“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”
No, the deaths were not thought to be suspicious at the time. Some of them, like Baby O, should have been referred to the coroner by the consultants, but were not. Not even when they were talking to each other about these deaths being possible murders. That, in retrospect is suspicious imo, and the coroner questioned this at Thirlwall, but it’s not suspicious as regards Letby. It’s the consultant’s ethical (and I believe legal) duty to inform the coroner of suspicious deaths.
Why did the consultants not do this? Was their priority making sure that they themselves didn’t come under fire? I can’t think of any other reason for not going to the coroner (or the police or anyone of the other avenues that were open to them) if they suspected a baby killer was stalking the wards. They waited over a year before going to the police. Why? I’d like to know.
There is no good reason to think that the post mortems were inaccurate. Those original pathologists are the only people to have seen or examined the actual babies - the pathologist at trial made his report based on notes and Dr Evans’s report. None of the expert witnesses saw or examined the babies at all. Unless the og pathologists were in cahoots with Letby it’s hard to see how they coincidentally missed signs of murder so obvious that Dewi Evans was able to diagnose it “within ten minutes over a coffee” as he himself claims.
I think it’s far more likely that the original pathologists were correct and that Evans is a crank.
“just hearing all the overall evidence about her demeanour, how she initially failed her nurse assessment”
First of all, demeanour etc is nothing if there were no murders in the first place, which now looks to be the case. it’s also not “evidence”.
Be careful you’re not taking prosecution allegations in court (which I promise you could easily misrepresent any one of us as unhinged) and/or lurid tabloid content to judge her “demeanour”.
Yes she failed a nursing placement once, but have you never failed anything? If so you’re an exception. Not everyone gels and student nurses often fail nursing placements. She passed the next time.
Be careful also of condemnatory statements made in retrospect, years after someone has been thoroughly monstered in the press and branded a child serial killer.
Nicola Lightfoot did not write “cold” in the original placement assessment at the time.
That description came years later, when she gave evidence to the Thirlwall Inquiry (2024) about her recollection of Letby’s behaviour during that failed student placement.
When she gave evidence to Thirlwall, she described Letby using significantly more emotive language. She then said Letby was “cold,” etc.
At the time of the assessment (circa 2011), her official feedback was that Letby had failed to meet some of the required competencies for a children’s nurse, particularly around communication and interaction with patients and families. But the specific word “cold” appears to be retrospective language she used in 2024 to sum up the impression she had formed in retrospect, which again is filtered through the context of Letby as a confirmed child killer.
For me I’m much more struck by how little they could dredge up to smear Letby with. I guarantee you they could find more dirt on me if they dug into every corner of my life since birth, which they did for her. Stupid things like fights with ex boyfriend’s, disagreements with managers, the neighbour I had a horrendous time with when I first lived alone, god knows what. Unless one is extremely angelic and has lived a perfect life, the same is probably true of most of us.
“reading all her messages (bordering upon obsession) to members of staff, her reactions to the deaths,….I just get the sense that something isn’t right.”
Thats likely because all of these things have been framed as weird by prosecution allegations in court, tabloid newspapers, a daily Mail podcast - which has been revealed to have been taking payments from Cheshire police, etc. I don’t know where you got this from exactly, but it’s unlikely that you heard about these things from any other source than the above.
If someone dug into every nook and cranny of your life, or mine, determined to make you look strange in a context where you’ve been accused of child murder, I guarantee you they would find at least as much if not more. I again think in that context Letby is totally unremarkable. Is that really the worst they could dig up?
“obsessively searching for the parents on Facebook (particularly on certain dates) etc,”
She didn’t “obsessively search” the parents on Facebook. She made in total 31 searches for parents out of 2,381 total searches. She didn’t search for all of the parents. The other searches were for people she knew, people she met at salsa class etc.
Is it perfectly correct for a nurse to do this in terms of GDPR etc? No. Can I imagine doing it if I’d spent a long time with a family whose baby had eventually died? Yes. It’s human to wonder how they’re getting on.
Bear in mind that many of the parents liked her at the time. One set wanted her to be godmother! She’s only been framed as a weirdo creep in retrospect and if I was told my baby was murdered by someone, I am certain my every memory of them would change colour entirely.
Which dates do you find troubling? If it’s the Christmas Day search, she was on shift that day and looked them up in a quiet moment. She wasn’t sitting curled up by the fire watching Its a Wonderful Life with her parents or something.
“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.”
I don’t agree at all! I feel that she looked as normal as one can in the context. Intimidated but holding it together.
No offence, but I always flinch a bit when people say they are into true crime and are judging Letby in that context, which comes with a particular filter. True crime content doesn’t train you for anything except the expectation that you’ll find a killer around every corner. If you watch a lot of crime investigations you’re watching a lot of content that centres on a guilty person. You’re used to framing the interviewee as guilty.
What exactly stuck out to you and why? Is this really not how a normal person might behave? I think you’re reading a lot into nothing there.
“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.”
Look, I know your heart is in the right place here, but just think about that for a moment - you say you’d rather that these people’s babies had been murdered?
Don’t you think it will be far better, if still very tragic, if it turns out that they hadn’t been murdered?
When the police knocked on their doors years after their babies died to tell them that Lucy Letby murdered their baby, they had already buried their beloved child. Grieved. Some thankfully had another child or children now. They may still have been healing, grieving, but life was moving on. That’s when the nightmare began in earnest.
If it turns out there were no murders in the first place, which now looks to be the case based on the extremely flimsy medical evidence, that should never have happened.
Again, as I say frequently to others, literally nothing matters if there were no murders. The rest is like trying to nail jelly to a wall.
Not one shred of it is evidence of murder. The medical evidence is all that matters.