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

Not true. There are some very well known lawyers, medical experts, neonatal experts, politicians and others raising questions. It doesn't mean that they all think she's innocent. They are generally questioning the reliability of the evidence and how it was presented.

How on earth does that baffle you?
It's extremely baffling that you can't understand why people might think one case might be a miscarriage of justice, and that that doesn't equate to them thinking that all of them are.

The evidence against Couzens was overwhelming and he pleaded guilty.

I wasn't talking about people on this thread I meant the "experts"-they deserve all the criticism for starting all this, and yes most of them are saddos. Also some posters blaming the doctors is not "civilised" but then the only way to elevate LL to supernurse status is to blame absolutely everyone else isn't it? Maybe ask yourself why posters would need to do that.

One surprising things about this case (and many like it) is how much weight is put on individual's recollections. This was years after the events and yet people were being cross-examined on often minute details about where they were (or weren't) and what was or wasn't said / done.

Saddos 🙄
I don't know much about them tbh except for most of them seem to be very intelligent people, far more intelligent than you or I, maybe some are ND or perhaps some are extremely book smart with very few social skills like many with a high IQ. That doesn't make them 'saddos'. and the world benefits from having people willing to put themselves out there to question things.

The tattler lot are the biggest saddos out there. I'm not necessarily referring to the ones on the LL thread. But the posters on the website as a whole, many of them come across as the most deeply insecure, sad, unhappy individuals to go on like that. Reformed trolls tend to admit as much. .

Well yeah if she didn't do it then the hospital and doctors should be blamed if they were providing suboptimal care, which it seems like they were.
There's nothing uncivilized about trying to right a wrong, or trying to make sure that the right people are held accountable.
And in this case it seems that there is a decent chance that this verdict was indeed wrong.

@kkloo oh they're intelligent in maths and science I'm sure, but their obsession over this woman is certainly not helping the world in any way just causing more grief. I'm sure they dismiss everything odd about her behaviour because it doesn't even register to them, they are strictly about numbers etc. (despite not having seen all the evidence those that testified have) I mean Gill even threatened to shoot up a courtroom so I think we've got a pretty good idea what sort of social skills and ability to read people he has! I do find it pretty sad actually coming from a middle-aged man.

I know tattle has a reputation, and I don't really read the other threads to gauge how toxic it supposedly is, but they've put so much work into the LL case and they're probably about the most clued up on it than any forum. The reddit sub is good too.

Well yeah if she didn't do it then the hospital and doctors should be blamed if they were providing suboptimal care, which it seems like they were.
There's nothing uncivilized about trying to right a wrong, or trying to make sure that the right people are held accountable.
And in this case it seems that there is a decent chance that this verdict was indeed wrong.

Oh right so you think the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the doctors? Not LL at all for being such a negligent nurse? (if we assume for a second she's actually innocent) I mean she's the one that was being lined up for extra training and having her practice questioned, not the doctors... there's just no acceptance she did anything wrong ever is there, not even by accident-it's wild! Always someone else to blame. You don't even care she was texting whilst she was supposed to be feeding a baby? Blame it on the doctors again, it's their fault.

This is quite right. If you’re a Letby supporter it seems you have to point blank refuse to accept that anything she said or did was remotely puzzling, odd, suspicious or downright unprofessional. She has to be painted as practically perfect in every way. Bizarre really, when there is clearly so much evidence o her odd behaviour during the period in question. We now have to believe that it is perfectly normal to write “I killed them on purpose”and “I did this” in private notes because of course admitting your guilt to yourself in writing is what everyone is advised to do when they are completely innocent.

There were obvious issues with the care she was providing. Her inability to recognise deterioration or when to escalate. Potential issues with incorrect feeding resulting in air ingestion. Not maintaining airways correctly. Her very clear lack of professionalism around her improper use of social media (Googling patients), data protection (keeping handover sheets), phone use while working (her married doctor friend mostly), discussing patients by text (a lot of them seemed to do this!?) etc. There was enough there to warrant her losing her job and PIN.

No one thinks she is a good nurse. But that still does not mean she intentionally killed anyone. Same with the doctors who made mistakes. It is the responsibility of the hospital/Trust to ensure mistakes are addressed. Which they did...eventually. But it was too little too late. Many of those mistakes wouldn't have happened if the hospital had been running better.

Oh right so you think the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the doctors? Not LL at all for being such a negligent nurse? (if we assume for a second she's actually innocent) I mean she's the one that was being lined up for extra training and having her practice questioned, not the doctors... there's just no acceptance she did anything wrong ever is there, not even by accident-it's wild! Always someone else to blame. You don't even care she was texting whilst she was supposed to be feeding a baby? Blame it on the doctors again, it's their fault.

@Firefly1987
Why can you never just ask a question without going off on a tangent and making all your assumptions?

A simple 'if you think she may be innocent, do you think there was any issues with her nursing skills? or do you think that some of her behaviour was professional or negligent?" would suffice.

And then actually wait for an answer.

Of course there was issues with her professionalism etc.
It does however seem like that was the case for others as well.

Trying to make sure the right people are held accountable means assessing all the mistakes that were made. If there were unprofessional or incompetent nurses or doctors and that led to the deaths of some of those babies then the hospital are also often held accountable.

It’s horrifying that he was allowed to keep working as an expert witness after that

I know! (Sorry I asked for it to be deleted as it was an accidental repost of mine from earlier in the thread.)

Ah I wondered what it was! 😁

I presume it's the quote from a previous judge about dr Evans?

I presume total incompetence was ruled out?

I don;t think she ever claimed incompetence and if it was that you'd have thought she'd have said so rather than carry on being charged with murder?????

Of she admitted to realising, even in hindsight to being anything like “incompetent” … she would be asked to give examples of incompetence and impact on patients and which steps she took to correct to escalate the matter. Doomed either way,

Yes! I posted upthread and quoted myself by mistake.

Very true. Whether a witch floats or sinks - she’s had it either way.

To make the defence more than 'I can't remember what happened, and I didn't do anything', the jury needed to hear an explanation of how this could be happening that didn't involve Letby, and they didn't

Its guilt you need to prove not innocence.

There were obvious issues with the care she was providing. Her inability to recognise deterioration or when to escalate. Potential issues with incorrect feeding resulting in air ingestion. Not maintaining airways correctly

To be fair she was not even the designated nurse for a lot of the baby’s who died.

Man, does he hammer this point home, brilliant!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GGXlGs6UIQs&feature=youtu.be

Lots of NNU babies are treated with IV antibiotics for " presumed sepsis" while they wait for blood cultures to come back. It doesn't mean they necessarily show any sign of infection. Doctors are very cautious with newborns.

Whether she is guilty or not, if the conviction has been done on dodgy stats that has implications for any one of us who could find ourselves as the receiving end of bad statistics to prove something against us.
I haven't seen people on here saying she IS innocent. merely that the evidence seems not to have reached the level of reasonable doubt.

Thing is, without a full picture, then things can appear so much worse:

When we didn't have a car, we sometimes borrowed the PIL car.
At one point out of the 6 times we'd borrowed it over the summer holidays, we'd found a fault 5 times. Or another way of looking at it, 83% of the time we'd borrowed it over the summer holidays, a fault was found. So was it something we did? They used to joke about us finding a fault with their car when we borrowed it.

But that wasn't the full picture. Because we didn't only borrow it over the holidays. We'd borrowed it another 14 times on top of that. So actually it should have been 5 times out of 20, which is 25%.

But if you actually looked into it there were several factors.

1. The MOT was due in September, and ILs never checked the car nor took it to a garage between MOTs unless it was clearly in need of repair (as in not starting or something pretty obvious)
2. ILs didn't do long journeys in that car, so some things became obvious over the journey. The only long journeys we did were those 6 during the summer holidays.
3. At least 3 of the faults* (and I suspect the other two as well) were probably there when we picked it up (eg one was the temperature gauge was wrapped around the too hot level, my fil admitted he never looked at it). Simply by me checking, and reacting to noises that didn't sound right, things became obvious.
4. The car was around 15 years old, so a few faults were not unexpected, especially as it wasn't well looked after.

• Faults were: Nail in tyre, almost no oil, brake pad worn out (and disk nearly gone too), temperature gauge not working and coil needing replacing.

Statistics are great, but not many people understand them fully, and the right questions need to be asked in order for them to give the true picture. As you can see, the first stat "5 times out of 6 when borrowing the car during the summer holidays" looks pretty damming. Put the rest of the information with it, and it doesn't. But my question would be, why the defence wasn't asking those questions and bringing in the fuller picture? That seems very odd.

It seems that you need a bit more than what Lucy had to offer, though. She didn't need to prove her innocence , but if she was going to take the stand, she needed to have a clear narrative that didn't contradict itself time after time. What isn't really coming out in this thread is the huge weight of evidence given in court, that all added up. The most damning thing was her own testimony. You can look it up now.

Because I never see any criticism of her practice at all. Even now you're minimising it by trying to make out others were doing the same thing. All I hear is the doctors getting the brunt of it. That's who people seem to be angry at, which is astonishing really. If I knew I was that terrible a nurse and multiple babies were collapsing and dying around me I'd find a new career. I'm not sure LL ever admitted to doing anything wrong on the stand either? Happy to say other staff weren't as qualified for the babies in room 1 as her though. She's probably so narcissistic she can't bear anyone thinking she was bad at her job-even if it might've got her off murder charges!