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…

You've read over 800 posts and that's all you have to contribute?

It shows what her character is. I thought it was a brilliant bit of questioning actually. He got her to admit she lies and manipulates people for sympathy. That could be exactly the motive for why she killed those babies. She could've just said oh sorry I'm confused over which arrest you mean etc. and have him play the video but she didn't did she. Because she lies and she ended up admitting that. All she could say was "I don't know why I lied about it"-bingo he's got her. She's a liar, her testimony is not to be trusted.

Which is what most of the youtube points were. Opinions not facts.
Granted there were some correct points made.

It's incredible really. That's their MO though-claim everyone else just doesn't understand something. Even the eminent professionals! They must have learnt it at the Mark Mcdonald school of bullshitting. Anyway most of these posters are all about the science so they might be intelligent in one area but they seem to have zero common sense. It's why they'll never wrap their heads around this case. Hopefully there's ways they can weed out these people before they ever have to serve on a jury.

Also agree with you about Dewi Evans often not coming across that well. But the way he has been treated by Letby nutcases sickens me. He's not a young man either. You're so right about posters just trying to make out LL never put a foot wrong, Shoo Lee is perfect, MM is perfect or doing it all "for justice" so it's ok. It's like a cult.

@1975wasthebest You don’t get to police my responses to threads.

She gave quite a lot of information in examination and cross examination, if you read it, but it's not surprising she seemed overwhelmed or defeated at other points. Her recall of detail was similar to other witnesses' - patchy and cautious. That seems natural six and seven years after the events.

@Oftenaddled Judith Moritz has a different view:

In the witness box, Letby would often say she couldn’t recall or didn’t remember events. “She would contradict herself and evidence she previously agreed, she then un-agreed,” says Moritz. “There was a sense that they [the prosecution] had her on the ropes and she had to ask for a break.”

Moritz says Letby often became tangled when responding to straightforward questions related to whether or not she had attacked a child. “That was where she’d tie herself in knots or give politicians’ answers or just try to out-lawyer the prosecutor,”

Also:

Letby did get emotional, but not at the moments Moritz expected her to. She was tearful when talking about herself, her job, losing her job and when the married doctor with whom she’d exchanged hundreds of Facebook messages came to court to testify against her. “But there were long periods of discussion around what had happened to the babies, which were harrowing for anyone to listen to,” says Moritz. “I don’t remember a moment where that seemed particularly to affect her. Over ten months, that left an impression.”

From:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-panorama-documentary-tft592w5r

@Firefly1987 It's genuinely laughable that you think the posters you're talking about are the ones who should never sit on a jury 😂

Judith Moritz is just being naive though - Letby not getting upset when Judith expected her too. She made (and probably influenced other people in making) the same error as anyone who thinks they know how people should react one, or that they are seeing somebody's unfiltered reaction to events when they are in fact seeing the effect of someone being on trial for those events.

There's also nowhere here where she considers anyone else's memory of events - it's all just amateur psychology about Lucy Letby. I don't find her reporting particularly persuasive.

I personally would expect to see people, guilty or innocent being tearful when discussing themselves, their jobs, their losses etc rather than when discussing the person/people they were accused of harming. That's perfectly normal in that situation. Of course your main concern would be for yourself and the impact everything had on you.

No, he didn't get her to admit that.

You have a very strong tendency to fill in the gaps with what you want to believe and then to announce it as fact. That's not common sense. It's fantasising.

@Firefly1987
Obviously she wasn't going to ask him to play the video, if I was in that situation I'd just assume I got it wrong and he wouldn't be goading me in court and offering to play the video if he wasn't sure that I had it wrong, it wasn't a genuine attempt to clear something up.

And she didn't 'admit she lied', you're just making stuff up.

You couldn’t be more wrong about it all being ‘amateur psychology’ - read the whole thing if you can. She is (mostly) being factual.

Well there's literally nothing that could convince some posters she's guilty so what does that say? I think they just like arguing the minutiae of the scientific details. It's a certain processing thing I think.

A cognitive style known as "weak central coherence" which means they often focus intensely on fine details and patterns, sometimes struggling to grasp the overall "big picture" or context. This detail-oriented perspective can be a strength in areas like coding or art but may make it harder to process social cues, rapidly changing situations, or abstract, broad concepts

I think this describes a lot of the posters on the Letby side.

Read all of what, though? Lucy Letby's cross examination? I have, or at least large swathes of them. I don't need to rely on Judith Moritz's opinions.

I am unimpressed by Moritz because she seems to think (from her book) that she can read Lucy Letby's soul by staring into her eyes. I don't need this kind of psychodrama when I'm reading court reporting

Sure assume you got it wrong, not admit you lied about it. It's quite telling. Sorry but I don't care how much stress I'm under or how much of a muddle I get in, you won't get me to say "I don't know why I lied" about something. Because I know I didn't.

And she didn't 'admit she lied', you're just making stuff up.

Did you read the link from earlier? He DID get her to admit she lied.

Nope,
There's a far more basic thing going on, people applying critical thinking to the narrative that was presented, and not by looking at minutiae details, but by looking at the larger details, no concrete proof that crimes were committed, no concrete proof LL committed crimes, many documented issues at the hospital, many issues with the care of some of the babies etc.

There's issues with the very core of the narrative presented, people on the potential miscarriage of justice side don't really need to get down to trivial little details and most of the time the only reason they're even mentioned is because you keep bringing up the little things.

There's a few smaller details and problems with the case that have stuck in my mind for sure, but they would mean very little to me if I didn't also see major issues with the rest of the case.

You're the one ignoring the huge obvious flaws with the case and focusing on the minutiae and claiming they prove guilt.

We've been bogged down on minutiae for a while on this thread now, haven't we? But I would say that is because whenever people raise the "big picture" issues, others come back in with, what about Facebook. What about pyjamas etc.

The big picture:

There's no medical evidence of murder

There's nothing linking Lucy Letby with any alleged crimes except a poorly analysed statistical patterns

The crimes the prosecution described on court were invisible and mostly vaguely timed, so with the state of the records the accusations were virtually unfalsifiable

If you challenge the details making up these assertions, naturally you'll get details back. But these (not the argument that there are lots and lots of small details somehow adding up to a certain truth) are what the big picture looks like

@Firefly1987
I've said it to you before but I've never seen so much projection from anyone ever, anything you accuse other people of always applies to you more than anyone on here. In fact the people you say are x, y and z are most of the time demonstrably not the way you say they are, while your own posts demonstrate that you are that way.

I'm still waiting for some sort of logical explanation as to how the liver injury was achieved by nefarious means. Sometimes the devil really is in the detail.

Actual evidence that she is guilty would help your cause.

And I will add in the edit, evidence of an actual crime being commited.

There's literally a subreddit about the science only, and the other pro-Letby one has posters thinking they can outmath her murder convictions purely because a poorly run unit is more likely than a serial killer 🙄and I'd wager you're a member of both. Someone even said no one had analysed the cries of babies in different situations. As if a mother by instinct doesn't know when her baby is in distress! They're like bloody robots, not a feeling between any of them (on that subreddit I mean)

There's nothing linking Lucy Letby with any alleged crimes except a poorly analysed statistical patterns

So it's wrong to convict people based on statistics (not that that even happened in the LL case) yet you're mad they got rid of Jane Hutton statistician? Why the double standards?

If you want to take that as 'admitting she lied' then go ahead.

The whole exchange was ridiculous, there was also another part that went like this.

NJ - when the police came face to face with you you had a nightie on didn't you?

LL - yes I had my pyjamas on

NJ - no you had a nightie on

LL - OK

NJ - do you want to see a video?

He's trying to confuse the life out of her, she's saying she was wearing pyjamas because she'd put something over it (or whatever actually happened, I literally don't care about any of this stuff to commit it to memory) then he's making out she's a liar and asking does she want to see the video, then in the next part he he said she's wearing a nightie, she's agreeing she wearing pyjamas, she could easily have meant her nightie was pyjamas but he's correcting her and asking about a video again.

He's trying to trip her up about things that are pointless, making out she's lying when she's agreeing, making out she's conceding she's lying when her brain is just fried, you mention common sense, well if you had any common sense at all you'd understand that a traumatised brain will get overloaded with that kind of nonsense.

But all you see is a line saying she 'She said she did not know why she had lied about that detail' and that's enough for you to jump to 'admitted she lied'.

If there are subreddits about Lucy Letby, naturally they are going to go into the details rather than go over the basics again and again. There's nothing wrong with that. To evaluate what they are saying, you'd need context. There are some pretty weird accusations around crying in the case against Lucy Letby, and there's a lot of relevant science - insulin measures, statistical patterns, medical matters.

What's your point - people shouldn't query these details and it's okay to handwave the science so long as we ignore any problems with the conviction?

You are confusing, people examine the details (good) with people focus only on the detail (not the case for plenty of people)

It is a really strange criticism.

It's wrong to convict people based on statistics without full analysis of the data underlying these statistics, yes

So it's wrong to convict people based on statistics (not that that even happened in the LL case) yet you're mad they got rid of Jane Hutton statistician? Why the double standards?

Of course statistics can be used in evidence, but they should not use a skewed data set.

The rota chart was statistical evidence, but it was skewed by excluding all the incidences of collapse and deaths when Letby wasn’t present.

Jane Hutton advised the prosecution on the proper use of statistics but they didn’t like what she was saying so stopped hiring her.

Where are the double standards?