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

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

This is probably true and why miscarriages of justice are higher amongst these groups. Doesn't make it a safe conviction though.

Yeh that’s the third time you’ve stated that.

Seriously? Her legal team have declined to comment, she’s in prison.

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

Then why post?

If you don't intend people to read your posts and consider them?

Throwing childish insults at other posters detracts from anyone taking you seriously..... If you don't want to be taken seriously or what you're saying be considered by readers; why post?

I suggest developing your knowledge in statistics.

👍🏻

I’m not sure why you think they are incapable of making mistakes?

And?

They don't owe you an explanation.

It would probably be illegal or st best unprofessional for them to give an explanation.

I'm not sure where you get that from what I've said.

If you've been accused of being the worst female serial killer in history and arguably the most evil woman alive in the UK today, I would say that this is a normal level of distress and not surprising.

I'm very much on the fence about whether she did it, but the conviction needs to be absolutely watertight because if she didn't, it's a huge miscarriage of justice.

OK Ill bite. The point I made as that the jury reached differing verdicts on the counts - where they were not satisfied that the prosecution had presented evidence to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt THE JURY WAS HUNG AND DID NOT CONVICT HER. So this leads me to the conclusion that the jury considered all counts carefully and diligently. OK?

Pearls to swine, my dear.

I think she was stating she had no interest in your opinion of her since you were just being rude 🤷🏼‍♀️
you’ve also engaged with me in a manner that’s added zero value to any constructive discussion so I don’t blame her.

She's the only poster I've seen being rude on this thread.

Telling people (not me btw) they're "too silly to ..".

She is aggressive and rude and it's extremely difficult to take someone like that seriously.

They don't come across as levelheaded or rational.

Ha ha so true!!

Does this small high street firm have a proven track record in winning lengthy murder trials involving complex scientific evidence? Probably not.

Not saying there isn’t one somewhere that could have managed it, but this defence failed on many points.

Yes I saw that. I disagree that’s enough to say the jury must be correct. Juries often hand back mixed judgements it doesn’t make them more likely to be correct.

then following that you proceeded with the usual disparaging remarks about how dare you / who are you to question the jury who were there for the 9 month trial (read some stuff on the back of a fag packet etc). Which is a v problematic line of argument.

you’ve also engaged with me in a manner that’s added zero value to any constructive discussion

Your obvious inability to read and comprehend a not complicated post by someone else, and double down on that; made me conclude there was no point in trying to have constructive discussion with you.

Your failure in comprehending some basic facets of this exchange is starting to take its toll now.

Juries often hand back mixed judgements it doesn’t make them more likely to be correct.

Many people would disagree with you there.

ive Just joined this thread and the only person I see being rude is you. Case and point.

Because some posters are worth engaging with.

Well I take as I find to be fair. The ill informed, speculative and nonsensical posts around the conviction are horrible to read and I will judge people accordingly.

👍🏻

The infamous Mirabai was there long before me, dear.

Unless you conveniently consider her telling other posters they're too silly to understand something, to not be rude.

If so, you're the only person who does.