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…

You’re telling me you believe that crap about being “unwell”?

You know she’s never been reported to have had a partner, don’t you? This 33 year old woman at the time of her arrest? Not even a casual fling. Can you consider that someone of her apparent inexperience was utterly devastated that someone she loved, who she went on day trips with around Chester and in London, who she exchanged 1,300 messages with in a three month period in 2016, when she realised he was going to testify against her? It was that reaction when she saw him (quite understandable, thinking about it from her perspective) that was her biggest moment, in terms of being emotional during the trial.

And just for anyone reading who didn’t know, the married doctor said in the Thirwell enquiry that she “misled and maybe manipulated” him.

Yes, the older married man who had this friendship with her - which does sound inappropriate for a married man - said that she had manipulated and maybe misled him, while he was facing a work investigation for his own behaviour.

This claim - literally as old as Adam and Eve - does not seem to be backed up by any examples of her doing anything but confiding her worries to him. Their messages certainly don't suggest that he was in any way coerced or reluctant to come out with information.

I'd file under, yes, the man would say that, wouldn't he?

She was unwell throughout the trial. She had a mental health team to support her. Whether she was distressed because she felt a friend was betraying her, or because he had spotted her as a murderer, I've no doubt she felt unwell if significantly distressed, no.

Yes and Lucy used that as a cover. Just because a baby is unwell doesn't mean a nurse gets let off for killing them. She wanted to be in room 1 with the higher needs babies (though was not designated nurse that night and kicked off about it and went in there anyway) so obviously he would have some needs but he was making progress. And if he was at "great risk of collapse" then why is it controversial that he collapsed when Lucy wasn't on earlier in the week? That's been absolutely jumped on that she wasn't there for that yet here you are arguing he could collapse anytime...

I'm pretty sure Sophie Ellis has a strong memory of that night and whether it happened on her watch or not having been newly qualified and not witnessing any deaths before, Lucy not so much...

Please tell me that some of you have never served on a jury, it's very scary to think that people have been found guilty at jury trials and from comments posted here it could be because they did / did not cry at the right time, never had a partner (that makes her a murderer if nothing else does) and on and on.

I despair.

"she wasn't his designated nurse" -- at work I sometimes take interest in projects that aren't mine: because something in them interests me, to learn something, or just to take a break from current work. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

He didn't collapse earlier in the week? But it wouldn't have been suspicious if he had, no.

Sophie Ellis may have had a strong memory of the night, but it was a different memory at her police interviews from later, and pretty vague anyway, as you'd expect over time

Nothing you've argued there comes remotely near demonstrating that Lucy Letby or anyone killed this baby.

Very interesting! Thanks

And if you were called to help with a resuscitation or asked to co-sign a medication, you'd hardly be objecting that it wasn't your responsibility. They all "babysat", fetched medications from the fridge in Baby C's room, and came to help when alarms went off. Terrifying what people can concoct against you if they want to.

@Dolphin37 that's nice. And how does that have anything to do with the circumstantial evidence placing LL alone at the scene of the crime of a babies collapse when someone else has left for just a few moments? Does something terrible also happen every time you take an interest in other peoples' projects? Otherwise I don't see the comparison.

yes, it is fucking terrifying, isn't it? Did you see the jury experiment show where they had two juries listen to the same trial and filmed their deliberations? One particularly vile man had a lot of sway and that jury came up with a harsher verdict.

The guilty vs innocent/need a new trial approach is really marked on all threads I have seen - a few loaded terms and fall back on "she was found guilty" as if MOJs never happen vs thoughtful comments on what actual experts have to say and insight into the fact that systems sometimes dont work well.

Its Dunning-Kruger in action.

I thought there was controversy over an earlier x-ray with baby C and LL not being on. Perhaps it wasn't a collapse though. Glad you agree that event wasn't suspicious. That only leaves all the events that involve her.

No it's because everyone is ignoring the glaring circumstantial evidence because they don't like that it points directly to her guilt.

She wasn't called to that room she was already there. Terrifying that you think a serial killer should get away with her crimes because she'd already be there when other staff come because the alarms are going off.

I agree.

It actually happened several times when my son was in PICU, I can think of multiple examples of nurses getting involved with him when they didn't even have him that day for one reason or another.

I specifically remember one nurse who had him often right at the start of his journey and after a few big setbacks, there was a big 'win' overnight and she was so desperate to be the one to tell me that she came over and beat his designated nurse to the punch of telling me about his big win when I arrived the next morning. She was grinning ear to ear. I'll never forget that. During the 7 weeks he was in PICU, she would always pop over to 'visit' when she wasn't his nurse for the day or night and even visited him when he was eventually moved to the ward.

That is disputed, as so many of the nurses' nocturnal wanderings are. You speak as if there was certainty in these issues but there is not

That's the air in stomach x ray. The point isn't that the baby collapsed. The point is that Drs Evans and Marnerides said that this air was proof of deliberate harm, until it turned out that Lucy Letby was still on holidays at the time. Then it just became wind

How does the baby have time to collapse and Lucy has time to be the very first one there before all other nurses in the short time "a few moments" that Sophie Ellis popped out of the room? Did the baby wait until Sophie left to spontaneously collapse? Or maybe Lucy is just psychic, that'll be the next defence probably 🙄

Maybe have a look at the link I posted - you're stating as facts things that were contested in the trial and which contradict the police interviews with the same nurses.

(Though even if not, somebody has to be first to respond to an alarm! It's not suspicious behaviour in itself)

Glad you agree the evidence is purely circumstantial, so no hard evidence of a crime being committed.

Whenever I see Threads like this, I think of the of the families and the parents who lost their children at this hospital. It must be really painful to see this speculation

No, it is because as much as you like to repeat your opinions or interpretations of her behaviour it does not make them facts. Its because much of what you claim "points directly to her guilt" was at the very least based on misinterpretations and poor understanding if not downright misleading. Its interesting to me that you can be talking about people not liking to look at certain things when you and the pro-guilty lobby are capable of dismissing things like a panel of 14 actual world expert neonatologists in favour of a retired pediatrician and instead want to obsess over a slip of the tongue between occupational health and occupational therapy.

But the biggest thing which bothers me about the supposed rationale put forward by people who are sure of her guilt is that you act like miscarriages of justice never happen, when we can see for a fact that they do. Earlier on this thread someone kept trying to dismiss other examples of these when they were brought up. Is that not ignoring what does not fit?

FWIW, I dont know if she is guilty or not. But I am 100% convinced that this investigation and trial are riddled with problems which show the weaknesses in multiple systems that are integral to our wellbeing. A maternity care system in crisis with some of the worst outcomes in the world, so bad a government review has been ordered. A police system which sometimes seems more concerned with getting a conviction that doing a sound investigation (Sally Clark, Trupti Patel). A legal system based more on winning that truth, where things that were asserted in court (she was lying because she said she was in her pajamas when arrested) have been categorically shown to be untrue. An NHS culture of cover ups of poor care and protection of doctors whose behaviour is highly concerning. Misogyny and scapegoating where there are actual other cases of nurses being wrongly accused of murder (Lucia de Berk).

I want to see those addressed properly. If she is innocent, a terrible wrong has been done to a young woman. If she is guilty, the process should have been done with more rigor and critical thinking. Something which some posters seem incapable of.

I don’t think they’d click onto the threads, do you? Assuming they’re on here, and the probability of that is low.

It must be. A recognizable person is a lot easier to be angry at than a system. They deserved a thorough, open minded, complete investigation. This case did not give them that.

Here is the summary of how the four nurses on duty described events and remembered each other's actions around the collapse of Baby C, up to and including the trial. The account includes links to the sources if people want to check them. It is delusional (and goes against the evidence actually presented at trial) to think that you can prove Lucy Letby was alone with baby C, eight years after the event, based on these sources.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/s/mZRozXVRz1

Witness Accounts of Staff Locations Before Baby C’s Collapse

* Sophie Ellis only documented Melanie Taylor in her contemporaneous notes. In 2018 she added Lucy Letby in her police statement.

• She said she briefly left for the nurses’ station, heard the alarm, and returned. For that first desaturation, she found Lucy Letby by the incubator. After it resolved, Ellis stayed in the room for the final incident but sat at the computer, which faced the wall near Baby C’s cot about 1-2m away. She described two incidents, saying Letby was there for both, though her notes show three*.
• *Melanie Taylor’s 2018 police statement said she was already in nursery 1, and that Sophie Ellis called her over. She said only she and Ellis were at the cot using the Neopuff and inserting the Guedel airway. In court years later, she changed this to say Letby was already there and suggested using the airway.
• *Nurse B was consistent from police statement to trial: she entered on a call for help, saw Ellis and Taylor ventilating the baby, and said Letby arrived later from nursery 3. Also suggests she was likely also occupied in Nursery 3.
• *Police conduct: when Letby was interviewed the 2nd time, they already had statements from Taylor and Nurse B saying she wasn’t initially present. They withheld those statements and falsely told her only that Ellis had recorded her as being the only nurse in the room.
• *Letby’s recall: at that interview she said she couldn’t remember where she was. Later, once she’d been shown fuller evidence she said she recalled being called in later, consistent with Taylor’s and Nurse B’s original accounts.
• *Timing: only about six minutes between Letby’s last text (23:09) and the baby’s collapse (23:15), leaving little room for all 3 events.
• *No witness evidence or medical notes supports any claim of an inflated or distended abdomen, despite the allegation of air injected via a nasogastric tube.
• *No contemporaneous notes show Letby's presence, only Taylor and Ellis.