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

So in your view there was no evidence presented in court which pointed to LL having murdered and attempting to murder numerous babies? Just “data”. OK, if that’s what you want to call it, then fine.

This case stands and falls on some very basic medical data. That data is freely available from online transcripts. The idea that you need the full transcripts to have a clear view misunderstands how very obviously bad the science is.

The full transcripts will merely confirm the problem.

The New Yorker …. Seriously, who reads it for capital J, Journalism?

It really doesn't prove your point at all.

Experts in certain things don't need to read the full transcripts of everything to have an opinion on the things that they do know about.

For example an expert in insulin doesn't need to know all of the other evidence relating to other things to give their opinion on insulin,

an expert on air embolism doesn't need to know anything about insulin because it's not relevant to the evidence that he/she is giving, and if they were to weigh up guilty or innocence by reading the full transcripts first then they are more likely to be biased when giving their opinion.

An expert in assessing whether certain evidence meets the standard doesn't need to know what other evidence there is because even if there was concrete proof that she harmed babies, lets say CCTV of her doing it, then that still doesn't mean that they can allow other unsafe evidence that doesn't meet the standard.

Has this bloke had sight of all the medical notes and reports then?

On a separate note - why aren’t people clamouring for the release of Beverley Allitt? Presumably there was no evidence in that trial either, just bad science and a misinterpretation of the data.

Am I giving you a headache? I do apologise.

the key evidence is the medical evidence. Without evidence of murder the circumstantial data is irrelevant

No, you have misunderstood about how juries use evidence to reach a verdict. Circumstantial evidence is the basis of most trials. Unless it's an eyewitness account or a confession, it is circumstantial evidence. Eg DNA evidence is circumstantial evidence. So, as we did not have a confession, a lot of the medical evidence presented to the jury here was circumstantial evidence and they were asked to judge whether the big picture of evidence made them sure that Letby did it. The medical evidence was part of it. The digital and swipe evidence placing Letby at each incident and showing she had opportunity and means was part of it. Letbys own evidence was part of it. The evidence about her character was part of it. The jury were sure.

The appeals judge was asked, was the expert evidence sound? Was Letby's defence adequate? Is there any avenue for appeal? They said yes, yes, no. I will be v surprised if anything comes of this, as there is only one option left. Of course Letby was always going to take it - what has she got to lose - but a bit of drumming over social media won't suddenly magic up a new avenue of appeal.

I think she will have run out of legal aid now so will be relying on pro bono work for this last try. She hasn't ditched Myers - he's doing the last bit of work she can get aid for, the Baby K appeal. So whatever the posters here think of his defence, she's happy with it and presumably would retain him for the next leg if she could afford to.

Mr Phillips says:
“My view is that the presentation of data and expert evidence was so flawed as to render the conviction unsafe”.

Can he really give a credible view on this if he hasn’t read all the presentation of data and expert evidence, or is it enough just to have read the bits cherry picked by those with a Free Lucy Letby agenda?

She means the medical evidence is what is needed to prove murder (since no one actually saw her murdering these babies etc). If the medical evidence doesn’t stand up to scrutiny the rest of the evidence is irrelevant- because if the medical evidence isn’t there- then there isn’t any proof of a murder at all. Nothing to say these babies didn’t die of natural causes.

That’s not the conclusion of the medical experts who gave evidence at the trial.

I think the Thirwell Inquiry and subsequent report out next year will put the dampeners on the Free Lucy Letby campaign.

You mean the prosecution expert and the doctors who were personally involved?

It doesn’t matter what the prosecution “experts” claimed at the trial. The medical data on which those assertions are based is freely available so it is possible evaluate whether those claims are valid. Medical experts who have commented publicly since the trial have been appalled by the claims made on the data presented.

In very simple terms: It’s like Roy Meadows and his 1 in 73 million. If that’s bollocks there is no murder whatever his expert witness cronies claim, (And 4 of the doctors involved in this clusterfuck were supporters of Meadows).

Yes, I 100% believe he can.

While the full transcripts of the experts evidence aren't available online I think it's safe to assume that the most important and key parts of it are the parts that were reported and that are available online.

I would also imagine that for those who are connected and who are actively looking into this as a matter of public importance that they're not doing what the rest of us have to do and googling and looking at places like the Chester standard etc.and then cross referencing it in other places and maybe missing bits and pieces, I'm sure the key facts are being presented more neatly.

So if Lucy Letby does end up being exonerated then will you still think that the babies were murdered?
Is the evidence given by those medical experts robust enough for you to be convinced that those babies were definitely murdered by someone, even if it wasn't Lucy Letby?

The New Yorker I think is akin to Private Eye in the UK so wouldn’t be unusual for it to be first to break a story outside of the mainstream press of the UK.

I said this on another Letby thread and I’ll say it again. We will never know.

I don’t yet have an informed view on whether she is guilty or not, because of the fragmented way in which then evidence has been drip fed.

The only thing I am fairly certain on is that the hospital trust had major failings. This doesn’t make her guilt any more or less likely.

Has it ever been documented what medication Letby was/is prescribed post the allegations? And how this could have affected her testimonies? She comes across to me as a broken woman. Broken by circumstance or broken by her own actions,
we will never know.

Also - to convict a jury must find
GUILTY BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT

The defence team failed to procure the reasonable doubt that is now coming to light.

I don’t agree that we’ll never know. Clearer evidence could be laid out about the air embolism theory, for example, that makes it clear whether it’s a possibility or not.
It’s also possible that either Letby will confess or more information will emerge about the inception of the inquiry and how the police’s reasoning went before it arrived at Letby.

Yes, I take it they weren’t expert enough to present evidence for the prosecution as far as you’re concerned?

So does the medical evidence as far as you’re concerned in all cases prove incontrovertibly that all of these babies died of natural causes and that there is no possibility whatsoever that they were murdered? And is it possible for you to discuss the case without getting irate and swearing?

How can she be exonerated? What evidence would do that? It’s possible that like Barry George she may be cleared but not exonerated. As in that case people still believe he was involved. I have no firm view either way on that case but if Letby was cleared I would probably still have my suspicions that she did murder them, unless new evidence proved beyond all doubt that the babies all died of natural causes.

Dewi Evans said that to quote Jack Frost (a tv detective apparently) he doesn’t believe in coincidences. I think that alone shows the limits of his understanding, given that statistically a certain number of coincidences do in fact occur.

Is that all he said? Wow, damning evidence of his unsuitability as a witness. But seriously there are so many coincidences in this case I have to agree with him (and I’m not just talking about the shift patterns / death occurrences. LL if innocent has been the victim of an utterly unprecedented series of back luck coincidences.

Oh I meant officially and legally. I think there would always be people who still thought she did something though.

I think the fact baby G who was by far the most premature survived (albeit sadly severely disabled because of that evil cow) makes it hard for anyone to argue these were "premature sickly babies likely to die"-I know she was born at Arrowe park and probably had better care, but when moved to countess of chester was still doing well up to 100 days then she suddenly collapses. So the most premature baby in this case survives and yet much stronger babies die very suddenly and inexplicably? Please explain how that would naturally happen?