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

If the fact that she was told to write these notes is such a "gotcha" for her innocence, why did she not say this in court? Why did the defence not call her therapist to testify that she told her to let her imagination run free when writing them? The notes clearly helped make her look guilty so it would have been in her best interests to make them look fictional.

This.

And plenty of people write bad things in diarys but the difference is nobody is looking at those diary entries as the people who write them don't then go on to kill people.

All murderers are liars but not all liars are murderers. So many defendents unfortunately are 'unable to recall' when the evidence against them is unfavourable.

The jury picks up when a defendent is not credible and cannot provide a coherent and consistent set of answers to bad facts...

Did anyone here arguing against the convictions actually listen to her give evidence or actually go to every day of the trial? Nope thought not.

I’m really sorry but I’ve never had the urge to write ‘die’, ‘hate’ etc when I’m upset. If anyone I knew did I would advise them to talk to someone.

If she’s innocent, and she’s been accused of the absolutely horrific and unforgivable crimes that she has been accused of, I can totally understand dhiw she’d feel so desperate and distressed that she could write such a thing, even if she didn’t do it.

They barely touched on the notes in the evidence so calm down.

Anyone who has ACTUALLY followed the extensive evidence of this trial (ya know - like the jury) knows she's guilty. And guilty and guilty and guilty. Over and over.

Anyone who thinks they can read a fact or two in a newspaper and float theories around should be ashamed. She's a baby murderer and your only thoughts should be with the families of the babies she killed. Including cases like Baby E where the mother appeared unexpectedly and asked why there was blood coming from her baby's mouth when Lucy Letby was looking after her. Her baby was screaming in a way that was terrible to her. Lucy Letby said it was nothing to worry about and sent her away. The mother phoned her husband and said something was wrong. Lucy Letby denied the mother ever visited the baby in the nursery or saw any blood, but the phonecall time and the husband's corroboration proved that she did see the baby at that time.

And that's just one little bit of the evil. Read every single bit of the evidence or pipe down about some stupid notes that nobody paid much heed to either way.

I agree.

If a friend or family of mine were doing this, I'd be very concerned and asking them to seek professional help.

The notes didn’t make her look guilty unless you wanted them to.

As much as she said “I am evil I did this” she also said twice “I haven’t done anything wrong” so if you take the one at face value you have to take the other too and they cancel each other out.

@Josette77 Nailed it 👏🏼 Letby is the very living embodiment of white privilege. As you say there would not have been one eyelid batted were she of an ethnic minority (I say this as a Caucasian person)

That is the point of the documentaries. To present their one sided opinions and make you doubt the verdict. They are there for the entertainment, drama and titillation.

The court on the other hand had a prosecution and defence and the verdict was delivered by 12 jurors who heard all the evidence.

Not in the documentary I watched. In fact the opposite. The babies were prem, but no suggestion they were expected not to survive.

Probably not writing down things like, "I'm evil, "I did it" and "I killed them"...

Well the possible answer is nobody killed them.

I don't know if Letby is guilty or not. But I did hear that babies died when she wasn't there, and nobody bothered to inform the court of that detail.

Saying that I think (based on my personal experience) one piece of evidence shouldn't have been included, and that an article I read suggested that a second piece was misleading is VERY different from claiming to know better than the jury.

I specifically stated that "I have no idea" as to her guilt or not.

Even if someone's guilty, it doesn't mean that every piece of evidence pointing to their guilt is true or fair. And, of course, if a jury were to find an innocent person guilty when experts have misrepresented evidence, it wouldn't be the jurors fault.

So, zero disrespect of the jury from me...

And what is the point of the prosecution case but to present one-sided opinions and make you doubt her innocence? The defence presented no expert witnesses so the documentary had to cover what should have been covered at the trial.

If you really think that documentary was made for entertainment you are too silly to take seriously.

I've followed the trial in great detail and read/listened to the transcripts - you can pay to read them.

She's guilty as sin. It was a long, 10 month trial - it was forensic and lengthy. I really struggle with putting her face to the crimes and I think it's the same for a lot of people, but I 100% believe she killed those babies, injured more and there's probably more to come.

If anyone is unsure I'd go to YouTube and listen to the transcripts if you don't want to read them - they're all available there.

This.
How many of us would be questioning the verdict if she was from a rough council estate or a different ethnicity.
Be honest.

They don't necessarily conflict each other if she was in such a state of mind that she felt that killing them wasn't something 'wrong' because she felt she had some justification for doing so.

They were injected with synthetic insulin. There was no other way it could have got into their systems other than via injection; the body did not create the insulin in their systems.

Or alternatively she just felt terrible guilt for being blamed for the death of babies despite the fact she hadn’t killed them.

The defence presented no expert witnesses so the documentary had to cover what should have been covered at the trial

Yes, that often happens with top of their profession, highly experienced, highly qualified legal professionals whose reputations are linked with an extremely high profile case ...... They don't "do the defence" right, they don't presence expert witnesses for inexplicable reasons ..... And non legal documentary makers have to do it instead.

Funny how LL kept the most incompetent of all legal teams on throughout her first and then second trial too.

It's obvious why some people would like for it to not be "our Lucy" who murdered those babies. The air killed them, the sink, the dirt, natural causes, anything/anyone (male or non-white is fine) but our charming, innocent-looking Lucy.

Another reason for the defence not to call the expert witnesses is that it then leaves them open to cross-examination by the prosecution. This suggests that the defence thought there would be doubt cast over their expert evidence so preferred to just have it as a written statement rather than oral testimony in court where it's less easy to control what facts come out.

She’s guilty as sin. I find threads like these weird tbh, what is the obsession with her and wanting her to be innocent?

there are also some random af social media profiles dedicated to trying to say she’s innocent.

it is fucked up.

A lot of conjecture from people who didn't sit through the evidence

Surely the point is that lots of that 'evidence' is turning out to be either incorrect or wrongly interpreted. That's the problem.

I'm not defending her. I don't believe she's innocent. I think the evidence is poor, and not beyond reasonable doubt, and the use of the evidence, particularly around statistics was plain incorrect.

It is a shame that there wasn't better and more convincing evidence than some patterns of her shifts- because other deaths happened which weren't associated with her presence which are also above the average mortality shift, so something as well as her was causing that.

I don't want her freed, I don't think she's 'innocent' or angelic or any of the crap that is said on here.

The trial contained evidence that is now showing to be dubious and that's massively problematic if you genuinely want justice to be served.

If new evidence comes forward, from her other jobs, then this will be cleared up for once and for all, but the evidence has to be robust and not cause doubt.