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

The defence failed to put on their own expert to explain how what the prosecution experts were saying actually made no sense.

Ben Myers is a very good KC. If he didn't call those witnesses, it wouldn't have been because he forgot, or wasn't good at his job. It would have been because he (correctly) judged that if he put them up, he stood to lose more in the cross than he stood to gain in direct.

Out of interest, what innocent explanation do Letby supporters give for the loss of 25% of Baby E’s blood? Is this a reasonably common occurrence in premature babies?

Why did you insert “correctly” in brackets? You have no basis for knowing that whatsoever. Indeed he lost the case!

So at Baby E’s weight of 1400g he’d have had a blood volume of approx 100mls. So would only need to lose 25ml to lose a quarter of his volume. The doctors I believe estimated the blood loss from the amount of blood they saw him lose. Which may be accurate it may not be.

There’s a lot of research into how inaccurate visual estimates are. To the extent when I used to work in clinical education I would show photos of blood spills, blood soaked incos, etc and ask people to estimate, often way out.

Anyway the blood loss at the time, by doctors who saw it put it down to a gastric bleed which can occur spontaneously in neonates. The doctors who witnessed the bleed and collapse were so sure it was natural causes they didn’t ask for a post mortem. 🤷‍♀️

but yes it can be quite common, it’s more common the more premature the baby is, more common in boys, baby could have developed NEC, could have developed a clotting issue which again happens with prem babies.

edited for typo

Yes, all of that is available online.

It seems to be missed though because the doctors said stuff like how they were 'doing well' and that's the soundbite that goes around the world and the headline that's printed...even though the rest of the testimony clearly shows that there were major issues.

Prem neonates are at high risk of haemorrhage. NEC was suspected/diagnosed at the time, could also be sepsis/DIC.

If you read the detailed description of Baby E here lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/ll-part-13-the-demise-of-baby-e lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/ll-part-13-the-demise-of-baby-e]]]] there is literally nothing here which makes me think the baby was murdered. He was a low birthweight, premature, I’m ot actually sure what gestation but the weight suggests very early.

he was never particularly well and sadly this doesn’t seem to have been recognised by the nurse caring for him. He was showing signs of respiratory distress from day 1 which weren’t acted on, from his blood gases it looks like maybe going into respiratory acidosis, he was hyperglycaemic which again wasn’t picked up. 🤷‍♀️. Had signs of sepsis.

@Tandora it was a correct decision by Myers, because the experts who have spoken up since in the media didn't have a plausible alternative explanation to offer for the deaths, so it would have been detrimental to LL's case to put them up. He did a good job of casting doubt where he could, and up until the point of LL giving evidence things could've gone either way, but there really wasn't that much wriggle room after she took the stand. Have you heard the transcripts of her giving evidence?

What rubbish!

Look how quickly the hearts and minds of the public are being changed on this case because of the experts who have spoken out in the media and explained how and why the prosecution theories make no sense. At the time of the original conviction it was unthinkable on mumsnet to question her guilt- now it’s 50/50.

Myers lost the case, it’s ludicrous to try to insist he was proven to have made the right decision not to challenge the prosecution testimony with a medical expert. He . Lost. The. Case. His client is in jail serving 14 whole life orders.

The burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she murdered the babies. Tthey didn't do that.

Erm, they did? Which is why she’s in prison .

They convinced a jury of her guilt based on unproven retrospective hypotheses and circumstantial evidence that left enough reasonable doubt for experts in the field of neonatal expertise to openly question the conviction.

Exactly. ALL those kids died/nearly died under her care. How can this be a coincidence?

It all stopped since she left.

I honestly think people who try to exonerate particularly heinous murderers have a screw loose.

I haven't seen anything to discredit the evidence that was brought to trial? The insulin tests weren't unreliable; Letby herself accepted them. Evans identified the suspicious cases before the chart was built, so it was never going to show all the deaths which had clear causes. That's the way round you'd want to make the chart. The trial was painstaking in proving she had the opportunity and the means, and she's had all the due process she has a right to. There's nothing new to see here. Treating it all like a battle for hearts and minds is just disrespectful to the parents concerned.

Well none of us are going to understand why someone is a serial killer (especially of babies) are we? But they all have their motives. And yes if she's a narcissist (and I strongly suspect she is) she'd potentially do absolutely anything to fill the void she has with attention from others. Narcs see other people as objects, they have no empathy. A couple of the babies parents said similar in their impact statements- that their babies were just collateral damage in her constant quest for drama.

I haven't seen anything to discredit the evidence that was brought to trial?

Really? I think you have some reading on the case to do.

A few people on MN and a couple of people
in the media do not represent the ‘hearts and minds of the public’

It’s a lot more than “a few people” I’m afraid.
Over the last few weeks there has been a continuous stream of articles in all the major newspapers , from across the political spectrum , casting doubt on this case. There’s an MP tabling questions for parliament . Groups of experts from various disciplines have been mobilising to write letters and make statements about the case.
And you can see the impact that it’s having on public opinion.
Mumsnet is its own little microcosm of course- and not perfectly representative of the broader population in many respects (eg tends to skew middle class and liberal), however the major shift in perspective in the polls here hasn’t happened spontaneously in a vacuum, it will reflect a broader pattern in how public perceptions are starting to shift.

I've read the lawhealthandtech article and quite frankly would not trust that source as telling the truth. Weird misspellings as if the person writing regarding medical facts knows jackshit. ie the CRP results of a neonate as one example.

Also - the same author sets out an article saying how marvellous Tommy Robinson is - and how he didn't ever spread hateful racist messages on Twitter.

You can't trust everything you read on the internet - be careful of your sources.

As an aside @CormorantStrikesBack I love your username - can't wait for the next book coming out soon..

Yes, all of that is available online

Where?

IMO … the UK legal system is robust and this conviction solid.
If letter writing campaigns, experts opinion on specific evidence which was cross examined/tested - but not the trial/evidence as a whole, media opinions and MN opinions are all it takes to overturn a murder conviction then our legal system is doomed.

Do you not realise that much of the origin of this is PR paid for in cash and/or favour in order to sway public sympathy for a client?

Politicians for sure would “consider” and “ask questions” if they thought it would benefit them in terms of support. Experts, pundits news media - for profile and clicks all sell outs for attention & readship.

LL: tried under intense scrutiny, had competent legal team, found guilty by jury of her peers.
The end.

I’ve found a podcast (The trail of Lucy Letby) which summarises the evidence presented at the trial which I’m listening too.

At the risk of turning on a six pence it does seem rather nebulous so far.

The best podcast is “We need to talk about Lucy Letby”.

I think we do have a robust system but the reason WHY it is robust is because there is a process for appeals, even after earlier appeals have failed, open justice with a press that is free to comment on cases and politicians who can get involved.
Not because jury trials are infallible.

In the testimony that was reported on say the Chester standard and in some of the news articles.
Is there any in particular you want help finding? let me know and I can find it for you.