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 guess she’s saying the pressures are material because the panel said the high pressure “decreased venous return to the heart and contributed to liver congestion”.

But like I said, I have no idea what any of this means clinically. I am mainly just interested in the relationship between the evidence that was considered at the trials and the opinions that have been put forward since, and the way this is all now being represented in the media and on threads like this.

That's a reasonable interest, but the implication, if that's where she's going, that the pressures weren't high, doesn't withstand scrutiny at all. The fact that the child wasn't always on high pressures doesn't in any way undermine that claim. I'd say she was making a mountain out of a molehill, but I don't think she's even got a molehill

And this is just one of many similar instances in her videos. She's simply not reliable, and I would be surprised if she's not aware that a lot of what she is saying is irrelevant.

The back on 24/6 in your quotation there obviously implies he was higher previously.

I don’t see how this implication is obvious at all. Dr A says ‘we’ve recommended continual mechanical ventilation at the same settings, so he will have been back on 24/5’. I infer that to mean baby O was on 24/5, was taken off for an intervention, and then went back on at the same setting ie 24/5 again. But maybe that’s just me.

And honestly, this is ridiculous. The panel have the notes with the full record of baby O's ventilation settings (and have presumably included them in what they submitted to the CCRC).

Presumably 🤷‍♀️

Maybe. But it doesn't alter the fact that he was also on 28/6 (as even Oliver admits) and on 32/6.

So why is she acting as if his being on other pressures at other times undermines this? It doesn't.

Exactly! And it's far more important that Lee and his panel get things accurate considering they are the ones declaring her innocent in front of the world's press. Yet they got some of the basics like dates completely wrong. Shockingly sloppy!

I don't get it either. But I'm not the most scientifically minded. Some on here certainly sound convincing, but whether it actually amounts to anything or not I have no idea. It's quite funny how they're trying to debunk the debunking of Shoo Lee in the first place though 😆if he hadn't have been so sloppy there wouldn't be any need for anyone to make rebuttal videos.

There are a small number of irrelevant typos in Lee's summaries (as in the hospital records, legal records etc)

The videos are not to any significant extent about these minor errors, which don't affect Lee's arguments.

They are full of inaccurate claims that bolster Oliver's arguments, and long irrelevant spiels which she implies are "debunking" the panel's claim, but which misrepresent what the panel stated.

If you don't understand the science or the difference between these types of errors, that's fine, but obviously you shouldn't expect people to take your claims that Oliver or anyone else debunks the science seriously, if that's the case.

If what you are saying is, I don't understand the science but I like what this woman is saying, we are back to what I suggested earlier: that her target group is people who want to see her undermine efforts to review the case, not people who are likely to check the facts and science.

@Oftenaddled getting dates wrong isn't irrelevant!

They are full of inaccurate claims that bolster Oliver's arguments, and long irrelevant spiels which she implies are "debunking" the panel's claim, but which misrepresent what the panel stated.

This seems to be the MO of the panel and anyone who wants to defend them. Just claim they've misunderstood/misrepresented Shoo Lee over and over. I guess he's so highly intelligent that no one could possibly understand him 🙄

If you don't understand the science or the difference between these types of errors, that's fine, but obviously you shouldn't expect people to take your claims that Oliver or anyone else debunks the science seriously, if that's the case.

But we've got @rubbishatballet here who does understand the science and seems to be backing up what's claimed in the video as well. It'll be no surprise to you that the most interesting part of the video to me was the fact the baby collapsed only when Lucy was alone with him. Expect you'll argue she's got that wrong too...

I don't think that's what that poster said at all, is it? She said she was interested in media representations, online discussion etc.

I don't claim that Susan Oliver has misunderstood Shoo Lee's panel. I just observe that she misrepresents them.

If you find it persuasive that a baby was alleged to collapse only when Lucy Letby was alone with him, I think you need to remember the fact that she was giving one-to-one care in small nurseries in an understaffed hospital. If babies were going to deteriorate, it's not surprising they were sometimes alone with their nurses.

How often did babies collapse when alone with their nurses, in intensive care? Because no proper statistical analysis was conducted, we just don't know. But we do know that collapses Lucy Letby wasn't present for were dropped from the list of "suspicious incidents". unherd.com/2025/02/why-the-letby-case-isnt-closed/

Indeed she did not. The exact words of rubbishatballet were that she has 'no idea what any of this means clinically'. Which is totally fair enough, I'm not a clinician either! It does mean, however, that @Firefly1987can't use her to try and get out of this particular criticism.

But hell, if there does end up being a retrial, maybe Cheshire Police can get the dog in as an expert witness.

There is no picture of the rash as Lucy couldn't find the camera.
She really is the unluckiest nurse.

Source?

(And of course no-one had a phone with a camera on it. Oh wait....)

Source? Only the 10 month trial that people seem to forget about.
To be fair to Ll she shouldn't take a work photo with her personal phone! So not sure that the gotcha you think it is.

For Child B, the consultant present asked Lucy Letby to go and get the camera. The rash had faded when she returned with it.

There has been no suggestion that I've seen anywhere that it was lost or that she took an unreasonably long time to fetch it.

She is very unlucky in terms of the amount of fantasies invented about her. (I don't mean by you. You come across a lot of them online. They are easy to throw into the ether and then people repeat them).

I'd assume they wanted a high quality image with the official apparatus, hence not using a phone - it would be the consultant's call whether things were urgent enough to try using anything else.

This is the only case I'm aware of in which there was any talk of photographing a rash, despite much more prolonged incidents with other children. (I've no doubt some of them had rashes, which wouldn't be at all unusual).

I guess the clue is in the phrase ' by the time'

You are right we have no idea how long this was Ll says quickly the Mum ' by the time' but it is just another thing that was unlucky.

Camera phones also weren't as good as they are now. Still a big no on a personal phone.

Suppose it was the time as well. Phone use not as prevalent for photography.
The nurse and Docs describe it as unusual though.

I am sure that if anyone had perceived an unusual delay, we'd have heard about it long before now.

In fact, the treating doctor, who doesn't remember asking for the camera, does remember that the rash was "very brief", implying that it wouldn't have been possible to photograph it:

LANGDALE: Letby's evidence at the criminal trial was that at the collapse of B she says she was joined by Rachel Lambie and was asked to get the unit camera to take a photo of the colour change. Do you remember you or indeed anyone else at the resuscitation scene asking Letby to get a camera to take a photo?

LAMBIE: No, I don't and it's not something that I would routinely do. It would be I can't think of an example and it would have to be an exceptional circumstance for me to ask anyone to step away from an active resuscitation to the point where I can't think of an example where I would do that. It was also the rash was also moving, it was very brief. So no, I don't recall asking Lucy Letby or anybody to either step away from the resuscitation or to get a camera.

Since both Lucy Letby and the child's mother remember her going to get the camera, I think we can assume Dr Lambie has forgotten, but since she states the rash was very brief, and the child's mother doesn't suggest there was a delay, it is just invention to say that Lucy Letby was deliberately slow or that the camera was lost.

https://lucyletbyinnocence.com/thirlwall-doctors.html#r-lambie

The medics were right to note the rash, but rashes are variable and this one was explained by the panel as follows

Baby 2 was at high risk for thrombosis. On the day of collapse, Baby 2 had high D-dimer of 6219 (normal 220-500 ng/ml) and low platelets of 103, both indicative of thrombosis. Fortunately, Baby 2 survived so we have no post mortem evidence of thrombosis.

Patchy skin discolorations are caused by dilation and contraction of small blood vessels in the skin in response to hypoxia, which can occur in many conditions and are not diagnostic of air embolism.

Baby B's very high D-dimer levels showed she was experiencing a serious medical issue, likely a clotting event.

Just another oh dam can't get a photo of valuable stuff though.
But do agree the hospital let the Mother down there.

That's very different from Lucy Letby being to blame, though.

Yes, the hospital was chaotic and often did not document things that they later claimed were important or sinister.

But in this case, I don't see how anyone was to blame for not getting a photo of a fleeting rash. You could argue if you wanted to that there should have been a camera in each nursery, but you can't turn that into another opportunity to blame Lucy Letby.

This is another thing to file away under "blaming a nurse for doing her job".

But that is if you believe the panel. I don't. No cross examination and already lots of flaws. I don't know how you can take them as gospel. This is probably why we may go round in circles

With Child A, medics said there were patches of pink over blue skin that seemed to appear and then fade. The idea that the colour would change and then disappear.

Letby disagrees with that skin colour description for Child A.

She agrees with Dr Harkness that Child A had "mottling", with "purple and white patches".

Letby says she cannot recall any blotchiness.

"I didn't see it - if he says he saw it...that's for him to justify.

"It's not something I saw.

"I was present and I did not see those." ( funny that)

An 'experienced nurse of 20 years', who the court hears was a friend of Letby, said: "I've never seen a baby look that way before - he looked very ill."

Letby agrees Child A looked ill. She disagrees with the nurse's statement of the discolouration, or the blotchiness on Child A's skin.

"I agree he was white with what looked like purple markings."

Letby agrees with the statement that the colouring "came on very suddenly".
Mr Johnson refers to Letby's police interview, in which Letby was asked to interpret what she had seen on Child A.

Letby explained to police mottling was 'blotchy, red markings on the skin'

"Like, reddy-purple".

Child A was "centrally pale".

In the case of Child B, during resuscitation she was described as having purple blotches and white patches all over her body. A nurse said she looked “very ill” and that she resembled her brother. It was noted how unusual and widespread the discolouration was.

For Child D, Nurse Caroline Oakley, who had 20 years of experience, described the rash as dark and completely out of the ordinary. She said it was “deep red and brown” and covered the legs, arms, stomach and chin. She told the court it struck her as something she had never seen before on a baby.

With Child E, Dr David Harkness spoke about a “strange pattern” of purple patches on the abdomen that stood out against the rest of the baby’s skin. He described them as unusual and said they appeared during a sudden collapse.

Child N too but I have to go now.

But we are probably at a stale mate really as you think Shoo Lee is gospel and has only made surface mistakes . I don't.
Roll on CCRC decision.

Have a nice day.

I'd be interested in seeing a non surface mistake Lee has made, when you have time.

Failing that, I think everyone is well aware of the problems with the rash evidence. Irrelevant to the condition claimed, not matching the rash in the condition claimed, not in the original medical notes or police interview or mentioned to the coroner.

Lucy Letby's defence may have a mountain to climb but the rashes aren't it.

In the meantime, there's no cause for anyone to be inventing evidence against her, like the "lost camera" story.