if it involves plucking "facts" out of her arse.

The best we can hope for is that she is never called to jury duty.

@Firefly1987 can I offer an olive branch and ask if you’d consider sticking to the evidence? Bringing up psychological profiling is irrelevant and it’s bound not to go down well. I’d like people who are pro verdict to engage in discussion also, but I want to keep it civil 💐

I think both things are true and not true of everyone.

I forgot to add in my earlier reply that Ward Platt worked closely with Meadow on some cases. It’s v likely I think that Evans did too (in the closed family courts). For those who don’t know, Meadow is the disgraced doctor behind the Sally Clark MoJ and Angela Cannings etc wrongful convictions for murdering their children. These specious cases, built on bad evidence and bad statistics (sound familiar?), ruined entire families.

Little known fact - in 2005 Dr Jayaram actually signed a letter in support of Roy Meadow when he was being struck off after the horrendous Sally Clark case.

Little known fact - in 2005 Dr Jayaram actually signed a letter in support of Roy Meadow when he was being struck off after the horrendous Sally Clark case.

That says a lot about him.

I truly believed the judge made the right decision when she was served her sentence. However after so many experts raised concerns about diagnosis discrepancies, I began to question the certainty of her conviction.

At the time of the deaths, I’m not sure they were ruled as suspicious so I don’t know how accurate the post mortems were (whether they fully examined all possible causes).

However, just hearing all the overall evidence about her demeanour, how she initially failed her nurse assessment and then went on to make an error administering too much insulin to a patient in her first role, reading all her messages (bordering upon obsession) to members of staff, her reactions to the deaths, obsessively searching for the parents on Facebook (particularly on certain dates) etc, I just get the sense that something isn’t right. The way she reacted in her police interview was off - I watch a lot of crime investigations of police interviews (!) so am quite interested in psychology and body language. It’s just a gut instinct I have that tells me she’s not innocent despite not wanting to believe someone could be capable of such a heinous act.

I truly hope she is guilty otherwise what an awful situation for not only her but those poor parents and families of the babies who have already been through a horrific ordeal and at least have some small comfort that justice has been served.

It's not lurid tabloids it's facts from the trial that LL agreed happened. And the prosecution brought up her behaviour many times and asked her why she did something so I do feel it's relevant. That's partly why the trial went on so long surely. I agree you shouldn't try to diagnose someone and I obviously can't-that's just my theory, but it explains a lot imo.

I just find her psychological profile interesting but if no one else does (or wants to dismiss it all as laughable or "barrel scraping") then that's absolutely fine. I don't like wasting my time and am only here for genuine discussion and I do think there's a place for both (ie the evidence AND her behaviour) but if this is not one of those threads then that's absolutely fine!

I’d like people who are pro verdict to engage in discussion also, but I want to keep it civil 💐

I was genuinely trying to! Just to clear things up-it's an emotive case and I think it's natural for posters to get worked up occasionally. If I do that it's not because I'm angry at anyone or trying to make things personal. But I am sorry if my tone comes across that way at times.

I think I'll bow out now as it's obvious what most posters think and it's all getting a bit too heated for me. @Kittybythelighthouse you and most others have been genuinely respectful and I think we've had some good discussions and I really appreciate that.

Yes and correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t they able to get some legal cover to hide a lot of the more personal messages exchanged? I’m sure I read that in an article. The Doctor declared he felt LL had used him to obtain information on the babies and fishing about what management was saying behind the scenes regarding the allegations. But as a married man and given his association with an alleged serial killer of course he is going to shift the blame.

“I was genuinely trying to! Just to clear things up-it's an emotive case and I think it's natural for posters to get worked up occasionally. If I do that it's not because I'm angry at anyone or trying to make things personal. But I am sorry if my tone comes across that way at times”

Tone completely gets lost in text so I understand. It’s a highly emotive case, as you say, with a lot of strong feelings bouncing around. You know that I don’t agree with you on this case, but I’m totally happy to engage with you (or anyone else who is pro verdict) if you want to come back to the conversation tomorrow or whenever, you're welcome.

“you and most others have been genuinely respectful and I think we've had some good discussions and I really appreciate that.”

Thanks for that! Given we don’t agree on much I do appreciate it. It’s always good to consider other views on a topic, even if we don’t ultimately agree 🙂

I'm not sure. I know he said ‘Dr A’ said he had suffered from severe anxiety for four years and believed he would struggle to give clear and accurate answers in court if his true identity was revealed. He also said his children, who were doing GCSEs and A-level examinations, were unaware of his involvement.

Why would he be so worried about his children being aware of his involvement when he wasn't being accused of any crime?

It does seem like something must have been agreed with him in advance about the text messages because he wasn't asked about them or his relationship with LL at all during the trial.

I think if you’ve been around the block a bit the dynamic there is pretty obvious. It’s extremely strange that a man - who either had or, wanted to have, an affair with a nurse he was old enough to have fathered - got lifelong anonymity. Same for the other anonymous witnesses (except for the parents/babies).

British justice is supposed to be open justice.

Usually such anonymity is granted when there is a serious chance of eg violent retribution from a gang someone is testifying against, not when a middle aged man is in the 💩 with his wife for having an affair. Just yet more weird and concerning stuff about this case

You cannot be guilty in part of murder though.

Other posters have mentioned the lack of acquaintances coming forward about LL’s character. I came across this interview from a high school friend (other than her best friend who has been quite vocal!) Again, it’s just speculation and can be viewed from different perspectives (which goes for a lot of things in this case!)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WH8wbJpFTs0

Interesting ( I might have posted this by accident on another thread so if anyone sees it let me know I will get it deleted)

Lucky none of you lot of conspiracy theorists were on the jury..

Sorry, what “conspiracy” exactly are we supposed to believe in?

The one where (must be close to 45ish that we know of) medical professionals and scientists speak out to members of the uk and international press outlets, consistently, over several years, all saying the same thing ‘something is very wrong here’

The only conspiracy I’ve seen on here this far is a self proclaimed psychiatrist diagnosing frok their armchair

I think the psychological profiling is dangerous without having a professional do it.

I’ve watched an organisation decide on the outcome they wanted because they believed ‘guilty’ on the basis of an accusation and then work backwards to find anything they think that fits, including attributing behaviours as ‘odd’ and ‘concerning’ - the person had previously had nothing but positive feedback. And after having their life completely ruined, that organisation was forced to apologise.

People go zebra hunting when what they're actually hearing are horse hooves. Working a case backwards from a starting point of ‘guilty’ is harmful.