Lucy Letby’s scribbled notes

[Figmentofmyimagination]

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

It is a fact that the Brearey first went through the rosta in 2015 after the first 3 deaths and alighted on LL despite the fact there was no evidence or concern with her practice. “Not nice Lucy”. We know this because he said so.

It is also a fact that the doctors ignored the pathologists, RCPCH, Hawdon, the managers, all of whom told them there was no evidence of anything but natural causes. Their reports are in the public domain.

It is also a fact that the bereaved parents were in discussion with medical negligence lawyers Slater and Gordon around the time the doctors went to the police. As one of the doctors said “until this is resolved we are all under suspicion”.

Let’s not forget the unit had already been criticised by the coroner for blunders leading to the death of Noah Robinson and it had already paid out £8.5 million in a civil negligence case for another child.

What precisely do you disagree with?

The "/" implies "or". Hth 🤷🏼‍♀️

I was referring to the posts where the bored housewives present themselves as expert witnesses in multiple specialities. Hth 😉

Well I certainly have no fear of that! But if that happened in an alternate universe sure I would come back here and say I was wrong. I've followed this case since her very first arrest and I thought she was innocent back then before we heard all the evidence. From what I remember all they said was these babies had died in unusual circumstances, had strange mottling and were not able to be revived as one would expect. Apart from that they just said this one nurse went on holiday and the deaths stopped whilst she was away. Not very compelling, but obviously they weren't going to tell the public what they had before the trial. Now we know they had incredibly compelling evidence, so I had to concede she is in fact guilty.

But if something comes out to prove there was some other serial killer on that unit or some other explanation for the deaths/collapses that made logical sense (though I can't imagine what) of course I'd accept she was innocent. However you can't seriously think there is the remotest possibility of that surely?

They’re not going to do it via a Mumsnet thread.

This. Very much this.

I'm a nicu nurse. If my memory serves me right this baby was a 27 weeker. NO SINGLE nicu nurse would stand and watch to see what baby would do after a breathing tube has been dislodged.

That alone is neglectful, often these babies are on morphine. So somewhat relaxed/sedated and cannot breath for them selves, a nicu nurse would remove breathing tube and breath for baby through a mask AND pull an emergency buzzer so help would arrive quickly

I still think she did it, there were too many 'coincidences' of her happening to be there when so many babies died etc more often than the rest of the nurses (though I know these were delicate babies.)

PP's have made good posts listing details showing she most likely did it (probably more babies than she got convictions for IMHO.)

Wow yes that's pretty damning.

The 25 dates on the chart cover a period of more than a year, during which a similar number of babies died. The origin of the chart itself was something that one of the consultants created to 'prove' Letby was the cause of the spike. A wide range of statisticians have demonstrated that it actually proves nothing.
It is very reminiscent of Roy Meadow's grandstanding declaration at Sally Clark's trial that two cot deaths in one family were the same odds as successfully picking the winner of the Grand National four years in a row.
Clark's conviction was eventually declared a miscarriage of justice, Meadow was struck off - but not before other women around the world were wrongly convicted on his faulty theory.

Andrew Malkinson has a similar list of people and organisations that were happy to see him locked up for a crime they knew he didn't commit.

It could be, but it could also be an indication of an issue during care, and she was assessing. This behaviour can indicate assessment and observation after accident, incompetence or malice.

My point is in a complex clinical setting situations occur frequently that do not have procedures and textbooks. In addition, a witness statement about a clinical incident can be flawed for many reasons. If a doctor had walked in on me and the nurse staring at a patient who to them is clearly not breathing, might have had a similar conclusion.

But then again being accused of murdering 12 babies isn’t a common occurance. Remembering this Katherine de Berger who worked for occupational health was employed by the trust.

This is EXACTLY what psychologists/therapists would do with someone struggling with difficult thoughts....

Write down intrusive thoughts however bizarre...

Then you would explore these in session.

These scribblings don't 'prove' anything...

Was the alleged therapist /counsellor ever interviewed??

I've no idea if she is guilty or not but was appalled that these scribblings were a key factor in the prosecution case.

They are easily attributed to something else (therapy session).

A jury can only deliberate on the evidence given. How can her only defence witness be ‘a plumber’ ? The expert witness wasn’t even a neonataloigist he was a paediatrician who had retired several years earlier. If these journals were encouraged by trust appointed counsellor why wasn’t this pointed out to the jury? If not why not?

According to one poster on MN she did her scan when she had a miscarriage & was horrible to her. This is how information gets twisted. No way a neonatal nurse would be doing adult miscarriage scans.

This isn’t about Lucy as such, this is about everyone whatever sex or colour they are that works in the NHS, they are allowed a ‘fair unbiased trial’. I am not sure she got that. A colleague said to me that she believed the doctors I said so doctors don’t lie? We both know that’s not true. Why were doctors kept out of the list who was on duty? These are questions her defence should have bought up, if not why not?

Surely it's worse for the hospital financially and publicity wise to have a serial killer as a scapegoat? People can understand hospitals being understaffed and underfunded more readily as a reason for poorer care. The trial will have put the hospital and the staff there under the spotlight.
Those that think LL has been scapegoated haven't come up with a plausible reason why her defence team couldn't put reasonable doubt into the minds of the jurors, they could have said all the arguments we've had here when they were cross examining, yet ot seems they didn't?

The thing is you can criticise armchair detectives and amateurs all you want , but professionals involved in these cases and legal matters are looking for innocence or guilt they are on the defence or the prosecution. They have to be thinking one way or another and presenting their side so not balanced at all so it makes sense almost to not take all they say as fact as 50% will be wrong by the very nature of the legal process.

Members of the jury are essentially amateurs that’s the point of it to have those who aren’t legally minded or qualified to take a balanced view. They get it right or they get it wrong much like anyone on here could but sometimes the benefit of naivety can mean you have your eyes fully open and will pick up on things that if you are in a court of law you may not. Often it could be way off but I do think sometimes there’s a benefit to amateur speculation.

The misogyny 😬😬

I didn’t criticise anyone, I just said no one needs to come back onto the thread and apologise, whatever the outcome.

it's totally normal in a therapeutic relationship

Well, given that’s it’s unlikely the entire crown prosecution service are in on the conspiracy, Letby has the option of appealing her sentence if she feels it was unfair.

I mean anyone in general criticising

Apologies- I just started another thread without seeing this one- did anyone see David Davies on good morning?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5HcW71BSGSM

and Rob Rinders comments on attached pic- I can’t see how there can’t be a criminal case review of this case