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’s true to say if everyone required had understood the science none of this would have happened.

Of course I have but that wasn’t the point I was making. All convictions whether wrongful or not are arrived at because a jury was convinced by the weight of compelling evidence presented in court of guilt. Now tell me otherwise.

So are you saying that none of the doctors and scientists who gave evidence agsinst Letby understood the science? And that it’s only the doctors, scientists and lay people like yourself who weren’t privy to the entire weight of evidence thst truly understand the science? Or are you blaming the jury for being thick and not having the scientific capabilty to pull apart the scientific case against the accused (a job which surely was the responsibility of the defence team to do so in court)?

What do you think your efforts on here are achieving exactly? You do realise it’s only your opinion that the investigation and conviction was shoddy right? Many disagree and think it was thorough and soundly conducted. Emotional manipulation is one way to describe an appeal to consider the additional trauma being heaped on the parents of murdered babies by so called justice warriors, it’s not how I would describe it however.

It’s getting more fanatical by the day

The campaign to free Letby has also turned hostile. One medical witness who gave evidence for the prosecution said they had been physically assaulted last week by a member of the public with “pro-Letby beliefs” and had reported the attack to the police. Cheshire police confirmed they were investigating. A second medical witness said they were considering referring a number of messages via social media to the police.

Nope.
Many people are not convinced by the evidence, if more did come out and it was strong and more convincing evidence then I guarantee that many would believe she was then guilty.

There's no weird agenda to believe that she's innocent no matter what, even though you keep insisting that there is.

The evidence was weak, there was no concrete proof that any of the babies were even murdered and there was certainly no concrete proof that she had harmed any.

@SweetcornFritter absolute madness! Bit like the craziness surrounding the Nicola Bulley case. If anyone has been brainwashed it's definitely the LL is innocent brigade, they give cult vibes and are in huge denial.

'Cult vibes' coming from you 😅and the tattle lot.
There's a reason that everyone else on the internet thinks that it's the most toxic place online, but you and that crowd are too delusional to see it.

You're not able to participate in discussion without throwing out insults all the time. There's really no need!

@kkloo well if you want to lump yourself in with people who are attacking medical professionals that's up to you. A few charlatans came out casting doubt on any and ALL evidence for their own ends (or because they're sad sacks that fancy her and want to rescue her) and you've eaten it right up. Yet some posters have the audacity to say it's the parents that have been brainwashed.

You do realise it’s only your opinion that the investigation and conviction was shoddy right?

nope.
What do I think I’m achieving? I’m participating in a democratic discussion about a possible terrible miscarriage of justice.

Your general experience is irrelevant. The point is that a doctor expert in neonatal care who was actually present could see that standing there doing nothing was not appropriate for that baby at that time.

That the doctor thought it was inappropriate does not mean she caused it, immediately knew the problem or intended to do continue doing nothing. It seems really weird as well that someone would intentionally do something, get caught in the act and then do it again later, much less weird that there was a fault with the equipment.

also weird that the doctor did nothing at the time, but later claimed he believed she was trying to deliberately harm/ kill the baby!

There you go again with your same nonsense because your brain is simply unable to comprehend that some other people are not convinced by the evidence.

Now they're sad sacks who fancy her 😂Do you go on like this in real life with people who disagree with you or is it only on the internet?

There really is no need.

People have said over and over again, the unit was down-graded to not take such seriously sick children when she left. No one is trying to exonerate heinous murderers. If there was concrete proof she committed murders, no one would be questioning anything. As it is, people are questioning the evidence, not supporting a serial killer.

Would you say that the doctors actions (in his version of events) were appropriate?

Actually I think it's very warranted considering the likes of Richard Gill et al have whipped all this up-and yes that has resulted in a medical witness being attacked according to a PP. And family of the babies have had to speak out about the upset it has caused.

I understand you are not convinced by the evidence, what I don't understand is WHY when the doctors, police, jury, family of the victims and most of the rest of the world is.

It isn't warranted though. People on here are trying to discuss it in a civilised manner, there's no reason to assume that any of the people on MN are involved in physically attacking or threatening any of the experts. And if there does end up being an appeal I'm sure those who are providing evidence in her favour will receive the same from the other side because there will always be a minority who take it too far. And it will probably be the tattle lot who are involved in that tbf. Just because a minority of people take it way too far doesn't mean you should attack others who simply aren't convinced by the evidence and who are trying to discuss it civilly.

Do you think you're going to change peoples minds by making out they love baby killers or saying they fancy Lucy Letby? You might get an occasional person agreeing with you but your posts reflect badly on you, not on the people you're criticizing.

It also doesn't really matter who 'whipped it up' though or who first spoke about it.
There's a whole culture online where people love doing deep dives into stuff so people were going to discuss it eventually. I think it's important to note that there are probably 'contrarians' as they're called who speak out about mainstream consensus for everything (or almost everything), yet most will never gain traction. Yet in this case there's quite a few journalists and experts etc who think that there may be something to this.

I don't know about the rest of the world thinking she's guilty, you seem to think that it's only on MN where people are very open to this being a miscarriage of justice, and that's just not true.

The point is, the regrading of the unit didn't happen the day she left, but the change in mortality rates did. Likewise deaths and collapses stopped happening in the daytime when she was on night duty and vice versa, and when she went on holiday.

Also deaths and collapses were happening whilst Letby was there amongst children who would have qualified for the regraded version of the neonatal unit.

She was only on holiday for a week or so.

There was months in between some of the apparently suspicious collapses or deaths even though she would have been working there the whole time.

They didn't have enough staff or consultants. They also added 2 extra consultants to the roster when they downgraded.
If they added 2 extra when they downgraded then how many extra should they have had when they were taking in more vulnerable babies?

This type of reasoning has to stop. There was a large spike in deaths on the unit 2015-16. Lucy Letby was found responsible for less than half of them. These statistical patterns you believe you are seeing don’t exist.

There were enough additional deaths to make the doctors take notice. Some experts say that this actually wasn't a statistically significant number of deaths and shouldn't have resulted in further action. I don't really understand that tbh - surely if something feels wrong about babies dying unexpectedly, it's right to look into it? By that logic, we shouldn't have safeguarding procedures in place in any org until there's been a statistically significant number of incidents. That's not how it works. The investigation that was could have found that a faulty machine or poor process in recognising/ treating sepsis or NEC was in place.

Nobody would be complaining if a small number of deaths had alerted the hospital to this. But it didn't - the fact that these deaths were not satisfactorily explained was the answer and a bad actor was the last explanation left.

The other thing I've seen is a statistician saying that when you include all the deaths that happened in the period on the chart, Lucy's involvement would not look like it does. There are two reasons this is an issue, and both of them should really embarrass this particular 'expert'. First, there was a good reason why not to include all deaths. The deaths on there were the deaths that were not adequately explained. Sometimes sadly the death of a baby is inevitable and the cause is clear. The investigation isn't interested in these cases. So they're not on the chart. This was immediately pointed out and that's why the expert concerned ended up looking rather silly.

Now, you can argue that the expert who decided which cases are and aren't unexplained could be wrong - just like you can argue black is white about anything else- but to me at that point you are properly into I-know-better-than-the-experts-with-my-internet-research territory, I'm afraid.

The other reason why I'm not convinced about flawed stats here is that in court, the chart was there to show opportunity, not to prove each murder. There was PLENTY of other evidence for every guilty verdict to demonstrate the means. But if you accept that there was foul play going on, then you have to accept that either it was Letby or there were at least two bad actors working on the unit. So the chart was presented in that context, as a piece of the argument.

There's a lot to be gained by shouting about this on social media and sticking your head above the parapet, but I really doubt that overturning the verdict is Gill or Davis's end game here - they've got a lot of other things to win while they give this a go and get their five minutes.

Why did a bunch of doctors sign up for some very bad science, who knows. They may come to regret it.

It’s the Roy Meadows witch-hunt effect - you get one expert witness who goes off on a wildly improbable theory supported by dodgy stats - then they find expert witness colleagues to buy into the group-think and support them.

Doctors would tell you that opinion-for-hire types like Evans are regarded with deep suspicion by other doctors. Police and lawyers generally prefer the type of doctors who are prepared to claim certainty where there is none and speculate wildly without solid evidence. Some of the claims Evans has made are either ignorant or intentionally misleading - either way they’re plain wrong. The adversarial system actually encourages unscrupulous, overconfident types and rewards them financially.

In fact, many doctors are very angry about the abuse of medical science in this trial.

Neither the jury nor the prosecution or defence barristers or the judge or the CoA judges have any medical training - and it shows. That doesn’t mean they’re ignorant. But it does mean the way cases with specialist scientific/tech knowledge are tried will need reformed.