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…

Agree with those who have said this is a very dangerous line of thinking. There have been countless examples of people - especially women - being convicted of crimes they didn’t commit, demonised in the press, labelled as “psychopaths” etc because they didn’t perform emotions in the way they were expected to. I would have thought in 2026, with everything we now know about ND and women supposedly subject to less institutional sexism (ha!) this sort of narrow minded pigeon-holing would be less prevalent…actually, no, I wouldn’t. Nothing has really changed. Ruth Ellis probably wouldn’t have gone to the gallows (for shooting the man who literally kicked her baby out of her) if she hadn’t been a bottle-blonde hostess, and Lucy Letby should have done more pretty crying and begging.

I haven’t seen the documentary. She doesn’t seem very excitable. I watched her arrest she didn’t protest like your typical innocent person would.

You’ve seen lots of arrests? I presume you’re in the police?

I would never judge the parents for closing their minds to any doubt about this case, after what they have been through.

But that is out of compassion for their loss. It doesn't mean they are right about the facts. The jury that they mentioned didn't have the full facts, and the verdicts aren't safe. We can be sorry for the parents and still point out the obvious truth: It's not their right to staunch discussions of problems with this case.

I don't judge the parents...

Not just unreasonable a bit stupid to be honest.

It isn't inconceivable to think that if somebody is genuinely innocent they are so confident in their Innocence that they would be calm. All that they are in such a state of shock that it comes across as really bizarly calm.

I just don't know how it's possible to be an adult and not consider that as a possibility.

Also I don't know why anyone thinks somebody saying I didn't do this I'm innocent I didn't kill someone is more believable than someone who says nothing. If you believe someone's guilty any amount of them saying they're not won't wash.

You want to contrast this with a non-medical case? You are aware the Lucy Letby case took place in a hospital right? Maybe stick to non-complex cases where you've got a knife and a dead body in someone's shed then, this ain't it. I don't think that's reason to let all healthcare serial killers off. If you're comparing this case to a regular murder case then that might be where you and others are going wrong.

You don't know more than the parents. It's unbelievable that you think you do. You're so convinced you're right it's you closing your mind to the fact she's guilty.

I don't know how much of the new evidence the parents have been following, but anyone who has chosen to follow the case since the conviction knows a great deal more than the jury at the trial did. Any assertion that we must see the jury's findings as the final truth, whoever it comes from, can't be supported.

I walked straight into the back of the police van silent. Completely innocent.

Someone’s reaction verbally publicly doesn’t define their guilt or not.

Most guilty people scream and shout they are innocent.

I agree. Often the loud defensive people are guilty.
If it was me, I'd be screaming, though in saying that I have told DD if she is ever unfortunate enough to be arrested to go for no comment until she has legal advice, less said the better.

I'm starting to feel really troubled about how LL and her family's lives have been catastrophically ruined when she could be innocent. I don't know the trial in detail, but there must be people worrying now about covering their backs...

A few things for me

I shut down in times of severe stress if it's impacting me as the target. I noticed in one of clips LLs mum was more in hysterics and LL was trying to protect her saying not to look. It was very similar with my own mum in times of stress - for example I remember vividly when we suffered a sudden family bereavement - she couldn't cope and outwardly sobbed, I was absolutely distraught but shut down which I think was my subconscious counter balancing her reaction to protect her and not make her worse. Now I'm a mother however, if the target was my daughter I think I would be hysterical, but still shut down if it was me, to protect her. I'm also sure there is some advice around saying "no comment" but I honestly don't know the full rationale behind that.

Police can get it very wrong. I went through a period of near-death anorexia in my twenties. I used to get targeted by police when I was out just walking in my neighbourhood because they thought I was drug addict. They acted on circumstantial evidence, but wouldn't let it drop. I daren't challenge it (shutting down again) until it got so bad my parents had to make a formal complaint because I was so fragile.

The taking home of notes...it sounds like there was a lot of politics going on at a time when babies were dying. It must have been harrowing. LL if innocent would need to decompress after those babies so tragically died, she would be feeling a form of grief. Again I think I would process this similarly, possibly making notes in a diary with *'s, I might look at families on Facebook...I actually think these are quite normal human traits, but maybe I am odd. I'm autistic so may be I do see it differently, but I'm not a murderer.

It also sounds like it was a hostile environment of pointing fingers and scapegoats. I work in a very different environment, but when I was in a position where something was clearly brewing I kept written notes of everything and it covered my back. Even if it wasn't conscious, I think having the notes and filing them help decompress what was an emotional and stressful environment.

For me, guilty beyond reasonable doubt has not been met and I just worry about the damage done if indeed everything has been pinned on,someone totally innocent.

I’d completely tell my children comply as in don’t run but don’t talk.

As they say anything you do say can and will be used against you.

Excellent advice. I'd never suggest anyone speak to the police without legal advice, seen IRL examples of what can happen otherwise.

The parents have already come out and said most of this was covered in court and that they missed out other important evidence in a bid to find innocent explanations. The police spent YEARS putting this case together. The fact you think some bloke from Canada came along and eviscerated all the evidence in a few weeks or however long it was is absolutely laughable.

"Some bloke from Canada"

www.lunenfeld.ca/?page=lee-shoo#:~:text=Shoo%20Lee%20is%20Paediatrician%2Din,the%20Lunenfeld%2DTanenbaum%20Research%20Institute.

The parents are victims here. It's not their job to keep on top of new evidence, and it's not their remit to explain medical cases.

I'm sure being described as "some bloke from Canada" will put Dr Shoo Lee right in his place.....

Dewi Evans made up his mind in 10 minutes and the police spent years trawling for material to support his version, rather than trying to find out the actual truth.
The fact that the vast resources they threw at it were only able to come up with such weak evidence points very strongly to her innocence.
If it only took weeks for the expert panel to challenge the medical evidence just shows you how thin their case is.

I think she’s innocent. I think she’s been used as scapegoat for extremely poor practice on a ward which had some very serious catastrophic errors happening. Incompetent clinical staff, poor leadership and lack of access to training for staff, which were all elements that were seen at Stafford Hospital a few years ago. Add in a toxic work place, a toxic hierarchy within that clinical area and it is no wonder that she reacts to the questioning like she did. She looks depressed, beaten and broken. I think she’d been bullied by the ward, its consultants and the trust she was working in. I maybe naive, and perhaps it’s difficult for me to see how any nurse ( I am one) could harm those babies and be so evil. I hope her case is heard again and the evidence put forward is unpicked adequately. Who knows, the real culprit may be revealed, and this case, for me, it’s not a guilty individual, it’s a failing NHS system.

Apparently she waived privilege back in Dec. How strange that Mark Mcdonald has kept that VERY quiet. I wonder why that is...

Nothing for him to say about it. He's been clear from the start that he's not going to discuss or criticise his predecessors on the case - from the press interview when he was first instructed.

What’s interesting if that “40% leaning that she didn’t “ is hugely into the realm of NOT being beyond reasonable doubt. That’s why she should be released in my opinion as it’s simply not all convincing enough in my opinion.

@Hooper56 you think a potential baby serial killer should be released based on a mumsnet poll?! Look she did it. No one who sat through the trial or read about the trial at the time has any doubt.

40% would be a not guilty verdict

Why do you think that is?