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…

The only thing that actually matters is truth and justice. We all know, even you, that MoJs happen. The process of testing whether there has been a MoJ in this case is in progress, whether you like it or not.

You do not understand the insulin evidence. The jury did not hear all the insulin evidence, because the defence had not had access to the right experts. Once the trial was being reported on, many experts who do understand the insulin evidence became concerned, but they were not allowed to intervene in any way because they would have been in contempt of court.

You also do not understand the air embolism evidence. You certainly haven’t been able to state what points directly to air embolism, and neither could Dewi Evans. “Baby collapsed and died” is hardly diagnostic of air embolism. Evans did not understand the air embolism evidence, so the jury did not hear the facts. The judges who denied leave to appeal also didn’t understand the air embolism evidence. Susan Oliver either doesn’t understand the air embolism evidence, or is choosing to misrepresent it.

All of this needs to be explored in full to confirm whether or not the verdicts are sound.

Railing against due process is frankly bizarre. The system exists to protect all of us, yet it is still flawed. The cases of Andrew Malkinson and the Post Office staff demonstrate its lack of fitness for purpose and lack of timeliness. It is right and proper for us - taxpayers and citizens, any of whom could be victims of a MoJ - to be able to rattle political and organisational cages.

Let's assume she did "lie" rather than not actually claiming that, or maybe just being confused by being arrested for the murder of babies - can you explain how LL wearing pyjamas but saying she didn't proves that babies were indeed murdered and LL was the perpetrator ?

Claiming that anyone who disagrees with you simply 'doesn't understand' the evidence is a pretty dismissive way to frame the debate.
It reduces the credibility of your argument when you are assuming not only posters but qualified medical professionals and judges are just incapable of grasping the science, rather than acknowledging that there is a legitimate difference in opinion.

The same with politics it rarely works just calling people thick.

Who are the may experts that understand insulin? Geoff Chase and Helen Shannon? There are many that disagree with these people and doubt what they are saying. I can still value their contributions whether I agree or not. You would just say they don't understand.

This is the trouble with some people who think she is innocent and reduces their motivation. For example the double down on PJ gate. Mentioned in a random YouTube. No not important but when people double down that lucy did no wrong at all. It just makes no sense. Some can't even admit 200 plus handover notes was at least unprofessional and against data privacy of patients. But all nurses do it. No they don't.

Also if the NJ cross examination is bullying we need to look at cases as a whole then as this happens in many cases.

I wouldn't double down no matter what with the prosecution. While I don't think Evans is incorrect. In my opinion Dewi Evans has not acted amazingly since the trial. In fact at times he has acted a prize plum.
I don't think some people on here ( not all) can see the wrong on Letby side and double down no matter what. This reduced peoples real motivation for me.
Granted there probably are people on the prosecution side that are the same before anyone comes back with that.

It doesn't it just shows that people will have LL do no wrong. It was only mentioned on here as it was mentioned in a link. Obviously NJ used it to show dishonesty.
If you don't agree with that there is a wider discussion to have in cross examination tactics.

For someone so ''innocent'' of what she's accused of, whether she did actually kill and hurt babies or not, basically, as soon as she was let out of solitary confinement, she immediately became ''besties'' with a couple of other child killers!

If I were in prison for such a monstrous crime, and if I were genuinely innocent, I'd try to avoid child killers in there as much as possible!

I have no idea if she’s guilty or not.I don’t think she can be judged for her reaction though. She’s obviously been under suspicion and known it for a long time ,to me she looks resigned and drugged up , maybe wearily defiant. Îd wager if you were guilty you would cry and protest and faint with shock etc as that is how people expect an nnocent person to act.

We don't have any reliable source for this. Obviously being civil to other prisoners would keep you safer. She's in danger of being attacked by fellow inmates and she didn't choose to be locked up with them.

The nightdress/pjs/tracksuit thing is just to build up a picture of her as fundamentally dishonest. When you are given time and permission to dress and either chose not to, or you do dress but half arsedly and then put a dressing gown on then it’s disingenuous to complain that you were taken out in a nightie. Even if you didn’t get dressed because of the shock or because the police are stomping up and down your stairs in their terrible policeman’s boots.
It just adds to her dishonesty on top of

Not owning a shredder.
Having all those handover sheets by mistake - but storing them in a box marked “keep” in chronological order and taking them with you when you move house.
Not knowing what “go commando” means despite it being obvious from context that you do know.
Putting little dots in your personal diary on the days the babies collapsed and died in order to do reflections later - no written reflections and incredibly shaky memories of the incidents she is supposed to have reflected on.
Having no memory of “Zoe” despite being fairly involved, sending text messages about her and Facebook stalking her mum.
Not carrying on a carry on with Dr Love despite the 1300+ text message evidence and the shopping trips etc. Married men with kids don’t go on mini breaks to London with female colleagues when there is nothing going on.

None of these things mean she’s guilty of murder but they do mean she is dishonest.

I find this whole discussion bizarre. No, leaving aside the fact she probably couldn't remember or was confused, saying you don't have a shredder when you do or pyjamas on if you didn't does not build a picture of dishonesty in any way, shape or form.

If that is the worst that can be found it actually makes her more honest than 99% of the human race.

The type of thing that would show dishonesty above and beyond the norm and therefore might possibly be relevant

• stealing from people
• conning money out of people
• making up fantastical stories for sympathy or attention
• pretending to have a serious illness like cancer
• inventing fake qualifications

Where did you get this information from?

Who says she was given time and permission to dress at her first arrest? And where did she say whether she was or not? She answered the door wearing her tracksuit over what looks like a nightie or long T-Shirt,and she left the house wearing the same clothes. You can assume she's lying if that's you want to do, but it's in no way proved.

I heard a lawyer with an interesting discussion of the case on a podcast. He said people in the profession don't take this kind of "lie" seriously, partly because you get contradictions in remembered events, partly because lying is a normal human behaviour, so making the leap to murdering babies etc isn't reasonable.

I very much doubt Nick Johnson believed she was necessarily lying or that this proved anything, but it was his job to try to trip her up and discredit her in the eyes of the jury and that's what he did.

I think that if you read details of the cross examination, you're unlikely to come away convinced she was simply lying. https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1ibsi0f/dressing_down_lucy_letby_nick_johnson_and_the_lee/

I am pretty taken aback that in a case of this gravity so much was made of what she was wearing at the time of her arrest. It is uncomfortable reading because these little details - whether or not they are lies - will have happened to us all and they’ve been used to try to paint a picture of someone as one of the worst murderers in history.

Whether she’s innocent or otherwise, that’s just wrong.

You occasionally get leaks from other inmates or prison wardens in tabloids, saying things like ooh everybody thinks she's weird, oh she plays board games with such and such, oh when we were allowed to sunbathe she went beside such and such, oh she's perfect and she thinks she's too good to talk to anyone.

Sounds like the worst years of secondary school, but on a wing with murderers, filtered through tabloid sensationalism. Obviously she's locked up with other high security prisoners and obviously for her safety and sanity she'd need to be civil to them.

It's another case where you think, here are the tabloids willing to pay dishonest or criminal sources for stories ... and that's the worst they've got?

@Oftenaddled i guess that’s what I was getting at. It’s unlikely to be a reliable and reputable source and jumping on it and practically salivating at ‘well it PROVES …’ (with all the exclamation marks, it made the post look very excited which was uncomfortable reading given the topic) - all it proves is that Letby is maintaining cordial relationships with those around her.

On a slightly deeper level (and I’ll throw my oar in here and say I really do think she’s innocent) I imagine she’s emerged from this a very different woman to the one she was before. God knows what will happen to her when / if she’s finally released.

Who says she was given time and permission to dress at her first arrest? And where did she say whether she was or not? She answered the door wearing her tracksuit over what looks like a nightie or long T-Shirt,and she left the house wearing the same clothes. You can assume she's lying if that's you want to do, but it's in no way proved.

There was a discussion with the police offer about the tracksuit being suitable. They were looking for shoes. She wasn't rushed out. So the poster is correct here.

I mean it was one day ( probably 10 mins) of a 10 month trial.

This always sort of reminds me of some of my year 9/l furiously protesting their innocence yeah and you said we were ten minutes late to the lesson and we ACTUALLY walked in at 12:27 so we were SEVEN minutes after the bell so you’re chatting shit miss!

(I love my school 😩)

I think the overlying point that was being made was she was arrested when in bed. That was what ‘in my pyjamas’ was shorthand for.

If you'd given a team of police investigators several years to go through my life including all my possessions and everything I'd written then I'm sure you'd find a lot of things to make me look suspicious. If you look hard enough you're going to find something for anyone.

We don't know how many other nurses from the same department took home handover sheets at the time (I'll bet there's none who do now) because nobody else was searched. We don't know about the lives of the others because they weren't examined. There may have been gamblers, drinkers, drug users or any number of other things.

The Lucy Letby dishonesty things just look a bit thin. "Facebook stalking" sounds a lot more serious than 31 searches involving the families of the babies out of over 2000.

If someone's accused of fraud and you can show dishonesty in other things like a record of shoplifting I'd say that's definitely relevant. If someone's accused of murder then if you could show examples of domestic violence or public disorder then that would be relevant.

And, realistically, the "who" of this case seems to me to be almost completely irrelevant if it turns out that the more likely explanations for the deaths and collapses are natural causes or poor medical care. I think that's more the focus of the appeal. I think that's why people seem unconcerned about whether she lied about pyjamas or didn't know what going commando was.

It doesn’t matter if it was one hour of it. It is wrong.

This was in response to the poster saying so much was made of it.
Again if you disagree there is a wider discussion on prosecutions cross examination approaches.

The prosecution wasn't wrong however. Tbf to LL as I said before it depends what arrest means. (But a pp poster moaned about that) . They said the words you are under arrest while she was in bed for the last time ( wearing pink night wear). So technically she was. She however went away in a red gap top. So the arrest was not completed in her nightie.
NJ was talking about the first arrest.

None of it is important in the grand scheme as said before.

The Lucy Letby dishonesty things just look a bit thin. "Facebook stalking" sounds a lot more serious than 31 searches involving the families of the babies out of over 2000.

The point was about Letby lying about not remembering baby Zoe even though she looked up Zoe’s mum, hours after Zoe died. Not the general searches she did.

Well, it also proves that people who not only take it as gospel but reckon they know how they'd behave in such circumstances aren't being very bright. Unless they have been in prison for murder already, I suppose, in which case they'd have some idea what they're talking about. Maybe that poster will return and let us know whether she's been there done that.

None of it is important in the slightest.

You see, I know you don't think the whole pyjamas thing is important either, but I would say I don't think that's really what was said.

Here's the excerpt

LL: (whimpers)

PW2: Is there any footwear that you need to get on or…?

PW1: Are you gonna go in the clothes you’ve got on? Um…

LL: (whimpers)

PW1: … ‘cause you’re in like, a tracksuit, so it’s probably appropriate.

PW2: So, we’ll get you some footwear.

LL: (whimpers, puts hands to face) I just…

PW1: You got any shoes?

PW2: Everything else is gonna have to remain untouched, so we can’t have you move anything around or taking anything else, really.

The policewoman shuts down the possibility of changing pretty fast, and says nothing else can be touched, removed or taken. You could argue that Lucy Letby could have asserted herself and asked to change, but she's being submissive and cooperative.

I wouldn't be condemning someone as a liar on this evidence.

She looked up the mum hours after the baby died, and at least three years before she was asked about her by the police.

It's the passage of those three years that matters to forgetting most of what she knew about the child (not everything - what Netflix showed was selective).

What you remember the next day and what you remember three years later are two totally different things.