Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Lucy Letby’s scribbled notes

1000 replies

Figmentofmyimagination · 03/09/2024 22:16

At times when I’m feeling acutely distressed, it’s not at all unusual for me to scribble all sorts of dreadful thoughts down on paper eg die die die, hate hate hate, I hate you, I hate you, what’s the point of you, my fault, stupid me, etc etc etc, usually scribbling them all out so nobody can see what I’ve written. I’m pretty sure this is quite a common response to acute mental distress. I agree with this article that it feels very surprising that Letby’s scribblings were used as evidence of a ‘confession’.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/03/i-am-evil-i-did-this-lucy-letbys-so-called-confessions-were-written-on-advice-of-counsellors

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
Marinade · 04/09/2024 12:22

RoyallyEFFEDOFF · 04/09/2024 12:07

A competent and respected nurse doesn’t harass families. She had to be told to leave a family alone when they were saying goodbye to their baby, that she was later convicted of murdering

A respected and competent nurse doesn’t neglect the patients she’s been assigned because the horrible little ghoul wanted the more poorly children

A competent and respected nurse doesn’t shout at a colleague who alerted for help when a baby was desaturating

Her colleagues stated they used to look at eachother and say “Lucy’s on” when a baby would crash. That isn’t competent or respected. That’s a predator, a cold evil monster

💯She pursued at least one baby she had already sought to kill but who recovered in order to continue her quest to murder them by interfering with their breathing tube. This is all in evidence and was referred to by the Judge in her sentencing. Stalking the grieving parents on Facebook is in evidence.

But certain people on here are willing to disregard the actual evidence presented, normalise her abhorrent behaviour and seek to set out speculative arguments. There is a reason why no expert witness was called to give evidence that would support a defence theory. Perhaps the defence thought it would not stand up to cross examination by the prosecution or the Judge was not willing to accept the expert's opinion in court.

cadburyegg · 04/09/2024 12:38

A lot of LL's behaviour was weird. That doesn't make her a killer. She may even have been guilty of medical negligence. That's different from murder. The nhs sees hundreds of needless deaths per month. Some of them will be due to medical negligence. That doesn't mean the staff involved murdered them.

The "you don't know better than the jury" theory doesn't wash when several experts have stated that some of the evidence presented to the jury was misleading. That's why this people keep discussing this case, more information keeps coming to light that sheds doubt on the safety of the conviction. It has nothing to do with the way she looks

Marinade · 04/09/2024 12:44

cadburyegg · 04/09/2024 12:38

A lot of LL's behaviour was weird. That doesn't make her a killer. She may even have been guilty of medical negligence. That's different from murder. The nhs sees hundreds of needless deaths per month. Some of them will be due to medical negligence. That doesn't mean the staff involved murdered them.

The "you don't know better than the jury" theory doesn't wash when several experts have stated that some of the evidence presented to the jury was misleading. That's why this people keep discussing this case, more information keeps coming to light that sheds doubt on the safety of the conviction. It has nothing to do with the way she looks

I don't know more than the jury and neither does anyone on this thread unless they were on the jury. The reason why I know this is because they listened to nine months worth of evidence and witness testimony, including from LL herself. She was not believed and had the jury believed her over the other evidence this would at least amount to a reasonable doubt. So yes please let us give credence to the jury.

3tumsnot1 · 04/09/2024 12:48

Tandora · 04/09/2024 00:40

I thought I was too dumb and lowly for there to be any point engaging with me?

What do I think is wrong with the conviction? Well I could write an essay on that.
If I had to pick out my biggest concern? the vast majority of the medical “evidence” is based on wild speculation/ theory/ hypothesis (eg murder by injection of air into the stomach) that does not stand up to scientific scrutiny and has been completely picked apart by any number of experts since the trial.

It is deeply troubling that the jury did not hear these alternative perspectives at trial- that there was no medical expert on the stand to counter the prosecution witness.

(The role of the prosecution witness in the investigation, his relationship to the police, and his conduct in previous trials is also reason for concern).

It is also very concerning that the jury did not hear substantial evidence concerning the systemic failings in the hopsital.

Finally it was concerning that there was no statistician to put the so-called highly unusual “spike” in deaths , and letbys presence at the deaths, in an appropriate statistical context.

These are the headlines, there are many many more…

This. The whole thing was a complete shambles. All reports detailing this were kept out of the media until after the trial.

No one on here knows if she is innocent or guilty, but what can be said, whether people like it or not was that the ‘evidence’ was biased and there was no expert whiteness supporting letby. If I was in there, I would believe all the prosecuting expert whitenesses too…. Who wouldn’t ?

southpawsofthenorth · 04/09/2024 12:54

I think she's guilty and I agree with posters saying she'd have far fewer supporters if black, Muslim and so on

Indeed.

Starlingexpress · 04/09/2024 12:57

cadburyegg · 04/09/2024 12:38

A lot of LL's behaviour was weird. That doesn't make her a killer. She may even have been guilty of medical negligence. That's different from murder. The nhs sees hundreds of needless deaths per month. Some of them will be due to medical negligence. That doesn't mean the staff involved murdered them.

The "you don't know better than the jury" theory doesn't wash when several experts have stated that some of the evidence presented to the jury was misleading. That's why this people keep discussing this case, more information keeps coming to light that sheds doubt on the safety of the conviction. It has nothing to do with the way she looks

Why weren’t those experts in court, rather than the daily mail or whatever other gutter publication has latched on to this?

And information keeps coming to light because people keep making crap up, presenting it as ‘facts’ and the gullible conspiracy theorists lap it up.

It’s so disgusting that the parents

of the babies Letby murdered are having to see this madness unfold.

Terridactyl · 04/09/2024 13:02

Those saying she was innocent, just out of curiosity, what do you think happened? Just coincidental deaths on a failing unit?

Would you be happy if Letby were allowed to return to caring for babies? would you let her care for yours or a newborn relative of yours?

I am only wondering if there is strength in the convictions of people defending her or if it’s about getting swept up in the conspiracy theories of it all.

BeyondSmoake · 04/09/2024 13:04

@NoButBut I'm more scientifically qualified than a random criminal solicitor - that's not a value judgment, it's just a fact. Just like they are more legally qualified than i am 🤷🏼‍♀️

A coroner is ideally duel-qualified. I just think that in a case such as this, it would be better if the legal team was too.

And yes, I probably have seen her at some point, it just didn't register as I wasn't interested in her - I was interested in the case itself.

commonsense61 · 04/09/2024 13:05

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

Feelinadequate23 · 04/09/2024 13:05

She didn't offer any kind of defence. Just "I didn't do it and can't explain all this very convincing evidence against me". So of course she did it. Why on earth not present some alternative evidence otherwise?

Shame on people being swayed by a blonde haired young woman. Evil comes in all shapes and forms you know.

Mirabai · 04/09/2024 13:08

RoyallyEFFEDOFF · 04/09/2024 12:07

A competent and respected nurse doesn’t harass families. She had to be told to leave a family alone when they were saying goodbye to their baby, that she was later convicted of murdering

A respected and competent nurse doesn’t neglect the patients she’s been assigned because the horrible little ghoul wanted the more poorly children

A competent and respected nurse doesn’t shout at a colleague who alerted for help when a baby was desaturating

Her colleagues stated they used to look at eachother and say “Lucy’s on” when a baby would crash. That isn’t competent or respected. That’s a predator, a cold evil monster

She was asked to keep an eye on another baby as the nurse was concerned about it. Of course nurses are going to want to help parents in distress, it’s entirely natural.

The fact is the professional body who reviewed the unit and had access to all kinds of material you know nothing of, and interview her colleagues - concluded that she was competent and respected nurse.

That 4 consultants made wild, medically implausible claims on zero evidence in an effort to protect their careers does not alter that.

And if you go through the medical data - you can see quite how much suboptimal and negligent care there was on the unit - but it was coming from the doctors not the nurses, although understaffing of both was undoubtedly a factor.

Unexpectedlysinglemum · 04/09/2024 13:10

samarrange · 03/09/2024 22:22

As someone who is rather sceptical of the verdict, I've been unsure what to make of this part of the evidence up to now. There have been some miscarriages of justice based around confession written by suspects with a history of MH issues or LD, but Letby didn't seem to be such a person. So this was very much in the "on the other hand" side of the ledger for me.

But if this is true, and she was told to write down these feelings by counsellors, and that fact was withheld from the jury, that seems to me to be a whole leg knocked from under the prosecution's case.

I agree it's a bit terrifying

Unexpectedlysinglemum · 04/09/2024 13:11

HelloMiss · 03/09/2024 22:25

If she didn't kill those babies then who did??

Funny how it's all stopped..

Whoever was doing it when they realized they were getting away with it due to Lucy being blamed?

Or maybe everyone was a bit slack and now they're all much more careful after what happened? (Including management staffing better etc)

Mirabai · 04/09/2024 13:16

Starlingexpress · 04/09/2024 12:57

Why weren’t those experts in court, rather than the daily mail or whatever other gutter publication has latched on to this?

And information keeps coming to light because people keep making crap up, presenting it as ‘facts’ and the gullible conspiracy theorists lap it up.

It’s so disgusting that the parents

of the babies Letby murdered are having to see this madness unfold.

This is the 60 million dollar question. It is unknown why the defence failed to call its expert witnesses - whatever the rationale the strategy backfired spectacularly.

The New Yorker, the Telegraph, The Guardian, The Economist - which is where the stories first appeared - are hardly gutter press.

MistressoftheDarkSide · 04/09/2024 13:17

I am not defending Lucy Letby per se, I'm defending the right to a fair and unbiased trial, which this patently was not. I'm in the position if having been in and at the mercy of the system in the context of contentious medical evidence in a not unrelatable scenario.

If a doctor says that something has been done deliberately and you say you didn't but can't prove it, the system goes with the weight of professional opinion and the balance of probabilities over protestations of innocence. After all, if the "evidence" didn't exist, you wouldn't be in this position would you? However, opinion is not fact and if a variety of opinions exist, assuming the worst is not a rational view point. It is the worst catch 22 for average Joe to navigate, having to learn specialities like "medecine" and "law" while emotions are running high and you are living in the upside down.

Experts are human beings with egos, and often the best of intentions, however if they have built reputation and livelihood on a particular dogma, backing down can be extremely challenging.

In this case some of the medical evidence isn't even based on dogma, it's hypothesised and retro-fitted into a very murky overall picture. And Lucy Letby was tried by media as well - there is no way the jury could have completely avoided the hoopla.

MintyNew · 04/09/2024 13:19

Clearly she's a woman so can do no wrong.

BeyondSmoake · 04/09/2024 13:22

MistressoftheDarkSide · 04/09/2024 13:17

I am not defending Lucy Letby per se, I'm defending the right to a fair and unbiased trial, which this patently was not. I'm in the position if having been in and at the mercy of the system in the context of contentious medical evidence in a not unrelatable scenario.

If a doctor says that something has been done deliberately and you say you didn't but can't prove it, the system goes with the weight of professional opinion and the balance of probabilities over protestations of innocence. After all, if the "evidence" didn't exist, you wouldn't be in this position would you? However, opinion is not fact and if a variety of opinions exist, assuming the worst is not a rational view point. It is the worst catch 22 for average Joe to navigate, having to learn specialities like "medecine" and "law" while emotions are running high and you are living in the upside down.

Experts are human beings with egos, and often the best of intentions, however if they have built reputation and livelihood on a particular dogma, backing down can be extremely challenging.

In this case some of the medical evidence isn't even based on dogma, it's hypothesised and retro-fitted into a very murky overall picture. And Lucy Letby was tried by media as well - there is no way the jury could have completely avoided the hoopla.

I saw your posts on one of the other threads, mistress Flowers might be worth copying the post of your experience against medical professionals here?

Starlingexpress · 04/09/2024 13:27

Mirabai · 04/09/2024 13:16

This is the 60 million dollar question. It is unknown why the defence failed to call its expert witnesses - whatever the rationale the strategy backfired spectacularly.

The New Yorker, the Telegraph, The Guardian, The Economist - which is where the stories first appeared - are hardly gutter press.

It’s not a 60 million dollar question. The defence team knew these ‘experts’ would be discredited immediately.

MistressoftheDarkSide · 04/09/2024 13:30

BeyondSmoake · 04/09/2024 13:22

I saw your posts on one of the other threads, mistress Flowers might be worth copying the post of your experience against medical professionals here?

I'm happy to elaborate at some point, but fear I'll be "pissing in the wind" here lol. Also, having been accused of attention seeking by professionals, mostly due to arguing with them and pointing out flaws in their reasoning, I'll also be accused of arrogance. Thank you for your kindness though. Much appreciated xxx

Icouldabeenalawyer · 04/09/2024 13:31

HelloMiss · 03/09/2024 22:25

If she didn't kill those babies then who did??

Funny how it's all stopped..

Well, potentially she has. It doesn’t mean she was given a fair trial.

however at the time letby was removed from the ward, the hospital was downgraded and therefore the sickest babies were not allowed to be sent to the countess to be cared for.

The hospital was already failing in its care for those poor babies.

Tandora · 04/09/2024 13:34

Starlingexpress · 04/09/2024 13:27

It’s not a 60 million dollar question. The defence team knew these ‘experts’ would be discredited immediately.

Do you have any basis for stating that other than the fact that the defence didn’t call them?

it’s a completely circular argument.
why didn’t the defence call the medical expert? Because they would be discredited immediately! How do you know they would be discredited immediately? Because the defence didn’t call them!

See how that works?

samarrange · 04/09/2024 13:36

MistressoftheDarkSide · 04/09/2024 13:17

I am not defending Lucy Letby per se, I'm defending the right to a fair and unbiased trial, which this patently was not. I'm in the position if having been in and at the mercy of the system in the context of contentious medical evidence in a not unrelatable scenario.

If a doctor says that something has been done deliberately and you say you didn't but can't prove it, the system goes with the weight of professional opinion and the balance of probabilities over protestations of innocence. After all, if the "evidence" didn't exist, you wouldn't be in this position would you? However, opinion is not fact and if a variety of opinions exist, assuming the worst is not a rational view point. It is the worst catch 22 for average Joe to navigate, having to learn specialities like "medecine" and "law" while emotions are running high and you are living in the upside down.

Experts are human beings with egos, and often the best of intentions, however if they have built reputation and livelihood on a particular dogma, backing down can be extremely challenging.

In this case some of the medical evidence isn't even based on dogma, it's hypothesised and retro-fitted into a very murky overall picture. And Lucy Letby was tried by media as well - there is no way the jury could have completely avoided the hoopla.

It's already well-known that surgeons are sometimes reluctant to operate on the sickest patients, because their outcomes are monitored and they do not believe that the scoring mechanism makes enough allowance for a will-probably-die-anyway-but-it's-worth-a-shot decision. "Mrs Harris? The one with the heart valve problem as well as the pancreatic tumour? Give it to young Sandy, it'll be valuable experience for them".

If I was a nurse completing training and considering whether to work in paediatric ICU or a general surgery recovery ward, a case like this (and that of Lucia de Berk, the Dutch nurse who case has a huge number of similarities to LL's) would probably be a factor in my choice.

CraigBrown · 04/09/2024 13:37

Funny how it's all stopped

No premature babies have died at the Countess of Chester since LL left? Lord be praised, it's a miracle.

Mirabai · 04/09/2024 13:39

Starlingexpress · 04/09/2024 13:27

It’s not a 60 million dollar question. The defence team knew these ‘experts’ would be discredited immediately.

Absolute twaddle.

How could a statistician be discredited for pointing out the flaws in the notorious spreadsheet, or a microbiologist/epidemologist for pointing out the proven link between bacteria in the water system and neonatal deaths in other units, and the proven presence of bacteria at the unit. How could a professor of neonatology be discredited for explaining the flaws in the air embolism or insulin theories and correctingmisleading claims made about premature neonates in general.

I tell you who will be discredited at the end of this - Dewi Evans. He’s on his way to the Roy Meadows scrapheap of expert witnesses. He may well end up struck off.

Starlingexpress · 04/09/2024 13:46

Mirabai · 04/09/2024 13:39

Absolute twaddle.

How could a statistician be discredited for pointing out the flaws in the notorious spreadsheet, or a microbiologist/epidemologist for pointing out the proven link between bacteria in the water system and neonatal deaths in other units, and the proven presence of bacteria at the unit. How could a professor of neonatology be discredited for explaining the flaws in the air embolism or insulin theories and correctingmisleading claims made about premature neonates in general.

I tell you who will be discredited at the end of this - Dewi Evans. He’s on his way to the Roy Meadows scrapheap of expert witnesses. He may well end up struck off.

Why were they not in court? It’s a simple question? Why were they not called as ‘expert witnesses’?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread