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…

Haven’t they decided not to press any further charges? What does this tell us?

More here on baby C. Letby was described as being “cool and calm” as the baby became ill;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65978834.amp

That's good. That's what you would want from a nurse trained in emergency resuscitation.

Most evidence used in any trial is circumstantial. You not understanding the concept of circumstantial evidence or how compelling it can be is your problem.

Some very shaky claims there from Nick Johnson in his prosecution closing speech.

The prosecutor said it was insinuated Ms Ellis was not qualified to be looking after Child C.

"It's trying to create in the impression in your minds that something was seriously wrong with the hospital," he said, adding: "It's gaslighting you, doing to you what Lucy Letby did to her colleagues."

Miss Ellis wasn't qualified to be looking after Child C. BAPM standards are clear that only a level 5 nurse with qualification in specialism can be responsible for one-to-one care for an ICU baby. That's an objective fact.

He alleged that swelling noted by a doctor in Child C's vocal cords indicated that "something had been put down his throat".

Yes, it had - a guedal tube to try to secure his airway, as part of resuscitation attempts documented in the medical notes. No need to invent killer nurses.

Mr Johnson went on to state that another clue the jurors should consider in Child C's case was the "massive ballooning" to his stomach.

"It's as plain as the nose on your face that Lucy Letby must have injected air down the nasogastric tube," he said.

That's the air that was only detected before Lucy Letby returned from holidays.

No wonder neonatologists observing the trial were so alarmed by what they were hearing.

It must be absolutely horrendous for them. Not only is what they've endured terrible enough but they have to see misinformed people turn the person who harmed or killed their child into some sort of victim. And not only that but claim they're doing it on behalf of the parents because they "deserve the truth"-when they already have it and know far more about what happened than any of us. It's absolutely sickening.

But to have probative value, evidence must be inconsistent with innocence (or at least unlikely in case of innocence). And things like taking interest in work beyond your immediate assignment are not even uncommon, let alone impossible, in normal life.

"Does something terrible also happen every time you take an interest in other peoples' projects" -- no, but neither did something happen "every time" Letby did.

I agree their pain must absolutely be recognised.

But I honestly believe that if I was one of the parents I would not want an innocent person in jail (of course if she is innocent)

Im verging on not guilty myself. I think there are a lot of things taken as ‘facts’ that aren’t necessarily facts! Dr Ravi was adamant he caught her red handed but emails came out telling otherwise and also like pp said about the air incident but she wasn’t there. That line suddenly disappears!

Lots of ‘odd’ behaviour from Lucy but doesn’t necessarily mean guilt. I just don’t understand why she didn’t call any medical experts!?

Why wouldn't she be cool and calm in that situation as a trained nurse?

I've watched my child have a cardiac arrest in hospital. You want cool and calm.

Did any of the other nurses who gave evidence cry about the babies?

She was a scapegoat for a failing trust. They even tried to pin the blame on deaths she hadn’t been around for. Clear the decks. It obvious she was a good excuse, she clearly unsettled.

The prevailing theory on the medical experts is that they had reports to argue against the prosecution's theories, except for the two babies with strange insulin results.

So if the defence had put medical experts on the stand, they'd have shown they couldn't explain the insulin results. Instead, they argued no case to answer, and they hoped they had discredited the prosecution with questioning.

Now they've found specialists who can explain the insulin results, but back when they hadn't got international attention and really eminent people working for them, that was harder.

@Oftenaddled who is explaining the insulin other than Geoff Chase who himself admits the results are unusual? So all the insulin experts at the trial were useless as well?

As well as Geoff Chase and Helen Shannon, who have modelled insulin delivery and insulin binding, there are the authors of the expert witness joint report on babies F and L.

Dr Neil Aiton MBBS MD MRCPI FRCPCH
Dr Adel Ismail, PhD FRCPath
Professor Matthew Johll PhD
Professor Alan Wayne Jones BSc, PhD, DSc
Professor Charles Stanley MD
Dr Richard Taylor MBBS FRCPC
Dr Hilde Wilkinson-Herbots MSc, PhD

(Unusual doesn't mean murder)

QED

But the circumstantial evidence against Lucy Letby isn't strong at all let alone glaring. There is no good evidence any babies were killed at all let alone by her.

Lets have a look at some of the circumstantial evidence against Scott Paterson who murdered his landlady by means of contrast. No one saw him do it.

1. Seemed a bit odd in interview
2. Cried in interview
3. Worked as a butcher
4. Watched horror movies about chopping people up
5. Sold all her jewellery after she disappeared
6. Emails from his landlady weeks after she had gone away saying she was fine were sent from his IP address
7. Her torso was found in his lock up shed

Items 1 to 4 are not good circumstantial evidence. They make for an interesting narrative and TV show but they prove nothing.

This is type of stuff people are bringing up when they say Lucy Letby looked too calm or cried at the wrong time or kept handover sheets or was at work when babies died (hint it was her job). It proves nothing.

Item 6 directly shows he was dishonest. Taking stuff that doesn't belong to you and deliberately selling it over a period of time for lots of money shows dishonesty, not saying you were wearing nightclothes or couldn't find a shredder. It could also provide a motive. However it is still not evidence of murder.

Items 7 and 8 are strong, we might say glaring in the case of item 8, circumstantial evidence that he killed his landlady.

No one will therefore be surprised that Scott Paterson ended up making a full and detailed confession of how he commited his crime, does not protest his innocence and there are no campaigns for him to be released.

Any evidence to support that claim ? - I won't wait for it, I'm still waiting for other evidence I've pulled you up on.
Weird how you have to resort to snide comments, it's almost like you don't have any proof so you resort to digs instead - often referred to as "playing the man not the ball"

There was a link provided on the other thread which has examples of circumstantial evidence and describes the difference between strong, effectively s smoking gun, the accused's fingerprints were on the weapon, and weak, the accused was nearby at the probable time - but both of these need an actual crime to have been carried out first, something not all expert agree actually happened.

Your reasoning is flawed there. Someone not considering that the circumstantial evidence is adequate in this case is not the same thing as someone not understanding circumstantial evidence or agreeing that it CAN be compelling.

Which rather suggests your own understanding of circumstantial evidence is poor since you don’t seem to appreciate how much better it often is than in this case…..

You hit the nail on the head there. Interesting how selective the replies get. Almost like anything that doesn’t fit is ignored and personal attacks start. It’s a microcosm of the trial really.

Scapegoating doesn't solve the problem of the failing hospital or alleviate the tragedies

Same for me. It’s taken me years to realise that my internal emotional world and external demeanour are often misaligned, especially when I’m distressed.

I don’t know if she’s guilty, but I wouldn’t base my judgement on her apparent calmness.

Yep. Similar thing with Joanne Lees. Any woman who isn't weepy and hysterical is seen as "unnatural" and therefore guilty.

I did not even connect the two.

However yes the midwives refused to believe I was actually in labour as I could talk through my contractions. All times they have been proven very very wrong with one baby almost being born with no medical assistance as they were sure I wasn’t possibly far enough along to be ready to even have a midwife check me till she did and I was ready to push.

Yes! Exactly how my birth went.

Where is the evidence for scapegoating?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgre63r354o

Maybe some of you should listen to what the parents are saying for once instead of running with your own theories when you didn't sit in that court room day after day for months.

But the mother of a baby boy, who Letby was convicted of attempting to murder, told the Daily Mail, external "every aspect of what they are doing is so disrespectful, it is very upsetting".
She added: "They said the parents want to know the truth, but we've had the truth. We believe in the British justice system, we believe the jury made the right decision.
"We already have the truth and this panel of so-called experts don't speak for us."