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…

Which makes the next question inevitable. In a system where publicity does make a difference, ought those who believe there's been an MOJ avoid seeking it anyway?

It's not illegal so it's not wrong, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not a useful ploy to get the case in the public eye.

And to attract whistleblowers, experts, and people willing to leak relevant NHS and police records.

It would be daft of Mark McDonald not to seek significant publicity if he can get it.

I was just using it as an example of hubris etc that OA had excused others of.
Yes useful in some instances. Whether this is one. Then we will see.

And her victims and their families can just lump it!

What's the alternative?

Are you arguing for restrictions on discussions of convictions? Or that only the prosecution side should be reported?

(Obviously I wouldn't use the language "lump it", but I would say that unfortunately their pain can't prevent discussion of the problems with the case).

It's a shame for the purposes of this discussion that we didn't have the Internet at the time when the convictions of the Guilford Four etc @were being publicly questioned in the media. Would no doubt be instructive to look back at the sort of things being said about, say, the Giuseppe Conlon and the Bomb Factory TV programme in 1980.

It'd be good to know the answers around her defence but my understanding is that her previous defence team aren't speaking to anyone so we don't fully understand their strategy. Given they lost and are no longer defending her, I can't imagine they see any benefit to trying to explain themselves as it'd just shine light on them. Obviously many are puzzled given the current contentions between medical experts why her one wasn't called to give evidence.

Lots of people would come across as odd especially if you were to look under their beds and read their diaries. People should be reminded of the landlord Christopher Jefferies who did come across as strange (much stranger than Lucy) in the media but was ultimately found not to be involved in murder and was just picked on as he didn't come across well.

It is not for Ben Myers to break client confidentiality. That is up to LL herself.

At the pretrial she had experts. We can only speculate as to why. But it definitely isn't for BM to defend this unless asked by ll.

The alternative is to follow the legal process that already exists and not engage a PR company to run a proactive three ring media circus alongside it.

And I am never going to be persuaded that it was justified or appropriate to hold a televised press conference where medical information and details about the last days of those babies lives were discussed with zero respect shown to their families.

Couldn't agree more. This is nothing like the Post office.

Ah yes, the process. The one that demonstrably takes years to address many MOJs and, for example, decided Andrew Malkinson's case wasn't worth bothering to review on multiple occasions.

I'd be interested to know whether you acknowledge that publicity is often important in remedying MOJ cases, for example the Post Office. Because it's one thing to say a particular action by MM was inappropriate, but you're going much further than that when you argue people should simply follow the legal process alone.

It's McDonald's duty to serve the interest of his client. The press conference marked a turning point in media accounts of Letby's case. Since Netflix documentaries, Daily Mail podcasts etc can discuss these children's last days all the time, a press conference commenting on their medical care isn't unreasonable.

I did find David Davis's introduction a bit chummy, but holding the event itself was sensible.

McDonald is following the legal process as it exists - there's no reason not to do that alongside a media campaign if both benefit your client. And no reason not to accept the free services of a PR company if offered, in order to do this more effectively.

The media has given us plenty of stories about the case against Letby, flimsy anecdotes about her hospital days, interviews with consultants who accused her, splashes about her life in prison etc. It's not Mark McDonald who made Lucy Letby and her alleged victims press and TV fodder. There's no justification in expecting her legal representatives to stand aloof from this media scrum and let it happen without representing their client's side of things.

She's absolutely guilty as sin. Nothing in the documentary convinced me otherwise.

How do people explain that she allegedly couldn't remember "Baby Zoe" when she literally sent text messages about how much her death and parents' reaction has affected her and the baby collapsed 3 times on her watch in one night for no apparent reason.

Also how do people explain the deliberate injection of insulin into two babies (facts which Lucy didn't dispute)? Did someone else inject them? Complete nonsense.

She was on duty for ALL the unexplained deaths. Whilst she was in custody awaiting trial - no unexplained deaths. Surprise surprise.

It's true, this was already a media circus before McDonald ever got anywhere near it. I don't know how you get round that with a case of such vast public interest.

I think this is probably going to end up the norm for anyone attempting to pursue an MOJ case in the era where social media has already tried them. Poor Andrew Malkinson has had very little luck in his life, but at least by the time he came to that level of public attention it's because we knew he was innocent. I'm local and I know there was some publicity, but nothing like on this scale.

So we should dispense with that process then? Just let her out now? Because the CCRC have been pretty clear that their timeline is not going to be influenced by pressure from anyone, so what’s the point of the media circus.

And yes, as a fully functioning adult human I can confirm that I am capable of having different thoughts about different things.

You cannot possibly imagine the post you quote was advocating simply letting her out. I mean what the actual fuck. We're talking about the publicity seeking aspect of MOJ work, in a system with the flaws and features we all know about. Strawmanning just makes it look like you're trying to move the goalposts.

I notice with interest you haven't confirmed whether you acknowledge publicity is sometimes important in MOJ cases. It's a yes or no question. Very charitable of you to place this level of trust in the CCRC, only one of the bodies involved here, but nobody else is obliged to hold this belief, much less represent their client on that basis.

In a case like this, which has called into question the inherent integrity of the NHS, judicial system, police and the press, we need absolute transparency; nothing else.

We certainly cannot draw a curtain across it because it may cause the families pain. On that logic, Letby should never have been questioned in the first place.

Media attention helps to encourage new expert volunteers and leaks from hospital and police.

It draws attention to problems that are wider than the case, such as the expert witness system, police payments to media, the slowness of the CCRC.

It "prepares" the ground in the sense that, if Lucy Letby is eventually acquitted, it's probable that many people will understand why and she will face fewer people determined to view her as a babykiller forever.

It does not in any way prevent people from engaging with the official processes and nobody is suggesting that it should be used instead of the official processes. But it is very sensible to use it as well.

The media didn't have to go you know.

“Questions were raised in her training I believe. About lack of empathy.”

Not conveying empathy well is not the same as lacking it. I volunteered for many years for the Samaritans and similar hotlines. Initially I struggled in training and failed some assessments, before becoming good at it. I had empathy or I wouldn’t have volunteered. I just wasn’t conveying it well, at first.

To be honest, I don’t think it’s important.

Letby’s personality, likability, kindness and empathy or lack thereof are not on trial. It’s not important whether she’s a kind, warm person or a cold, aloof one. That’s only important if you’re her friend or colleague. For the purposes of justice, the only question is whether she’s guilty of murder and this case is unusual as it rests on whether murders happened at all.

Yes. I always think people who judge others on appearance as having a lack of empathy may themselves be a bit lacking in empathy.

It's easy to understand people who present just the way you do and the way you expect. But you need to understand that people are all very different. Lucy Letby's referee shortly afterwards wrote that she was shy and became very introverted in stressful situations, which is obviously something she could work on and isn't very unusual.

I've also known deeply kind and altruistic people who have needed to learn to show empathy in some situations, and have done just that.

It's interesting, we keep going back to how people should think, act, feel and behave in completely extreme and left field circumstances.

How are people accused of unthinkable crimes, convicted yet claim innocence supposed to behave in their quest for exoneration? All publicity will help them, whether people feel it's undignified or not. The system is not immune to corruption, those working within it are only human and if they have acted less than "honourably" they have much to lose.

If you were convicted on circumstantial evidence, would you just accept how slowly the wheels of justice turn when you're trying to reverse them entirely? There is almost the feeling that someone pursuing their innocence is a bit of an embarrassment, not because MOJs are, frankly, an embarrassing indictment of our major institutions, but because it will upset people, hurt their feelings, or whatever. Hang the principles of truth and justice, we have reputations to consider and books to balance.

It's grubby, all grubby, and could be avoided in a complex case such as this by just following basic standards of investigation.

The previous defence team aren't allowed to speak publicly about this unless privileged material becomes public, they're not allowed to make it public themselves.
She has waived privilege for the CRCC or at least a partial waiver, but that doesn't mean privilege is waived publicly and that the previous team is allowed to speak publicly.
They could face serious disciplinary action if they did.

If MM was slating them publicly or telling lies I believe they would be allowed to defend themselves only to the extent where they cleared up what was being said but that's it.