Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Lucy Letby’s scribbled notes

1000 replies

Figmentofmyimagination · 03/09/2024 22:16

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
Mirabai · 03/09/2024 23:46

HazelPlayer · 03/09/2024 23:42

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.

The defence did not use the expert witnesses it had. Fact.

No-one knows why. But equally it can be hard to find experts to speak for the defence in cases involving child abuse due to what happened to Waney Squier.

LL had a KC but she had a small time local solicitor who clearly wasn’t up to a case of this scale and complexity.

NunyaBeeswax · 03/09/2024 23:46

Similar, maybe, I used to write letters to people who had upset me. Not to send, but to vent. It's cathartic. But, I always burned them.as soon as I'd finished.

Aprilmaymum · 03/09/2024 23:47

I have at times said it is all my fault when one of my little ones has fallen over or banged themselves. Not because I did anything but because as humans we do blame ourselves if something happens on our watch. Only she knows if she is guilty or not but it is def not a clear case for me

HazelPlayer · 03/09/2024 23:47

Mirabai · 03/09/2024 23:34

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.

Insulting people doesn't make you look like someone worth listening to.

Anyway I recognise your username from the other LL threads, you'll be here a month later arguing her innocence with anyone foolish enough to engage with you.

Your answer to every question about why her top notch legal team didn't present whatever evidence or question whatever in the last two threads is always "I don't know", "it's a mystery".

I think you used mystery about 500 times in the last thread.

Tandora · 03/09/2024 23:48

Marinade · 03/09/2024 22:57

Jury did not find her guilty on all counts some verdicts they hung on. Tells me they were competent, diligent and painstaking in their deliberations. But you have read about this somewhere on the back of a fag packet and think you know more than the jury who were present for nine months. So insulting.

So according to your logic, jury decisions are beyond question, there are never miscarriages of justice and no one should question anything?
I guess OJ Simpson was not guilty eh?

HazelPlayer · 03/09/2024 23:49

*The defence did not use the expert witnesses it had. Fact.

No-one knows why*.

Ah here we go again.

Some people do know why.

Her legal team knows why.

She knows why.

The judges probably know why.

HazelPlayer · 03/09/2024 23:50

Tandora · 03/09/2024 23:48

So according to your logic, jury decisions are beyond question, there are never miscarriages of justice and no one should question anything?
I guess OJ Simpson was not guilty eh?

I don't think you've comprehended her post, at all.

Tandora · 03/09/2024 23:50

HazelPlayer · 03/09/2024 23:49

*The defence did not use the expert witnesses it had. Fact.

No-one knows why*.

Ah here we go again.

Some people do know why.

Her legal team knows why.

She knows why.

The judges probably know why.

You don’t know why.

HazelPlayer · 03/09/2024 23:51

Tandora · 03/09/2024 23:50

You don’t know why.

Why would I know why?

I wasn't on her legal team.

Takingusthebingoonhisbus · 03/09/2024 23:51

Leafygreen84 · 03/09/2024 22:23

agree. This is not a common or usual response at all.

Says who?

Tandora · 03/09/2024 23:52

HazelPlayer · 03/09/2024 23:50

I don't think you've comprehended her post, at all.

Yeh I did. It was just the usual -
you are arrogant to even question the jury because they heard all the evidence and were there for 9 months bla bla.

Mirabai · 03/09/2024 23:53

HazelPlayer · 03/09/2024 23:47

Insulting people doesn't make you look like someone worth listening to.

Anyway I recognise your username from the other LL threads, you'll be here a month later arguing her innocence with anyone foolish enough to engage with you.

Your answer to every question about why her top notch legal team didn't present whatever evidence or question whatever in the last two threads is always "I don't know", "it's a mystery".

I think you used mystery about 500 times in the last thread.

Edited

No interest in whether you think I “look like” someone worth listening to.

If you’d paid more attention you would see that I’ve never actually argued her innocence simply that the conviction is unsafe, and that there was no evidence of murder or any evidence to link the deaths to LL in particular.

HazelPlayer · 03/09/2024 23:53

Tandora · 03/09/2024 23:52

Yeh I did. It was just the usual -
you are arrogant to even question the jury because they heard all the evidence and were there for 9 months bla bla.

Nope, that's not what she was saying.

You haven't comprehended her post.

Marinade · 03/09/2024 23:54

HazelPlayer · 03/09/2024 23:42

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.

Yes maybe we should notify her highly experienced KC, Ben Myers, and tell hime that he might have missed the mark in mounting her defence and ask him why he did not call the expert witness to the stand....

Why do people think he did not present one expert witness to give evidence in her favour? Ben Myers must have known they could not have withstood the cross examination by the prosecution.

And the judge has to accept an expert witness as having the credentials to offer an opinion in court. We do not know what went on with regard to this issue but I am sure that her defence counsel knows the score.

CarterBeatsTheDevil · 03/09/2024 23:54

Mirabai · 03/09/2024 23:46

The defence did not use the expert witnesses it had. Fact.

No-one knows why. But equally it can be hard to find experts to speak for the defence in cases involving child abuse due to what happened to Waney Squier.

LL had a KC but she had a small time local solicitor who clearly wasn’t up to a case of this scale and complexity.

The solicitor with conduct of her case was a highly experienced criminal law expert, and the case prep would have been overseen from the earliest stages by her nationally ranked KC and junior.

Marinade · 03/09/2024 23:56

Tandora · 03/09/2024 23:48

So according to your logic, jury decisions are beyond question, there are never miscarriages of justice and no one should question anything?
I guess OJ Simpson was not guilty eh?

You do not understand the point I made so there is nothing to be gained in me debating this with you.

Tandora · 03/09/2024 23:56

Marinade · 03/09/2024 23:56

You do not understand the point I made so there is nothing to be gained in me debating this with you.

Convenient

Marinade · 03/09/2024 23:57

Tandora · 03/09/2024 23:56

Convenient

If you say so.

HazelPlayer · 03/09/2024 23:57

Tandora · 03/09/2024 23:56

Convenient

No, she's being truthful.

You've completely missed her point.

Onwardsandsidewaysyetagain · 03/09/2024 23:57

I think the defence thought the prosecution didn't have one clincher piece of evidence, such as direct proof she picked up insulin and injected it, or CCTV, or a death certificate which said non-natural causes, or anything, so they did not go in hell for leather to disprove each individual tiny piece of the jigsaw puzzle on which she was eventually convicted. That was a mistake, because as we are now seeing, much of that evidence could at least be probed for reasonable doubt.

I don't even believe she's innocent! I don't like to see this type of evidence thought to be evidence though- they didn't run the right tests on the insulin to establish it was endogenous or exogenous and so now no-one will know. What this whole case shows is that babies in NICU are very very vulnerable, and so extra precautions (e.g. CCTV which everyone told me was never going to be possible) and proper testing when babies die unexpectedly needs to be done more thoroughly. This did not happen, and other places in the hospital also had spikes of unexpected deaths where Letby wasn't working, so it seems it was a highly unsafe environment, whether or not they additionally had a baby killer in their midst. In fact, the fact they had an unsafe place and weren't equipped to treat those babies properly has contributed to additional deaths full stop even outside the ones she's accused of, and if you were a killer, this would be the perfect place to work.

High mortality amongst babies is appalling, and not just 'one of those things' whether it be to unsafe and unsanitary environments, or to malicious individuals. This case has highlighted this, I wouldn't have wanted my baby to be treated either by her, or in this environment.

Tandora · 03/09/2024 23:57

Marinade · 03/09/2024 23:57

If you say so.

👍🏻

Mirabai · 03/09/2024 23:57

CarterBeatsTheDevil · 03/09/2024 23:54

The solicitor with conduct of her case was a highly experienced criminal law expert, and the case prep would have been overseen from the earliest stages by her nationally ranked KC and junior.

Local solicitor now = law expert does it. 😂

RisingSunn · 03/09/2024 23:57

Galadriell · 03/09/2024 22:48

If it were a male nurse nobody on here would be defending him.

Exactly…
The sad reality is that I also doubt a convicted Black or Asian nurse would garner as much empathy/sympathy or defence as she has.

RoyallyEFFEDOFF · 03/09/2024 23:58

I don’t think it’s just the notes
Her behaviour, the other staffs testimonies

CarterBeatsTheDevil · 03/09/2024 23:59

Mirabai · 03/09/2024 23:57

Local solicitor now = law expert does it. 😂

I'm not sure why you think that high street firms aren't capable of dealing with complex cases.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.