To think Lucy Letby could’ve done more to help herself if she really wasn’t guilty?

[Seymorbutts]

Just watched the new Lucy Letby documentary on Netflix. I think there’s one of C4 too, don’t know if it’s the same one? I’m leaning slightly more towards that she did it, but only about 60% sure she did it. 40% sure she didn’t do it. On this doc there’s a lot of footage of all her arrests and police interviews. What strikes me as odd IF she’s innocent, is how little she protests her innocence, how calm & composed she is. It’s the same during her arrests. I understand she must’ve been in shock when she was arrested so that could explain it. But she was interviewed for hours. Not once did she say “I didn’t do this” (unless directly asked, which she just answered with “no”) “I’m innocent”, “I could never kill a baby”. Nothing like that. Very little crying too. I know she’s supposedly very quiet and reserved and I’m sure was very scared, but I don’t think personality can account for a total lack of defending herself (or maybe she was just following the advice given by her lawyer). But still, if it was me I’d be absolutely raging, and protesting my innocence at every opportunity and giving clear, detailed reasons why I couldn’t have done it when they put it to me that I did. Or maybe she did do it and she’s a psychopath and unable to show remorse, which could explain her lack of any kind of emotion at all 🤷‍♀️ I really don’t know. If she is innocent though, I feel like the way she behaved made her look guilty. Interested to hear if people think she did it or not and why/why not…

I’ve watched the ITV and Netflix documentary. I’m pretty sure she done it. Probably 70% sure, a lot of the evidence you could say is coincidental, some is weird and some can’t be explained. Taking home patient notes and filing them in order, looking up families on Facebook, writing notes admitting her guilt that she’s a murderer. Saying she didn’t know how to dispose of the patient notes as she didn’t have a shredder and they literally found one in her home. I think all of it combined proves that she is guilty.

She didn’t look shocked, no protest of her innocence or being upset. The no comment part, I mean that’s what folk say when they’re guilty. I would have been beside myself pleading with them to see that I am innocent, I have not done this. She did none of that and apparently had complete memory loss on some things but they could prove she had detailed texts about etc.

I believe that inside Lucy Letby there is little but an endless, screaming void. There's no point trying to analyse her behaviour against normal, human criteria because she calmly and deliberately murdered babies. Normal human beings can't even conceive of doing that.

I don't know if she's a psychopath or a sociopath and I doubt anyone else really does either. I don't think even Lucy Letby knows what she is. There are some people and some behaviours that are simply incomprehensible to the rest of us.

She looks like a regular person, has a heartbeat and a pulse but, inside, there is nothing there that we could recognise as being human.

You need to remember you only saw less than an hour out of the seven years after she was accused before the trial. Lots of witnesses have talked about her being shocked and upset, and she cried during legal proceedings. So I wouldn't take that reason as too important

I don't think we can ever know what another human being is really like. At least, we can't be sure we do. That is why I think we need to concentrate on whether a crime happened and how we can prove who did it, instead of trying to guess what people's behaviour means.

She cried for herself. When she realised her (probable) married ex-lover was going to testify against her, when the jury were shown pictures of her home, when she talked about her cats.

And when they spoke about Baby E dying.

(Not a sign of guilt that she cried for herself too. You'd be devastated, in her shoes, if you were innocent)

The prosecution lawyer said she didn't cry for any of the babies. That is how his job works. His questions don't have to be based in fact. They are asked to create an impression for the jury and in the hope of provoking a reaction

Really none of this is evidence of her being a murderer. It isn't even close. In those notes she also denied being a murderer. They read like the ramblings of someone having a breakdown which isn't inconsistent with being falsely accused of murder.

And more importantly there is lots of evidence the babies were not murdered at all but died of a combination of natural causes and poor medical care. Something which seems sadly to not be that unusual in the NHS.

I think the same. Her mum’s reaction was genuine, when she cried “no, not again” when police arrived to make an arrest. Lucy is reacting like a psychopath would - too calm and collected for what is happening. If you’re innocent and get accused, you have a different reaction to the injustice of it… Lucy’s reaction is like she was expecting it

What is it that makes you qualified to say what a psychopath and an innocent person would do in this situation, professional expertise or personal experience?

It's a myth that you can tell whether people are innocent from their reactions. We all react differently - flight, fight, freeze, fawn, flop - to threats.

I have a degree in psychology and grew up around one. I can immediately spot traits of psychopaty, ADHD, autism etc but obviously not diagnose. I didn’t say Lucy is a psychopath, just that a cold and collected reaction to a stressful situation is common in psychopaths

Wouldn't they attempt to fake a normal reaction though. I remember the woman who tried to hire a hitman for her husband bursting into extreme fake tears when hearing that he had been 'killed'

From the footage shown in the documentary, the police were calm and conciliatory during the arrests and interviews. At one point, a police woman said something on the lines of, if Lucy Letby said she was innocent, they would look for evidence to support her. She may have felt that the police were on her side and that’s why she seems to react calmly and take her time to answer some questions. There are plenty of cases of people being wrongly blamed for injuring babies and children to cast doubt on medical evidence being an absolute proof of guilt. The expert evidence mentioned in the documentary certainly seems to warrant a new investigation or retrial.

I’ve been arrested, held interviewed even went to court. Innocent I was found.

Honestly I thought if I was ever an innocent arrested I’d be shouting and screaming about being innocent.

But what you realise in that moment is every guilty person does that so what’s the point. Just be calm and answer as factually as you can.

I sat in the local stations cell hearing others shouting and swearing blue murder. I saw the carvings on the walls. I just sat there. Laid down for some of it. Just kind of zoned it out.

Shouting and screaming about being innocent isn’t going to make people believe you are innocent in fact often it turns people off your side.

Now mine was nowhere near as serious as possible murders and I was only a teen but still.

I also have a what will be will be kind of pessimistic attitude in day to day life. You can’t be disappointed if you never expect.

I watched the Netflix film and believe she is guilty.

Well that's a bit more than the other self declared experts this thread, but you're still seeing only a curated response in the documentary, and a degree isn't going to get round that problem. You're also watering down what you said. Initially you didn't say such a reaction is common, which would've been less definitive, but rather that Letby was 'reacting like a psychopath would'. Which is it, because saying something is common in a group and saying a member of the group would react this way don't mean the same thing.

You can also react that way to a stressful situation because it's....a stressful situation.

Not everyone cries and screams in stressful situations.

1. We have seen with the recent BBC/Trump debacle that editing can significantly change how things seem. She may have said she did not do it and that not be shown.
2. LL was medicated because of the extreme stress she was under. Medication that helps reduce overwhelming emotions can make you look shut down and flat.
3. Shock and fear can look similar to the above. No one knows how we would have responded if it was us - we can hope we would be articulate but that is not a given.
4. Not answering questions directly could be because you did not do it and dont know what to say, rather than evasiveness.

I would be more inclined toward guilt if she was very slick and polished in the interviews.

I was arrested for something I didn’t do and threatened with criminal prosecution if I didn’t stop ‘lying’ (I was telling the truth). You’re seeing clips. Those interviews have gone on for hours. They’re asking you specific things and you give specific answers, you can’t answer ‘I didn’t do it!’ each time. (I wasn’t prosecuted btw.)

One degree is not enough for you to be so adamant about this. I have numerous advanced degrees and certifications in psych and 26 years of experience - I think you may be projecting here.

Oh god, that is so upsetting to hear.

You’re clearly willing to die on a cross to defend her, why is that? It’s just a silly thread where people share their suspicions, we’re all wrong because we weren’t there and didn’t see what really happened. We didn’t sit on the jury and didn’t read the case files. Nobody takes this discussion seriously apart from you.

You’re trying to catch me out in the silliest way, like there is such a big difference in what I said in the two comments. I’m sorry but I don’t craft mumsnet posts thinking of the impact of every single word, it’s not a court opinion

I've seen a lot of people on these threads taking the case seriously

There are good reasons to do so. It casts a spotlight on problems in our hospitals and problems with our justice system.

So when people come on and claim to know things they couldn't possibly know, that is jarring

I said that nobody takes this discussion seriously, not this case. Did you read the first post in this thread? It discusses her reaction and whether she “looks guilty”, not the failings of the NHS or the legal system. If you want to discuss serious issues there are other threads which cover this