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

It literally isn’t any straw man argument. Or fallacy as preferred to the green haired maniac I presume posts on here

It’s a valid question, when a policeman is accused of a seriously disgusting crime it is rightfully believed, however LL has had enough time, enough opportunity to prove her innocence and couldn’t. Her defence was a plumber talking about poo in the sink. Yet people for whatever reason will not accept that she’s guilty.
If you can for one second cast aside any of the key points (post it notes etc) why would this woman be so obsessed with the parents of a dying baby that she is urging them to put their child into a coffin, why was she obsessively searching up parents, she was relentless in refusing to even approach the fact there could be foul play on the ward. Her colleagues were questioning what’s going on yet old Lucifer remained calm and collective, see her text messages always providing an alternative answer.
The white knight syndrome towards LL needs studying.

I don't even know why someone's starting a thread about the Post Its.

If they'd never been found, she'd still have been found guilty.

At two trials.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the jury did their job anything other than diligently.

I will remind you of just some of the judge's remarks in sentencing -please read these in the link below - this is the juge who also listened to the entirety of the evidence and reached his conclusions and formed his opinions based on his interpretation of the evidence. You know - the juge who is an expert on evaluating evidence, stipulating what evidence can or cannot be presented in court, and giving legal directions to the jury.

Please have a serious re-think about your stance on this matter as I find it revolting.

He came to check on Baby K and saw you standing by her incubator doing nothing as she continued to desaturate. He ventilated Baby K through a small mask and she picked up extremely quickly. She was re-intubated and stabilised. You maintained your interest in Baby K and interfered with her breathing again at least once more just before your night shift ended.

You would often conduct searches on Facebook for parents of babies you had murdered or attempted to murder. I repeat what I have said before, only you know the reason or reasons for your murderous campaign

You have no remorse. There are no mitigating factors. In their totality, the offences of murder and attempted murder were of exceptionally high seriousness and just punishment, according to law, requires a whole life order.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/LETBY-Sentencing-remarks-July-2024-Anonymised.pdf

I'm a woman lol.

And it's because your posts make very clear that your understanding of how a legal team works comes from entertainment documentaries, conspiracy forums, and Wikipedia.

The fact that you're saying an incompetent solicitor was fatal to Letby's defence when in fact that highly qualified and experienced solicitor with a successful track record was led by senior counsel (a KC) and apparently junior counsel as well, demonstrates this.

I thought I was too dumb and lowly for there to be any point engaging with me?

What do I think is wrong with the conviction? Well I could write an essay on that.
If I had to pick out my biggest concern? the vast majority of the medical “evidence” is based on wild speculation/ theory/ hypothesis (eg murder by injection of air into the stomach) that does not stand up to scientific scrutiny and has been completely picked apart by any number of experts since the trial.

It is deeply troubling that the jury did not hear these alternative perspectives at trial- that there was no medical expert on the stand to counter the prosecution witness.

(The role of the prosecution witness in the investigation, his relationship to the police, and his conduct in previous trials is also reason for concern).

It is also very concerning that the jury did not hear substantial evidence concerning the systemic failings in the hopsital.

Finally it was concerning that there was no statistician to put the so-called highly unusual “spike” in deaths , and letbys presence at the deaths, in an appropriate statistical context.

These are the headlines, there are many many more…

Starting this thread is a LL bingo too. This has been discussed ad nauseum in the million and one LL threads, yet someone found it helpful to start yet another thread handwringing about a murderer's notes and 'likely' innocence because..."unSaFE cOnvIctIoNs" like we've not heard that before.

Someone think about the victims' families.

These people don’t give two shits about the families of the victims, they’re all too bothered of saving this evil bastard baby killer poor innocent sweet kind nurse.

So when wrongful convictions happen, are the judges in those trials not “experts in evaluating evidence”?

that does not stand up to scientific scrutiny and has been completely picked apart by any number of experts since the trial..

How come the highly qualified, experienced legal team - with their rep on the line internationally - did not approach any relevant experts (I think they did) and how come they didn't put them on the stand and have those experts do the picking apart during the trial? When it mattered.

I don't think you can really get away from the "I killed them on purpose"-it shows deliberate intent. She's not wondering if she messed up she KNOWS she did it deliberately.

She added insulin to TPN bags, the babies were poisoned. I'm not sure who first came out with doubt over the insulin results but the defence obviously knew there was no doubt. She even asked if the police had one of the TPN bags FFS! She shoved things down babies throats, more than once a doctor struggled to see the back of a babies throat for blood. She is the most evil woman in the country, the amount of lives she has ruined is incomprehensible.

People just want to disagree with all the evidence but I could do the same thing for Harold Shipman and say there was no proof he poisoned anyone no proof he forged a will etc. there could be other explanations, doesn't mean it's remotely within the realm of possibility. She's the girl next door and people pride themselves on being able to spot the red flags in people and just because they can't personally see them think oh it's a miscarriage of justice.

She was probably trying to get to grips with the enormity of what she'd done in those notes so how does it being some sort of therapy exercise disprove what she wrote? She was mentally distressed and needed counselling because she's guilty!

This is an excellent post. These are the substantive points people should be engaging with , not just insisting that well the jury, judge, defence team know more than you so why question things

Who are these experts, and what evidence have they directly examined in relation to this case?
The judge has sole discretion in deciding which experts can offer opinions in court.
You have no idea as to what pre trial evidential hearings were held and what decisions were made in this regard.
You are speculating like many 'experts' who have no direct involvement with the case.

I will defer to the earlier post by Piglet here:

The Court of Appeal reviewed the evidence at the trial, and the judge's directions to the jury, in some considerable detail - the judgment is available here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf

It's well worth reading as they looked at it all over three days, reviewed the transcripts of the trial, etc.

I'm not saying the Court of Appeal is perfect or beyond reproach, but it is the only analysis which takes account of all the evidence.

For your information - leave to appeal was denied.

Amy Cooper, the Karen (stereotypical american woman) who reported on the black man to the New York police?

Only a Karen would defend her.

Regards Lucy Letby, this case is looking more unsound by the day. Not saying she is innocent as I simply don't know enough about the evidence, but to use that scribbled note, and one in which she was advised to do, is ludicrous.

Like pretty much everyone I've written loads of scribbles that were nonsense.

So you are using a straw man argument to undermine the jury decision then and the soundness of all the evidence? Because miscarraiges of justice have happened in the past then we should be wary of the judge's statements etc?

As I said before maybe you should report her KC for incompetence if you serioulsy think that she has been under represented. You are talking so outlandishly about alternative perspectives but they do not appear to have any underlying foundation and are just speculative.

She had legal representation you have zero idea what evidence was and was not considered in this trial.

Not to mention the poor little child who had a liver injury so bad it was similar to those caused by an RTA

Plus she accepted someone had poisoned the TPN bags didn’t she - just that it wasn’t her

@Yazzi Does it really need to be explained that mansplaining is not gender specific.

Please quote exactly what I have said that indicates I don’t know how a legal team works. I simply said that despite having a KC the solicitor was local provincial one. He’s not Legal 500. He doesn’t have a track record of defending medical professionals

Weak defence strategy was fatal to this case. The weaknesses are being discussed across the media and in legal circles, which you might be aware of, if you paid more attention.

How the fuck can a woman “mansplain” 😂

Listened to a “Times” podcast about the all case and that according to The New Yorker, the case and verdict might be wrong. There was not one reason resembling a fact or nearly a fact, there was talk about numbers and who was working but no actually compelling detail about the numbers. Very empty reasoning …. Also alluding to “suspicious reasons why it couldn’t be published in UK” … but the reasons were to comply with UK guidance during trials.
After the devoid of real info podcast, I think she is still guilty.
New Yorker selling “news”, not understanding UK media during trials and cherry picking evidence out of context & saying it’s bad.
Her angry scribbles were not the smoking gun.

You are just making the same point over and over again - which is - the judge , jury, prosecution witnesses know best, so you, me, other scientists , anyone else , is in no position to question / judge.

This is an exceptionally problematic and dangerous perspective/ line of reasoning.

Miscarriages of justice happen all the time. It is absolutely vital in a democratic society - with respect for the rule of law - that we hold our public institutions , including our justice system to scrutiny and account. There is a reason why trials are public and why it is considered in the “public interest” for the media to report on criminal and other cases.

If you don’t want to engage in that process of scrutiny and accountability , then more fool you, but you can’t shut down others by simply insisting over and over that we respect the authority of the judge, jury, prosecution.

There are very serious and important questions to be answered about the safety of this conviction.

Do you not read newspapers?

Experts like Michael Hall, neonatologist, who has seen all the evidence as he advised the defence. Like the expert neonatal pathologists who conducted the original autopsies and found natural causes. Like the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health team who went to the CoCH to write a report and found that there was no evidence to link LL to any of the deaths, indeed she was well-regarded nurse. Like Jane Hawdon expert neonatologist at Gt Ormande St who reviewed the cases and found suboptimal care in 13 cases, and stated that the babies may have survived with different medical care.

This liver injury makes no sense. What proposed mechanism is given for it? Emotive phrases like "force of an RTA" are used to get a knee jerk reaction from a jury and deflects from examination if the truth. A neonates liver is typically between 5 and 7 cm. Was there extensive damage to other organs or bruising depending on whether it was supposed to have occurred internally or by external force?

While these are unpalatable things to examine, they should absolutely be dissected in a criminal trial.

You are picking things out of the air and saying they need to be scrutinised without knowing what and was not scrutinised as part of the evidence admitted into the hearing. I am saying yes that we do need to place faith in the court system - and a fair system of justice is important - which is why she had a highly experienced Kings Counsel representing her.

Your assumption is that something is wrong but you really are clueless from what I can read as to what is wrong. just that something is wrong. You imply you know better than the people involved in her case. I am pretty sure they know way more than you.

And yes she had defence counsel who utilised an expert witness, and she had an appeal. Defenced counsel knows more than you as to what shold be mounted for a grounds of appeal. Apapeal failed. What more is it that you want exactly?

And there was tons and tons of evidence against her, why does this evidence not matter to you?

I’m pretty sure they’re not for a knee jerk reaction for Christ sake.
Given it’s the persistent statistician leading the pack of LL innocence I’m gonna take a stab in the dark and say that 99.99999% of the LL defence club need to spend some 1 on 1 time with a mental health professional

I think she's 100% guilty.

I also think the reason her defence wasn't too defensive is because she told them of her guilt; therefore they can still defend her but legally they can't make any suggestions of positivity on her not to have committed the offences.

Are we saying that anybody who's blonde is attractive now? The amount of posters tonight describing her as such is mind boggling. She's completely plain and ordinary looking. It's clear that some people cannot have their perspective of what a wrong'un looks like disrupted in any way!

All this speculation began with the NY article. I think that it's sick. I feel so sorry for the families listening to this rubbish. They know more than us, as did the jury, as did every professional involved...and they all came to the same conclusion.

It's a travesty that it's looking more and more likely that she may not serve her sentence.