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…

For those who think she’s guilty who bring up the parents just think what about what they’ve been unnecessarily put through if Lucy is innocent.
I understand most if not all are convinced of her guilt. I’m not surprised given what they’ve been through and wouldn’t expect it to change if she’s found not guilty later.
When they were told their baby died of natural causes it must have been devastating and as far as I can see none of them put forward then that they thought it was murder. Then later to be told they’d still have their child if it wasn’t for a murderous nurse. It must be unbearable. Someone put through that is not so easily going to change back. You start to recall/develop memories of Lucy not acting so innocently. (It’s a lot easier for memories to be manipulated than people realise)
Likewise if I were a policeman who had to tell such news I’d never want to question if I just added so much needless pain to someone’s life.

I think when it comes to trials it is best to have more objective eyes on it and so I don’t think those close to it are the best at judging all the facts.

Alitt eventually confessed to some but not all of the cases against her, we don't know which ones. So it's possible they made some mistakes there as well.

Essentially when you are in an environment where people are sick and could die anyway how do you tell the difference between deliberate harm, poor care and malfeasance? Very carefully I would say.

Insulin tests in particular seem to be implicated in other wrongful convictions as well as actual murders and need to be interpreted with caution. Basically as well as forensic testing being carried out (which it wasn't in this case) the clinical picture should support the hypothesis of poisoning (which it doesn't)

I’ve changed my opinion on this, after watching some of the other docs that were made on it and doing some more reading about it. What the Netflix doc didn’t make clear (or maybe they did and it went over my head!) was that the footage they showed of her being arrested and her subsequent police interviews were many months after she’d been made aware that she was being investigated. I was under the impression she didn’t know she was going to be arrested (the first time anyway). Obviously she was suspended from work but I thought she was unaware of how serious it had become. This puts her behaviour during the interview and arrests into a whole new light. To me now, she looks like a completely broken person. Very mentally unwell (understandably) and just so completely detached and empty. She may have cried and pleaded and protested her innocence countless times before already, when she was suspended from work or the first time she talked to the police. But I’m not surprised, after going through this for months on end that she just became resigned to the fact that she was going to prison and her life was over. Very sad. Doesn’t mean she didn’t do it but it does make her behaviour much more understandable. And it has made me swing more to the idea of her being innocent. I’d say I’m 50:50 now. I wonder if in the future someone will invent a brain reader where police will be able to accurately read the thoughts of people suspected of crimes to find out if they did it 🧐

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg36pknpl5o.amp

I'm sharing this as it's part of the broad spectrum of what we are discussing, which is the safety of convictions where evidence may be in doubt and may also be incomplete or manipulated at the time of trial.

Obviously a different kind of case entirely, but might be of interest to some who are interested in big pictures.

OP, thank you for coming back with your thoughts after examining things further. I feel that on the balance of probabilities, plus my own experience, plus the newer analysis from new experts, the chances she is guilty are practically zero. And the case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The bit that really gets to me is when the judge instructed the jury that they didn't have to be sure what she did, only if they thought she had done something, to convict. That completely undermines my whole understanding of how the criminal justice system is supposed to work. And is chilling.

@MistressoftheDarkSide Thanks for posting about that case. It was featured in a BBC crime programme years ago and just like the Letby case I assumed guilt but then you hear the details and things don’t add up- even before this new evidence against the police. It really worried me. I’m glad to see it’s getting some attention.

I think the same here. I’m wondering why or how they chose her to be guilty, was it because of her HR complaint?

I also think that given time if she’s refused an appeal then it will either come out that she’s innocent or if she’s guilty then that will be admitted by her too. I’m more and more convinced she’s ND though and anyone with a brain would know if she’s on ADs and sleeping pills then of course her natural emotions would be dumbed down. Some people are also very good at poker face (I am) and this seems like she was too. Behind closed doors who knows? Cuddling the cat is perfectly normal and comforting too.

I think the same here. I’m wondering why or how they chose her to be guilty, was it because of her HR complaint?

I think she genuinely was present at a disproportionate number of deaths. I don’t think it was a case of them cynically picking her out because she had annoyed them, it is entirely possible the whole thing started with a completely shocked and innocent ‘omg, nice Nurse Letby is almost always there, surely she’s not up to something?’

But then they will have failed to take sufficient account of the reasons why she was there more than anyone else: worked longer hours, more nights, as most senior nurse she was with the sickest babies, plus the random statistical variation that means some people do end up with more than you might expect.

Then in the course of investigation, through selection of cases and disregarding the ones that didn’t fit, almost always there will have turned into ‘she’s always there so it can’t possibly have been anyone else.’

That's very true. It sounds like they did have more compelling evidence in that case as Alitt is alleged to have used potassium overdoses as well as insulin overdoses and I think in one case an air bubble was alleged to have been used.

But I agree. It's very possible they made some mistakes as it's so complex.

But she was there because she did a lot of overtime especially when she was buying her house. Surely they knew about that too.

Confirmation bias will make people behave in the most unbelievable ways, as soon as LL was mentioned I can imagine everyone saying "Oh yeah and she also did ...."

I thought the same thing. I couldn’t watch much of it because I found it too distressing but from what I saw, she seemed remarkably calm and composed and also kept saying no comment which I don’t believe innocent people generally do. I found it really weird she kissed her cat before leaving the house as she was being arrested too. Sure, none of us know how we’d act but I think most people would freak the fuck out if they were innocent. You’d also definitely be passionately explaining how and why you’re innocent, not simply refusing to comment.

Also, I don’t know the full ins and outs of the case but she was removed from shift two years before she was arrested and only one baby died in those entire two years. She’s the only member of staff who was on shift when each baby died/collapsed too. I don’t get why she’s supposedly innocent.

Also think it’s pretty crazy to claim the medical experts involved were all out to get her in some way… Accusing someone of murdering tiny babies is a bit extreme, even if you really do dislike someone at work.

also kept saying no comment which I don’t believe innocent people generally do.

That is exactly what legal counsel advises accused to do - but we've covered this 4893 times already.

Also, I don’t know the full ins and outs of the case

Knowing something would help as you've waded in with a "shes guilty"

No! It’s not weird at all that she kissed her cat!
She’s in a terrifying and upsetting situation, her cats which are warm and furry are a source of emotional support to her, why on earth wouldn’t she cuddle the cat?

I am utterly flummoxed at the people who think there is anything suspicious about this. The inside of their heads must be very different from mine.

A certain high profile missing child case parents kept no comment police questions.

But yet we are told to believe they are innocent.

So those parents innocent . Lucy guilty by the same standards however….

That is exactly what legal counsel advises accused to do - but we've covered this 4893 times already.

Indeed.

There's nothing wrong with knowing bugger all about such things. Not everyone is legally qualified or has had cause to learn through their personal circumstances. But if you know you don't know, why hold any beliefs about it at all? It's ok to not have an opinion about something you aren't familiar with.

And if people remember nothing else from this thread, it's safest to go no comment until you've spoken to a solicitor!

Imagine an alternative scenario
When arrested and led out of the house LL is crying and wailng, shouting her innocence ( ignoring the cats and her parents (!)). When questioned she alternates between lucid full explanations of her assumptions of what had happened to the babies and loud emotional pleas to the police to release her as she is 100% innocent.
The post it notes at her house are full of statements such as " I'm a fully competent nurse" " they are stupid for thinking I'm guilty" " it's a witch hunt" " they ought to look at Nurse X and Dr Y"

Imagine......
Posters would be declaring her cold blooded and manipulative, she obviously had time to prepare and cover her tracks, her interviews would be declared " performative/rehearsed", she ignored her cats because she is a psychopath etc etc.
So she couldn't win. As we have discussed many many times, there is no right or wrong way to behave in these extraordinary circumstances which hopefully we will never find ourselves in.
The only thing that matters is evidence - in the first place that intentional harm was done and as yet I am not convinced that has been proved.

Yes - that's how the consultants were thinking (image pending)

One thing you need to know, Sartre, is that the unit stopped taking vulnerable babies a week before they removed Lucy Letby from shift. They have never started again.

They used to be a small intensive-care unit in Lucy Letby's time. Now they just have one intensive care cot for unexpected problems while they wait for babies to get transferred out to other hospitals.

So it's natural their death rate went down

Yes you are right it was not a short time, my memory is shot. There were 2 boys as well . Terrible situation all round

Sorry, only just seen this.

So, this is a direct quote from the mother :

The mum said Letby sent her a handmade Mother's Day card with a photo she had taken of him in an incubator. This concerned them as he needed 24-hour oxygen, but in the photo their son had no mask or tubes over his face.
They claimed Letby quickly dismissed their fears, saying: "I just thought you would like a picture of him with no tubes."
The boy's father said "We had a handmade card and we assumed everyone on the ward got one. But they didn't, it was just us. Inside was a picture of my son with no breathing equipment. She said she took it out to clean or to sterilise it. Now everything's come to light, I should have questioned it more."

In another incident, the same baby was found with an unusual amount of blood in his nappy when Letby was looking after him - which doctors could find no real cause.

In a third incident, the same infant suddenly collapsed inexplicably just as Letby was about to hand him over to night staff. Fortunately he recovered after a senior nurse took over and a doctor came to his aid. When the boy was finally discharged from hospital Letby asked to be friends with his mum on Facebook and commented on her posts when he ended up back in hospital. The couple say she asked if he was 'needing any help with breathing?' His mum added: "Now, that gives me chills."

One of the points noted about Letby was that she seemed to "hone in" on certain babies, some would have several "near misses" with unexplained issues before their actual demise.

As to the "twisting events to tell a story" well, John Wayne Gacy was well liked before being finally revealed as a mass murderer, as were Harold Shipman, Ted Bundy and others. Bad people do hide in plain sight and we see what we expect to see until we know differently.

These are all perfectly normal occurrences in a neo-natal unit.

You might as well have headlines saying, children unwell in hospital. Nurse does her job. And she shows some concern and friendliness toward parents.

Why do you think any of these incidents are at all sinister? You have to read these stories in the context of her actually doing her job as a nurse. She hadn't wandered in off the street.

It is an everyday occurance to remove breathing apparatus from a baby on 24 hour oxygen, and then pose for a photo with baby, without permission of the parents? I would think tnis equipment should not be removed unless absolutely necessary. Then the obsessive nature of what followed? I wasn't there, so whether innocent, misguided or similar, that behaviour is unacceptable. It is somewhat niave to say that medical staff don't wander in off the street, so they are incapable of bad behaviour, even if you deem her innocent.

If there is a neonatal nurse on here, could you shed some light if this is correct conduct please?

My babies were in SCBU, and I would have been furious if somebody did this with my sick baby, and unsettled by the behaviour/circumstances that followed.

Before any off the LL is 100% innocent supporters tell me that strange behaviour doesn't warrent a guilty verdict, no it doesn't. I don't think it is "the norm" though.

I don’t think this copy and paste from a news article refers to one of the indictment babies, so we will probably never know the details.

However, normal care routines would involve removal of nasal cannulae (from the story, this baby wasn’t being ventilated) to allow for the baby’s nose and face to be cleaned and the cannulae replaced with fresh ones. It’s certainly not evidence of poor practice, let alone deliberate harm.

Yes, it would be normal practice to clean and suction equipment, and it was certainly very common practice to photograph babies in pleasant situations on neonatal wards, to help with parents' bonding which is a recognised problem when your child is away from you and tubed up in an incubator. Perhaps this is less common since the tightening of regulations around GDPR.

You would have to explain what seems obsessive to you about the rest of the behaviour described in that article.