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

I agree OP- I don't have a strong belief in her innocence but I do find it surprising that the jury felt her guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt.

But I don't think the notebooks mean anything at all, particularly if written after many babies (one way or another) died on her watch, and she knew she was under suspicion.

A friend of mine's close family member was murdered by someone she loved, and she used diary-writing as a technique to get the anger out. She said she sounds like a deranged killer in them and would never show anyone in her life.

I don't think it's a typical thing for all people (which is probably why people see it as such a sign of guilt) but I think if you've been through something awful and have survivor's guilt, it's not uncommon nor suspicious.

Really? You do know that all evidence is presented to the defence for them to scrutnise? You do know that she gave evidence and was not believed as she lied. You do know that she had one person testify for her who was a plumber...

Not one expert was called by the defence to provide expert witness testimony to challenge the prosecution case. Why not oh wise one?

It’s already been revealed that door swipe data was incorrect

It was corrected for the second trial and she was still found guilty.

She was caught standing next to a baby whose breathing tube was dislodged and doing nothing. When the Dr arrived she commented on it so was clearly aware. That is not the behaviour of a heath professional diligently caring for a sick baby. The breathing tube "dislodged itself" 3 times and she didn't report it for the baby's notes. "I can't answer that" she said, when asked why.

Jury did not find her guilty on all counts some verdicts they hung on. Tells me they were competent, diligent and painstaking in their deliberations. But you have read about this somewhere on the back of a fag packet and think you know more than the jury who were present for nine months. So insulting.

This is why I now consider everything presented in the trial as cherry picked information rather than all the information and factual evidence. A lot based on opinions as well.

One poor baby had repeated failed attempts at Intubation by a dr which could have caused damage. I’m unsure if this was the same baby who had apparently horrendous internal liver injuries that they allege LL caused but nothing was witnessed and the baby had no outward sign of any injury whatsoever- it just doesn’t add up. I’m extremely glad that we are seeing so much about this in the news currently. I think it’s vital this is relooked at . If I worked in the nhs now I’d be terrified .

its not normal and to be honest sounds a bit odd to me.

seems like a poorly run hospital in general

Yet there was no spike in deaths til LL started working in the NNICU.

So many unlucky coincidences for Lucy!

I have been reading these articles in the guardian and they seem to focus on raising loads of doubts in the trial but without coming forward with real evidence of misconduct.

We were not part of the jury, we didn’t see the full picture of evidence that was delivered, the testimonials that were produced etc. it’s like everyone else directly involved in the process were stupid, just Felicity in The Guardian and her sources (most with no direct involvement in the case from what I recall from previous articles) are seeing the potential injustice here.

I’m a neonatal mum so I’m biased, this case upsets immensely as I feel it keeps going mainly because it generates traffic and Lucy is a young, blonde, typical next-door British girl. Those poor families deserve peace knowing justice was made.

No worries, I’ll try and find the article.

Here is one about how it took Letby four attempts to kill Baby I. She was a resilient baby.

In a statement read to the court, Child I's mother said her daughter was about six weeks old when she thought the infant might be well enough to go home.
"I started to notice that she was looking different," she said.
"She was looking around the room now, taking it all in.
"I was able to sit her on my knee. I remember looking at her and thinking, 'we are going home'.
"She looked like a full-term baby, she didn't look frail or small."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-64402636.amp

Possibly they died of natural causes. And no, sadly babies have not stopped dying

What did her rambling notes say??

I’ve had 2 babies in nicu and on so many occasions machines were beeping and the nurses would watch and wait for a bit in case the baby recovered themselves it’s not an uncommon practice

Why do you think it has stopped?? Babies die in hospital all the time. It's not generally of public interest.

A mother who entered the ward to her baby's screams and saw blood around their mouth, walked up to her as the nearest staff member and asked her what had happened. She was dismissive.

She later (in court) said she couldn't remember the interaction at all. There was a lot she couldn't remember.

Her colleague said that if there was a collapse, people would immediately say to each other "Lucy's on, isn't she".

Frightening thing for any parent of a child in a NICU to read I would think.

She also falsified notes to place herself elsewhere at some collapses.

Were they waiting for the babies to adjust breathing tubes that had been dislodged?

I write notes, on my phone mostly but over the last eighteen months ive had some huge stress and often write things in my phone as a way of getting it out of my brain going round and round. Written down I know it's there but I'm not obsessing over that thought.

I have no opinion on her verdict as I didn't follow the trial in any depth

What she was actually doing was changing the notes to throw suspicion away from herself. Nurses testified to that.

I'm beginning to think it's not actually
about her guilt or innocence - and let's face it, it's hugely probable shes guilty

It's about how safe her conviction is and all the stuff gradually coming out now seems to point to an unsafe conviction

Can I see it being overturned in the future? Maybe

The Court of Appeal reviewed the evidence at the trial, and the judge's directions to the jury, in some considerable detail - the judgment is available here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf

It's well worth reading as they looked at it all over three days, reviewed the transcripts of the trial, etc.

I'm not saying the Court of Appeal is perfect or beyond reproach, but it is the only analysis which takes account of all the evidence.

Curiously, the Defence didn't call a psychologist to analyse the notes, or give evidence as to how common these kinds of scribbled "confessions" are amongst the acutely unwell but innocent. Nor did they call evidence from the occupational therapist whose idea it was. Nor, for that matter, did they call evidence from statisticians, or from any other experts.

There are two possible explanations:

• It simply didn't occur to Letby or her team to do so. This would appear to be wrong as there was at least one expert who gave a report to the Defence but wasn't called to give evidence.
• They tried to obtain evidence, but either they couldn't find an appropriate expert, or they did find such experts, and their reports or preliminary findings were considered to be unhelpful.

We won't know, because Letby doesn't have to disclose her legal advice and her legal team can't do so without her permission. But, on the face of it, the second explanation would appear more likely than the former.

One expert who did write a report says he "doesn't know" why he wasn't called - he clearly thinks he might have been of use. But here's the thing. The expert probably won't be told the reason why he/she isn't called - for example if the legal team are worried that they will give interviews to the press later and waive the confidentiality of the explanation. An expert's duty is to assist the court, not one side or another. But the Defence aren't under a duty to call an expert purely because he or she might throw some light on the matter - so if the Defence have reason to think it might be unhelpful, they are not going to do so.

One would think it would also be common practice to check their breathing tube was in.

Which they were extremely unlikely to have been able to displace themselves.

I agree, and it took a YEAR to gather all the evidence before the trial.

Of course she's bloody guilty! If she was a big hair bloke people would be demanding the death penalty be brought back but because she's blonde and sweet looking people make excuses for her.

It happened so much to my babies and I saw with others too. If my ds oxygen dipped they’d watch for a bit, check his nasal prongs weren’t moved by looking etc. they’d often silence the alarm if it kept going off and it was just the prongs. If not then they’d watch a while then intervene. It sounds awful but when you’re there you do see that a lot of the time the babies right themselves