Page 35 | To think Lucy Letby could’ve done more to help herself if she really wasn’t guilty?

Seymorbutts · 2026-02-10T23:59:20+00:00

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…

kkloo · 28/02/2026 21:59

@Firefly1987 They're like bloody robots, not a feeling between any of them (on that subreddit I mean)

Really? is this really what you think? It's concerning that you have to dehumanise people just because they have a different opinion than you do or have a strong interest in the actual science of the case.

MistressoftheDarkSide · 28/02/2026 21:59

kkloo · 28/02/2026 21:53

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'.

Show quote history

Anyone whose been in an emotionally abusive / coercive relationship reads this and their blood runs cold. It's bad enough when someone does this in private, or in front of friends and family. But this is from a stranger, in an authoritarian setting, in front of an audience and the national press. After a while the brain cannot cope with this level of stress, hence her responses after 6 / 7 years being impossible to analyse for tone or subtext.

LuisCarol · 28/02/2026 22:04

Firefly1987 · 28/02/2026 21:15

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.

Show quote history

Well there's literally nothing that could convince some posters she's guilty

You are mistaking "there's been literally nothing presented that convinces some posters that there's anything to be guilty of" with "there's nothing that could convince some posters she's guilty".

I'm in the first camp, but there's plenty that could convince me she's guilty. It's just not present.

Firefly1987 · 28/02/2026 22:10

kkloo · 28/02/2026 21:59

@Firefly1987 They're like bloody robots, not a feeling between any of them (on that subreddit I mean)

Really? is this really what you think? It's concerning that you have to dehumanise people just because they have a different opinion than you do or have a strong interest in the actual science of the case.

Yes. When you've got posters on there saying the mother hearing their baby in huge distress is irrelevant because no one has analysed what different cries mean or whatever they said. That you can explain everything away with science, even human emotions or a baby crying.

They're just cold and emotionless. I guess that's why they identify so well with Letby.

Firefly1987 · 28/02/2026 22:13

One of them also said something about the effect (or lack of) the deaths has had on them compared to other cases (basically, they're only premature babies that probably would've died anyway) and got a bunch of upvotes. Disgusting.

kkloo · 28/02/2026 22:13

MistressoftheDarkSide · 28/02/2026 21:59

Anyone whose been in an emotionally abusive / coercive relationship reads this and their blood runs cold. It's bad enough when someone does this in private, or in front of friends and family. But this is from a stranger, in an authoritarian setting, in front of an audience and the national press. After a while the brain cannot cope with this level of stress, hence her responses after 6 / 7 years being impossible to analyse for tone or subtext.

Show quote history

Agreed completely.

I've said it on other threads but it's helpful to think of it in terms of gaslighting, the police etc may have not been trying to gaslight her, but the effect is still the same because what's happening is still the same, your reality is being denied, you're being told something else happened, you're trying to explain and explain so that you will be believed but you keep getting told otherwise. It can have a catastrophic effect on the brain, add to that the fact she was locked up and everything else that happened to her over the years and that's a level of trauma that a brain is often really going to struggle to cope with.

And then we have people saying 'well she was a bit odd on the stand'........

Oftenaddled · 28/02/2026 22:18

Firefly1987 · 28/02/2026 22:10

Yes. When you've got posters on there saying the mother hearing their baby in huge distress is irrelevant because no one has analysed what different cries mean or whatever they said. That you can explain everything away with science, even human emotions or a baby crying.

They're just cold and emotionless. I guess that's why they identify so well with Letby.

Show quote history

You'd have to explain what they are actually saying if this is a detail you think it's important to discuss. As I recall there's an incident where a doctor's note with the word "screaming" was interpreted as meaning air embolism, but an analysis of door swipe records after police admitted they'd been mixed up showed that Lucy Letby couldn't have been responsible anyway. If you think that's an unimportant detail, that's up to you

https://medium.com/@triedbystats/baby-n-transcripts-reveal-previously-unreported-swipe-data-error-in-lucy-letby-case-16ff22254561

I don't remember any discussions around the science of crying on either subreddit though I would be interested. I do read both, but moreso r/lucyletbytrials which I think is a very well moderated space.

kkloo · 28/02/2026 22:19

MistressoftheDarkSide · 28/02/2026 21:59

Anyone whose been in an emotionally abusive / coercive relationship reads this and their blood runs cold. It's bad enough when someone does this in private, or in front of friends and family. But this is from a stranger, in an authoritarian setting, in front of an audience and the national press. After a while the brain cannot cope with this level of stress, hence her responses after 6 / 7 years being impossible to analyse for tone or subtext.

Show quote history

deleted - double post

Firefly1987 · 28/02/2026 22:29

kkloo · 28/02/2026 22:13

Agreed completely.

I've said it on other threads but it's helpful to think of it in terms of gaslighting, the police etc may have not been trying to gaslight her, but the effect is still the same because what's happening is still the same, your reality is being denied, you're being told something else happened, you're trying to explain and explain so that you will be believed but you keep getting told otherwise. It can have a catastrophic effect on the brain, add to that the fact she was locked up and everything else that happened to her over the years and that's a level of trauma that a brain is often really going to struggle to cope with.

And then we have people saying 'well she was a bit odd on the stand'........

Show quote history

She was on trial for multiple child murders and you're complaining the prosecution were too hard on her? I've heard everything now! She got every concession going, they took a break if she was getting upset. Let her come in early away from everyone else I think because of her anxiety?!

In that botched video someone who used to work in the police was complaining she shouldn't even have been arrested! My god, if a potential baby killer suspect shouldn't be arrested I don't know who should. I don't care if she's not a flight risk or at risk of violence. People have lost their minds over this woman.

kkloo · 28/02/2026 22:34

Firefly1987 · 28/02/2026 22:10

Yes. When you've got posters on there saying the mother hearing their baby in huge distress is irrelevant because no one has analysed what different cries mean or whatever they said. That you can explain everything away with science, even human emotions or a baby crying.

They're just cold and emotionless. I guess that's why they identify so well with Letby.

Show quote history

And so because some seem concerned only with the science you think you can dehumanise everyone on the sub?

When it comes to science that is how it works you know, things have to be analysed and explained and measured, when there is studies on babies who are crying or distressed the different cries would in fact be analysed for lots of things so that they know what they're measuring and discussing, so of course scientifically minded people will think about things like that.

It doesn't mean that they're cold and emotionless people, just that for the topic at hand they have their science hat on.

And you can explain human emotions with science.....

NorfolkandBad · 28/02/2026 22:37

Firefly1987 · 28/02/2026 19:42

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.

Show quote history

That answer is not the win you think it is.

Oftenaddled · 28/02/2026 22:42

You could say that people here were only concerned with Facebook or pyjamas if you cherry picked our posts, whether you were talking about posters who believe Lucy Letby was guilty or not.

You naturally get a wide range of discussions in such a wide ranging case. If the prosecution threw in crying as evidence of deliberate harm, people can challenge that. It's not, I presume, denying the child was distressed or that the parent knew the child was distressed. But if you have a problem with what people on another forum are saying you can go and talk to them there.

kkloo · 28/02/2026 22:42

Firefly1987 · 28/02/2026 22:29

She was on trial for multiple child murders and you're complaining the prosecution were too hard on her? I've heard everything now! She got every concession going, they took a break if she was getting upset. Let her come in early away from everyone else I think because of her anxiety?!

In that botched video someone who used to work in the police was complaining she shouldn't even have been arrested! My god, if a potential baby killer suspect shouldn't be arrested I don't know who should. I don't care if she's not a flight risk or at risk of violence. People have lost their minds over this woman.

Show quote history

What I'm saying it was a ridiculous line of questioning, and that the whole process can completely fry the brain.

I'm saying that if someone is wrongfully accused of something and being told they committed a crime that the impact on the brain can be the same as severe gaslighting.

and that the whole experience can lead to severe trauma in a person hence and extreme struggles with processing questions and conversations which is why it's ridiculous that you kept stating 'she admitted she lied' just because NJ and a journalist tried to paint it that way.

1975wasthebest · 28/02/2026 22:44

kkloo · 28/02/2026 17:23

The doctor clearly lied when he applied for anonymity at the pre-trial, he said he was the subject of unrequited affection which is clearly had true, he also said LL had targeted his wife on social media, if that was true they would have used it in the trial.

If LL had said that they had a flirtation or relationship then that would have been used against her and she would have been made out to be a fantasist for telling the truth because the doc was committed to lying about it.

Show quote history

She could have lied (not hard for her) and said the relationship was one-way, said she was inexperienced, that she wanted more than him. Acted regretful. She was never going to contradict him when she clearly still had strong feelings for him.

Aren’t proper defence teams supposed to help their clients with this kind of thing? Play to the jury? It’s almost like they thought ‘She’s screwed anyway so let’s not bother”,

MrsChristmasHasResigned · 28/02/2026 22:47

Firefly1987 · 28/02/2026 21:15

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.

Show quote history

Oh, the irony!

Oftenaddled · 28/02/2026 22:49

1975wasthebest · 28/02/2026 22:44

She could have lied (not hard for her) and said the relationship was one-way, said she was inexperienced, that she wanted more than him. Acted regretful. She was never going to contradict him when she clearly still had strong feelings for him.

Aren’t proper defence teams supposed to help their clients with this kind of thing? Play to the jury? It’s almost like they thought ‘She’s screwed anyway so let’s not bother”,

Show quote history

If you read the questions Ben Myers put to the medical experts in cross examination you can see that he put an enormous amount of work into Lucy Letby's defence. But coaching a traumatized and unwell person into answering questions you can't predict in advance isn't straightforward, when you know the other side will be doing everything they can to trip her up.

It's always easy to think you could have steered a conversation differently with hindsight, but that's not certain and it makes no change to the difficulty of the situation

MrsChristmasHasResigned · 28/02/2026 22:50

kkloo · 28/02/2026 22:34

And so because some seem concerned only with the science you think you can dehumanise everyone on the sub?

When it comes to science that is how it works you know, things have to be analysed and explained and measured, when there is studies on babies who are crying or distressed the different cries would in fact be analysed for lots of things so that they know what they're measuring and discussing, so of course scientifically minded people will think about things like that.

It doesn't mean that they're cold and emotionless people, just that for the topic at hand they have their science hat on.

And you can explain human emotions with science.....

Show quote history

Just another example of that poster resorting to personal attack because they have cycled through the same few points, usually presented as 'gotcha' moments, with lots of emotional language and self righteousness.

kkloo · 28/02/2026 22:50

1975wasthebest · 28/02/2026 22:44

She could have lied (not hard for her) and said the relationship was one-way, said she was inexperienced, that she wanted more than him. Acted regretful. She was never going to contradict him when she clearly still had strong feelings for him.

Aren’t proper defence teams supposed to help their clients with this kind of thing? Play to the jury? It’s almost like they thought ‘She’s screwed anyway so let’s not bother”,

Show quote history

Why would she say that? that would feed right into the prosecutions hands that she was doing it just to get his attention and sympathy.

1975wasthebest · 28/02/2026 22:51

Also @kkloo you denied Letby lied about the pyjamas but Nick Johnson asked her why she lied to the jury about wearing pyjamas to which she her replied “I don’t know” is her admitting she did lie. Or were you thinking of another instance?

So add that to her pack of lies.

kkloo · 28/02/2026 22:53

1975wasthebest · 28/02/2026 22:51

Also @kkloo you denied Letby lied about the pyjamas but Nick Johnson asked her why she lied to the jury about wearing pyjamas to which she her replied “I don’t know” is her admitting she did lie. Or were you thinking of another instance?

So add that to her pack of lies.

I don't see that as admitting she lied, I see that as a confused brain thinking she must have been mistaken and basically saying she doesn't know why she got it wrong, not that she's 'admitting' to lying.

NorfolkandBad · 28/02/2026 22:53

1975wasthebest · 28/02/2026 22:51

Also @kkloo you denied Letby lied about the pyjamas but Nick Johnson asked her why she lied to the jury about wearing pyjamas to which she her replied “I don’t know” is her admitting she did lie. Or were you thinking of another instance?

So add that to her pack of lies.

So answer my question - if you are right (big IF), how does this prove any murders happened ? and if they did that LL committed them ?

1975wasthebest · 28/02/2026 22:55

NorfolkandBad · 28/02/2026 22:53

So answer my question - if you are right (big IF), how does this prove any murders happened ? and if they did that LL committed them ?

Show quote history

Of course it doesn’t prove she committed the crimes she was convicted of. But it all adds to the picture that she’s dishonest (and not as clever as she thought she was).

NorfolkandBad · 28/02/2026 22:56

1975wasthebest · 28/02/2026 22:55

Of course it doesn’t prove she committed the crimes she was convicted of. But it all adds to the picture that she’s dishonest (and not as clever as she thought she was).

Show quote history

There you go with opinion presented as fact again - your posts are very similar in nature to FF

rubbishatballet · 28/02/2026 23:04

Oftenaddled · 28/02/2026 21:23

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

Show quote history

**
The big picture:
There's no medical evidence of murder

So do you think that it is literally impossible that any of the babies were murdered by Lucy Letby then? Or is it more that the panel have come up with other explanations for the deaths and collapses that you think are more plausible, you are not persuaded by the other circumstantial evidence submitted by the prosecution, and you therefore believe the convictions are unsafe?

If you believe the former, then I’m afraid a 10 month trial and a court of appeal judgment say otherwise (plus I’m not sure even the expert panel are saying it definitely couldn’t have been deliberate harm, they just don’t think it was).

And if you believe the latter, well that’s fair enough but I really don’t think you can definitively say that there is no medical evidence of murder. You just don’t like the evidence that was given by the prosecution’s medical experts, and instead prefer what Shoo Lee and his panel have to say.

I guess all we can do now is wait and see which medical evidence is ‘right’ and which is ‘wrong’.

Oftenaddled · 28/02/2026 23:04

Oftenaddled · 28/02/2026 22:18

You'd have to explain what they are actually saying if this is a detail you think it's important to discuss. As I recall there's an incident where a doctor's note with the word "screaming" was interpreted as meaning air embolism, but an analysis of door swipe records after police admitted they'd been mixed up showed that Lucy Letby couldn't have been responsible anyway. If you think that's an unimportant detail, that's up to you

https://medium.com/@triedbystats/baby-n-transcripts-reveal-previously-unreported-swipe-data-error-in-lucy-letby-case-16ff22254561

I don't remember any discussions around the science of crying on either subreddit though I would be interested. I do read both, but moreso r/lucyletbytrials which I think is a very well moderated space.

Show quote history

Rereading it, the incident described here is also interesting because it has led to an attempted murder conviction - but none of the nurses or doctors involved remember it

https://medium.com/@triedbystats/baby-n-transcripts-reveal-previously-unreported-swipe-data-error-in-lucy-letby-case-16ff22254561

So now that swipe card data shows Lucy Letby wasn't there, should we assume one of the doctors or nurses who was there attempted murder and is covering things up? Or should we understand that we are applying a double standard, expecting Lucy Letby to remember everything to defend herself, but accepting that everyone else forgets things quite naturally over time?