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…

True... but I'm not sure how comforting that is if it's for spurious reasons.

Food for thought here

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/feb/26/nhs-england-maternity-cover-up-childbirth-report

Seriously? A poorly rated hospital, trying to upgrade the level of care it could provide (and get more money) which had not fixed structural problems like sewage bubbling up in sinks near very frail babies and which failed to notice its doctors were offering 2 rounds a week instead of 2 a day - you really dont see what is in it for them to blame one person instead of copping to the multiple levels of systemic failure?

Aquitted or guilty, leaving these decisions to average people can and does go wrong. On one of our cases a man was sitting who had obvious mental health issues (he told me the judge was secretly signaling to him in code) I told the clerk and he was removed from that case only - he was in the waiting room the next day but I don't know if he sat on any more trials. Would he have sat til the end if he hadn't told me? As far as I am aware, it's up to the juror to excuse themselves

I'm not saying the same happened with the LL jury but in my opinion they didn't have the full facts and they were directed in a very unfair way

Yep we're supposed to believe she was only at a minority of deaths yet apparently she can't remember one of them at all! Oh she remembers all right.

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.

I would've thought it was most important for her patients and their families and this is what she failed on at her first placement. It just goes to show she never should've been a nurse in the first place.

I think personality is hella important. If colleagues were calling a police office misogynistic, or he had a nickname like "the rapist" as Wayne Couzens did, then there's probably something in it. There's a big difference between being a bit odd or aloof and exhibiting behaviour that points to you being guilty of the crime you're convicted of.

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.

Well if she had any remorse or guilt at all she would drop all this and accept her fate instead of hurting the families further. But we know she doesn't have any remorse. Her only mission in life is apparently to hurt and destroy people. She's sitting in her jail cell right now laughing at how she's managed to manipulate so many people into defending her no doubt.

Pick 3 of them and prove they are false assertions - with direct quotes to court transcripts, or equivalent level evidence.

It’s not important. We aren’t deciding whether she was a good nurse or not.

Sarah Everard’s case was undisputedly kidnap, rape and murder. This case is obviously very different. Letby’s character is not on trial.

There have been at least 2 jury trials lately where there was actual video evidence of the crime being committed and yet the jury found "Not Guilty" - the jury system is becoming a lottery based on what you did and where you go to trial.

Well if she had any remorse or guilt at all she would drop all this and accept her fate instead of hurting the families further.

Correct - if she had any guilt at all - but at the moment there's doubt as to whether there was actually any crime - apart from you and a few others who are far better informed about it than lots of medical and legal professionals staking their reputations on there being a miscarriage of justice. What are you staking ? - a username change if she's found innocent ?

It’s one of the similarities to the Lucia de Berk case. The Dutch nurse who was found guilty and later freed. She was painted as abrasive and cold. Her interest in tarot was seen as odd. None of which are proof of any wrong doing. But they’re used to prejudice the jury.

Couzens' workmates didn't know he would go on to murder at that point though did they?

Lucy worked in a hospital around premature babies, it's going to be more complex. Doesn't mean she should get off because it's not clear cut enough for some peoples' liking.

Lucy knows exactly what she is and what she's done. Shoo Lee and his panel have already been debunked. They had no expert witnesses who could disagree with the prosecution for every case. I'm not about to believe all UK experts are incompetent so we had to look to Canada to find a proper expert 🙄

Please can I ask, what would or could make you doubt your position at this point?

Did you miss that one of the panel is the professor of neonatal medicine at Imperial? And of course there was the professor of statistics from Warwick who was told to go away by the police when she challenged the statistics they were putting forward as misleading and just plain wrong. I am not sure in what world you think the international panel of experts has been debunked, but most people are able to understand that a retired pediatrician who has never published himself and misunderstood the one paper he used to back up his claims might not carry the same weight as the person who actually wrote the paper and who is a world renowned expert in his field.

I agree. I mean I could believe she could be blurry on some details but not remember at all? Like a lot of what she said, it's bullshit.

More here about her and Baby D (Zoe):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63497920

And yet you consider it all debunked because of an Australian who put out a youtube video.

O haven't got time or the inclination but for one the shredder wasn't found at her parents house.

Honestly nothing. The circumstantial evidence was so overwhelming that I don't think there could be anything to convince me she wasn't guilty. The insulin results for one, whilst maybe not a perfect standard of test you'd want, still point exactly to insulin poisoning. If there was any issue with the tests in question that would've been covered in court but as it happened all her defence could do was agree it was a poisoning it just wasn't Lucy.

Well no I considered it debunked when this article came out-

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15573959/research-doubts-medical-experts-Lucy-Letby-free.html

The opinion of Professor Paul Clarke, an experienced neonatologist who disagrees with Shoo Lee.

Article:

A child had a pulmonary vascular air embolism and a rash - new research report

Shoo Lee's claim - children with air embolism injected in the vein have never been known to show a particular rash (not matching the one in the article)

Why is it that you think this article "debunks" Shoo Lee's work?

But he’s said things in that article which are demonstrably factually incorrect. How do you square this? You believe every ill informed, medically illiterate load of tripe that comes from certain quarters, and are deaf and blind to anything that doesn’t support your narrative. Someone just reminded you that one of the eminent professionals who has expressed concern about the medical evidence presented to the jury is a professor of neonatal medicine at Imperial College. You don’t believe her. But you have no doubts about a YouTube grifter. It’s not credible at this point.

Clarke, since the article was published, has admitted he missed a major section of Lee's article on air embolism (the literature references that make up half of it). So his claim about Lee missing the 1997 paper is false, as he has admitted. Lee has previously discussed the contents of the 1981 paper in response to the same papers a year ago.

Clarke seems to think that Lee has argued that venous air embolism can never become arterial air embolism. Lee has in fact argued the exact opposite. Clarke and Hull seem to think that any discoloration counts as "Lee's sign". Nobody, including the Supreme Court, has ever argued this.

I don't know why Clarke has committed his views to press or podcast before reading half the material he's claiming to critique, or how he or Hull are under the impression that data squarely in agreement with Lee's argument debunk Lee's argument. But if anyone else can explain these things, I'd be delighted to learn more.

Why would it not?