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…

Well it doesn’t. And as you have such strong feelings on the subject why not answer the question? What in the article debunks Shoo Lee’s work in your opinion?

So you can't then - just say it out loud.

How does it? The whole point of Lee's work is that babies with air injected in the veins haven't been known to show the same signs that some babies with pulmonary vascular air embolisms show.

If Liz Hull was talking about a baby with air injected in the veins she might be able to show this isn't true, but when you read the case study she cites, it's not about a baby with air injected in the veins at all. It's irrelevant.

(And the photo doesn't shows flitting pink / purple patches on a cyanosed background anyway - nothing in the article suggests they were flitting patches, even if people think the colour matches)

It's almost like one of the "Baby Murderer" side is Australian and owns a dog.

Here is the case study which Liz Hull, apparently supported by Paul Clarke, has claimed can be used to debunk Shoo Lee's work:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875957225001627

Here is Shoo Lee's work:

http://www.thieme-connect.com/DOI/DOI?10.1055/a-2508-2733

As Lee politely puts it, with no drama or personal criticisms:

'The international expert panel of course welcomes scrutiny of our findings by those in the medical profession - however, respectfully, the interpretation of my paper in this instance is incorrect.'

You don't even care if it stands up to scrutiny or not, you just decided that was it, it's debunked.

In the same interview, she said she didn't really remember the baby, she did remember drawing up evidence, she didn't remember anything enough to be able to speak with confidence about what happened that night.

Netflix is only giving a tiny snapshot of her police interviews, cross examination etc, and in this case they obviously went for maximum drama.

I just gave you one but you chose to ignore that.

Maybe @Firefly1987 can explain how the article debunks Professor Lee’s findings as @coffeeandteav can’t. I mean one of them must have read it surely?

I asked for three but you chose to ignore that - and being mistaken about a shredder is hardly evidence of a baby murderer.

The issue was very likely, at least in part, that they couldn't find experts to dispute the evidence of insulin poisoning. That doesn't mean experts who could do this don't exist though, and at least seven have written material for the CCRC application.

Phil Hammond had an interesting review of pre-trial discussions and expert opinion here (https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/lucy-letby - number 28)

So here's the question we are left with. If the science exists to clear you, but your solicitor didn't find people with this highly specialist knowledge in time, should you stay locked up for life?

Oh Jeez! So mist was his option I don't see how you can't see that but secondly P gate.
I guess it does come down to what a person means by arrest? The saying the words or the actuality being taken away?

She was never taken away ( arrested) in her pajamas. The police were actually quite reasonable in allowing her to get dressed. ( other countries have commented on the British politeness). She chose to wear her dressing gown. She had the Lee Cooper leisure suit underneath it. That you could clearly see as the YTuber stated this as fact.

Tbf I agree with him in the handover notes. Netflix misrepresented this. But most his just his opinion and its a pretty shit youtube of 'facts' .

I also didn't say that. I said the youtube provided misinformation. It does.

On the other hand, you can see her nightie under her tracksuit at the first arrest. It's never been clear which she was referring to.

They always allowed her the dignity to get dressed.
It is irrelevant ti the whole case though. Don't know why anyone is still going on about it including that poor youtube video.
May have had more respect if it actually was a shoo Lee press conference link.

I don’t think most people are unclear about what arrested means. Are you going to tell us how the article you cited earlier debunks Professor Lee’s findings?

Yes, I agree it's not important.

I suspect people are often in shock and not comfortable stripping down in front of people. I can imagine pulling clothes on over a nightie etc

Can't see a nightie? Could also be a black shirt?
But either way i think the police did allow her chance to get dressed. And

What she said at the trial was, I think I had a nightie on, and then a tracksuit bottom and top and trainers. Looks like she pulled clothes on over her nightie to answer the door and left the house in the same clothes. I don't think we can know if the police offered her the opportunity to change or whether, apart from the nightie, she was appropriately dressed.

Like Lucy I would call that blue outfit a tracksuit, not a leisure suit which isn't something I could identify or a phrase I'd use.

I agree! Who calls it a leisure suit? Just NJ.
It is a trackie where I am from.

When an international panel of experts speak out to conclude no murders we’re committed, the former health secretary states his belief she is ‘probably innocent’, a cross section of tabloid and broadsheet newspapers from both left and right leanings express concern about the conviction and senior politicians speak out expressing concern, it’s a bit more than ‘not clear cut enough.’

Lee said air could not pass across FO. Ignoring his own footnote. It can.
But we don't have too. The appeal court doesn't agree with SL. We will hopefully soon see what the CCRC say.

Lee in fact said at the press conference, in his article, and in the expert summary report that air could pass through the FO, especially where there were pulmonary pressures, but that it hasn't been known to happen and to produce Lee's sign where air was injected with a syringe.

The means of delivery is relevant because it is about air pressures, and of course Lucy Letby is accused of delivering air through a syringe.

Clarke seems to have understood this as, it will never happen in venous air embolism generally, since that it what he appears to be arguing against. But Lee said that it is does happen in venous air embolism. So where is the disagreement?

And as we know, wearing a nighty is a sure sign you murdered babies 😉

If you’re blurry on detail you’re probably best not to say anything. At this stage the police are trying to catch you out. If you start giving details that aren’t correct - not because you’re lying but just because your memory is a bit blurry. You might be giving details from another case by accident and that can be used against you. You’ll be called a liar if they can show what you’re trying to recall isn’t correct.

Some miscarriages of justice have this feature where an innocent person speaks to the police to try to clear things up but then the police find an inconsistency that they use against them. Instead of just an innocent mistake it’s painted in more sinister light.