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 think that introducing uninformed sensationalism and cod psychology into a serious matter is a problem, and that's been the subject of a lot of discussion on this thread

"she was there for all the suspicious" : but they used her presence/absence to define whether an event was suspicious/not. What does "suspicious" mean anyway? It means something less than "definitely murder or attempt". If they found a baby stabbed with a knife, they wouldn't call it merely "suspicious". And here, "suspicious" simply meant "unexplained/unexpected by specific doctors". But some fraction of deaths/collapses in hospitals regularly go unexplained due to limits of medical science, missing data (not every thinkable test is always done), or doctors' imperfections (a doctor might lack requisite knowledge or just fail to think of something). And the vast majority of these unexplained incidents aren't murder or murder attempts, so there's nothing inherently "suspicious" in an unexplained hospital death/collapse. So it's only the clustering of unexplained incidents that makes things suspicious at all. And as Royal Statistical Society explains, many things can cause a seemingly suspicious cluster to arise innocently. You can't tell if a cluster reflect malice just by "gut feeling" -- you have to use specific processes to get statistically reliable conclusions, like having independent outside experts review a blinded representative sample of all cases, mark incidents they deem suspicious, and only then analyzing association with staff. That wasn't done in the Letby case, and the prosecutors told the police to cancel a planned consult with a statistician. All statisticians who have publicly commented after the trial have said that the statistical "evidence" of Letby's association with incidents is meaningless.

Someone down the pub told her how to read body language

Agree and it's nice to get the confirmation from someone who actually knows what they're talking about that they're seeing what I'm seeing. I guess you can either see it or you can't (or don't want to) but they'll tear you down and tell you you don't know what you're talking about and they know better.

And as for her crying over baby E-that only cements her guilt for me. Baby E was the only baby that a parent almost caught her in the act of harming. So for her to cry only over that baby says a lot to me. She doesn't know how to react in a normal way so she has to think all the time "what will make me look innocent" rather than any real emotion or grief over the babies.

She also cried over babies I, O and P (that we know of).

A psychology degree doesn't qualify you to recognise a psychopath on television. I think anyone involved in delivering the degree would be appalled at the suggestion.

Well some of us are interested in their opinion! And like they say, they're not diagnosing her just recognising some traits. I think that's fine, we all know it's not an official diagnosis.

Recognising traits on television, and relating them to a diagnosis. Not something a psychology degree qualifies you to do.

I am appalled at your lack of reading skills. At which point did I say that she is a psychopath? Recognising some traits is not a diagnosis. Even a world class expert wouldn’t be able to actually diagnose a person from a few videos. Everybody knows this. Why is everyone reading what they want to read instead of what was actually said?

Not to mention even if she actually was a psychopath, this doesn’t mean she’s guilty. Over 1% of population are psychopaths, it’s really common. Most aren’t killing people but they live amongst us and we all know them, even if we don’t realise.

I said that she behaved like a psychopath would and everyone is losing their minds. Yes she did, a calm collected reaction to a stressful situation is one of the signs. Not all psychopaths react this way, equally not everyone who reacts this way is a psychopath. This is why I didn’t say that she’s definitely a psychopath or definitely guilty. Nobody can say this

Reacting like a psychopath would would more commonly be interpreted as, showing traits of a psychopath than, showing traits that psychopaths have in common with many people who are not psychopaths. If you just mean the latter, it really would be fairer to say so.

Didn’t she cry when she was being interviewed by the police shortly after her arrest? That leads me to believe that the tablets she was taking weren’t flattening her emotions as some people here have speculated.

@Oftenaddled You are right to correct me - she did cry about three babies, maybe four. But having read more about the trial in the last hour, she did cry more about herself.

I wonder why she didn’t throw away the note which said “I am evil, I hate myself” etc? If she was guilty then it’s likely she would have thrown it away because it was so incriminating? Or shredded it in the shredder she lied about having? I guess she could have forgotten.

I do wonder if she has undiagnosed asd. I
remember one parent recalling her almost rushing them to say goodbye and trying to take them. Not recognising the situation needed empathy!? Wasn’t that noted in her training too?

I do feel she was also shocked and resigned later on. She did look distressed at some points - reassuring her mum as she was screaming.

Also the collection of notes could be linked to her asd. It’s odd how she downplayed them and said she didn’t have a shredder but did.

The only time she showed real emotion was when the doctor she fancied came onto the stand apparently. I find that very interesting.

So difficult to ascertain anything to be accurate as someone watching cherry picked documentaries and reading biased news reports.

I think it's fine that she cried more about herself at the trial, if that's true.

I know lots of nurses who have seen hard things and witnessed sad deaths and they still cry for themselves and their difficulties and disappointments in life. It would be unfair to expect them not to just because they work in a caring role.

I don't believe any of the 20 something nurses and doctors who gave evidence about different children at the trial cried at all? We don't suspect them of murder because of that.

People I know on antidepressants haven't been unable to cry at all - they've had crying fits too. But at other times, they've been flat. I'm sure there will be lots on people on here who have had this experience.

It's really interesting that you think asking people to quantify and be clear about what they actually mean is the same as defending Letby. It really isn't. You've said two quite different things!

If people are going to make very broad statements such as someone is reacting like a psychopath would and people react differently if they're innocent, they do need to expect they'll be asked to back it up. If you don't like that, there is one way to make sure it doesn't happen to you.

This incident (with baby C) was one where the child was taken off life support in very unusual circumstances, with some confusion as to whether he had died at an earlier point. A nurse (who the parents didn't identify as Lucy Letby until after the trial, so eight years on) asked about putting him in the "cold cot". A nurse who had murdered him would certainly not want to do that, because the longer a child is out of the "cold cot" the harder it is to determine what killed them. I doubt you could ever prove this nurse was Lucy Letby, but if you did, it would suggest she didn't murder the child.

Just want to make sure you didn't miss out on the post from MrsChristmasHasResigned at 19.19, as you've an interest in the views of people with more knowledge in the area and presumably that doesn't only apply to those who agree with you.

What was the point of you commenting at all then?

Baby C the baby that was the 3rd to collapse out of nowhere in less than a week around just one nurse? Baby C who Lucy had to be told to leave grieving family alone as she wasn't actually supposed to be his nurse and had no reason to be around his family? Baby C who even though she wasn't his designated nurse she was found in there when he suddenly collapsed when Sophie Ellis popped out for a few moments?

Re crying for herself...darn right if I was in court having been accused of heinous crimes I couldn't prove I didn't commit ( you can't prove a negative), after years of being under suspicion, being held in custody away from my family, friends and pets, knowing that I was being called " the most evil woman in Britain" I would certainly be crying for myself out of frustration and feeling helpless if nothing else. Nothing in her demeanor or the smokescreen of notes/ Facebook searches/ heavily edited interview footage has proved that the babies were murdered in my opinion. I have however read evidence of a poorly run unit...ward rounds twice a week instead of the more usual twice daily for example would surely lead to potential problems if there was a deterioration in a baby's condition. The willingness of highly regarded professionals to put their reputations on the line and work for free also makes me sure that this whole case needs reviewing.
In order for someone to be found guilty of murder and imprisoned for life surely we have to be certain that a murder has taken place. If we disregard this basic premise then any one of us could find ourselves in a nightmare situation.

The only time she showed real emotion was when the doctor she fancied came onto the stand apparently. I find that very interesting.

Very telling indeed. She was in tears when she saw him and tried to leave the court. Later she says the reason was because she “felt unwell”, which is a load of baloney.

This. And several of us have already pointed out to the OP that the whole premise of the thread is stupid. The people who'd actually be qualified to talk about whether someone's behaviour indicates guilt without showing themselves up are also wise enough to know they can't make that assessment based on a Netflix programme.

Many people feel unwell when distressed, but haven't we just been talking about how this wasn't the only time she showed distress anyway?

How can something be inaccurate but still "very telling"?

Surely this is just indicative of the terrible weakness of this whole case that people think how Lucy Letby reacted or didn't react proves her guilt?

I mean I once watched a documentary about a guy that murdered his landlady. I thought his reactions in police interviews seemed a bit odd. But I can tell you what I found an awful lot more compelling. The email that was sent from his IP address pretending to be his landlady weeks after she went missing and the torso of his dead landlady found in his lock up garage.

I mean where is the actual evidence in this case? It is all based on supposition. It's a literal witch hunt. How depressing this should happen in the 21st century.

The head of shift did tell Lucy Letby to return to caring for another child. Apart from that, those are highly contested claims of course.

www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1omn7s7/witness_accounts_of_staff_locations_before_baby/

Why is a baby stable until the minute a staff member leaves and comes back to find Lucy Letby stood over the cot? Why does a nurse need to be told to leave grieving family alone? Baby C is one of the most damning for circumstantial evidence but because the baby was already very premature his suffering at her hands gets dismissed.

There is no question of Baby C's having been a "stable baby". Even Dewi Evans identified him as being at "great risk of unexpected collapse". As to his nurse leaving him, all of the nurses' recollections of that night are messy and contradictory.