Lucy letby

[bloomingbonkerz]

Do you think she did it ? Watched the documentary and I’m not sure she should have been convicted

I think what Ballet is saying is that use of the term OT, OH or any kind of therapy is wrong because it implies that LL was “in therapy”.

Of course she was clearly in a therapeutic relationship of some kind with KdB, and in any case it doesn’t have to be a formal therapy session (noting that “therapy” has an imprecise meaning on its own), to employ fairly basic techniques of talking about fears and coping strategies and writing them down.

I honestly have no idea what some other PPs are on about. Possibly neither do they.

Thanks. I can't agree because I really don't see people leaping from "occupational therapy" to therapy of the type we associate with mental health issues.

I am also generally unimpressed when people leap straight to "dishonesty" to explain minor errors. It suggests an agenda rather than an ability to look at the facts objectively.

While there are numerous inconsistencies in prosecution statements on the case, I would not take it upon myself to attribute them to dishonesty. Contradictions from Drs Evans, Jayaram etc may be lapses of memory, confusion, delusion etc. I can accept that, and I don't see any reason to try to construct a narrative (a very forced one in this case) so that I can condemn them as dishonest. But a lot of online discourse about Mark McDonald is like that.

Oh I agree with you. It just seems that one objection has a little bit of logic, but the others are frankly bizarre.

I'm not sure why it matters whether or not the notes were part of therapy. Fleeting thoughts can reflect reality or not, whether or not you're in therapy.

What seems more pertinent is the consistent theme of feeling "not good enough" running through her post-its and texts. She wrote “I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them” (i.e. through incompetence), in a note titled “NOT GOOD ENOUGH”. And “We tried our best and it wasn’t enough”. And “ “I don’t know if I killed them. Maybe I did. Maybe this is all down to me.” Why would a killer not know if it’s down to her, or be upset that she/team failed to save the babies? And an expert who has long studied confessions, and has interviewed Letby, thinks it's not a confession and has even quit his job to work on the case .

Of course nothing. I honestly can’t believe you really think that support provided by a senior manager for a member of staff who is subject to an investigation process that also involves other people who they both know and work with, was a therapeutic process. They also exchanged over 750 chummy texts (sample in link) and Letby’s father came to at least one of their meetings! https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0101342_18-20.pdf

And when have either de Berger or Letby ever said that writing down fears and coping strategies is something they discussed?

I wonder why it took her 10 months to do it following the CCRC’s request.

The term “therapeutic process” is fairly meaningless though. That’s the issue. It’s really not at all unlikely that in the course of this apparently chummy relationship that a nurse might use therapy-based techniques to support another nurse. But as you say, we don’t know either way.

What we do know is that pieces of paper covered with phrases articulating contradictory ideas are at least consistent with the outputs of the type of “therapy” sessions where people write down what they are afraid of, what they think other people are saying about them, what they are feeling.

I wonder too. What are your theories?

Also, De Berger did refer to "a meeting that was just about her managing her feelings, her symptoms and talking about coping strategies"

My theory is that the contents of the defence files are so problematic for her that she resisted waiving privilege until the CCRC told her they would throw out her application unless they received them.

But I’m quite sure others will have different theories!

As new topics emerged (demonstrated in the timeline the CCRC gives) , it would have been necessary to review the material covered by the waiver, so it would be normal to wait until one had a firm sense of the final submission.

For example, if the final submission referenced leaks from the police investigation (such as the document circulating in December), it might extend the waiver to discussion of any of the non indictment babies featured there. (This is an example - you could imagine dozens).

Meanwhile, the timing would depend on the collaboration of Lucy Letby's previous legal representatives, who as well as supplying existing material would potentially have to provide a written explanation for proceedings.

All of this - an incremental case file - is quite normal, and we simply don't have anything to suggest that the timing of the waiver had anything other than the usual dull legal reasons.

Or it just took them that long to put the pack together and review it fully before they submitted it.

Anyone who has ever bought or sold a house will know this is perfectly plausible!

Is all this based on your own experience of submitting applications to the CCRC then?

Okay, so why didn’t they wait until after the (presumably final?) submission in January to waive privilege?

And is it definitely for the applicant to supply the previously privileged information in a pack or would the CCRC request direct from source (eg previous legal representatives) once they had the waiver? If the latter then the clock will only have started on that in December.

Article in the Guardian commenting on babies' health issues dating back 1 year ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/feb/04/lucy-letby-convictions-what-did-the-expert-panel-find

I'd imagine they'd finalised the application by December and were checking / collating - at least, that they were aware of nothing in the pipeline that might change the scope of the waiver of privilege.

It is normally the applicant's legal representatives who provide the statements on defence strategy (assuming that was requested) but in this case they would have needed information from Ben Myers to do so.

But I think the main reason is straightforward. There was clearly some new material introduced into the application before December, and this would potentially have expanded the scope of the waiver. There is also no reason to believe that not waiving before December caused any disruption or delay, given the other developments in the case.

Obviously your narrative isn't impossible, but it's certainly not necessary to provide an explanation - this submission was always going to be made incrementally, as Mark McDonald made clear in the press several times.

So when he had the media press conference the evidence had already been submitted several days before?
I am all for looking at miscarriages of justice but don't like the media circus.

The preliminary application went to the CCRC the day before the press conference, with the experts' first summary report. No reason not to get started them. That was public knowledge at the time.

There are claims that have recently come to light about parents who approached the police with concerns about their babies who were cared for at the CofC NICU but the police refused to investigate because the dates were outside the scope of their investigation. They refused to examine any concerning incidents which occured after LL stopped working on the unit.

Very odd how deaths followed her shifts patterns from nights to days if she didn’t do it, the ‘innocent brigade’ haven’t addressed this.

She is very evasive in the interviews and her answers don’t add up. She’s very controlled and appears to put on fake tears for effect when she thinks it might help.

The line at the end of the doc is quite telling. Strongly implies her defence team knew she did it and that’s why they ran the case as they did.

RTFT - this has been addressed numerous times on this thread alone - why comment if you have not read things properly?

You haven't been following very closely if you think the relationship between her shift pattern and the deaths haven't been discussed.

I think you’ll find the ‘innocent brigade’ have addressed it multiple times but you’re obviously one of those people who only hears what you want to hear. 🙄

There are a lot of long threads on this, so I understand that you might have missed it, but people have actually answered the question about why the deaths and collapses followed her from night to day a few times.

I've answered a few times myself so will just copy over a useful answer I've seen on Reddit this time:

They didn't.

There are two categories to think about, deaths and collapses. Collapses were never well defined. The police, guided by Dewi Evans, started by identifying collapses on day and night shifts for all of the period in question as suspicious. Then they removed the ones Lucy Letby hadn't been present for. Now it looks as if collapses followed her from nights to days.

^See: https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/s/dC2XaDGgYU^

Deaths are not so difficult to define. Among Lucy Letby's convictions, we get five deaths at night between June and November 2015, and then two deaths by day in June 2016. Lucy Letby moves mostly to day shifts in March 2016. In the meantime, there have been 2 deaths by day and two by night between September 2015 and March 2016, as well as two for which we don't know times. So deaths are clearly not following her from night to day.

The unit does seem to see more deaths at night, and Lucy Letby is usually on shift at night. It's not surprising that babies were more likely to die at night, since there were fewer senior staff at hand and longer delays before on call consultants could be present. For baby C, who had a difficult and delayed resuscitation, a consultant would have been cotside within five minutes by day; over twenty that night. For baby E, a consultant would surely have given a blood transfusion, but the registrar on duty failed to do so.

Any nurse working night shifts risked being present for more deaths, especially one of Lucy Letby's rank and qualifications, since she was senior enough to care for ICU children but not to manage the shift.

So, not a question of deaths and collapses following Lucy Letby. A mixture of selection bias (collapses) and predictable pattern (deaths).

https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/s/9cUPNAYOqO

Lies, damned lies and statistics, as they say

How are people determining what are fake tears from grainy police footage? What other superpowers am I missing?