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…

This post was a response to a claim that people with doubts about the trial were fixating on details. To answer your questions, one would have to contest the details (and I see nothing wrong with that). The point is that a big picture overview of events isn't the prerogative of one side or the other when discussing these events.

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

Well not everyone since pro-guilt people also post occasionally. But the type of people that explain every single thing away with science or maths to the point they are basically insulting the testimony of parents on what was happening to their baby, yes.

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

How thoroughly depressing. Some of these people probably have to consult a textbook every time they have an emotion.

I'm sure reddit has a mix of people posting, same as here. We aren't dealing with clones or cabals. If you have an example of what they are saying that you want to discuss I am sure we could do that, but if you just mean everyone who supports a review of the convictions thinks alike, I wouldn't say that's accurate.

The prosecutions case was there was no other possible explanation other than she murdered them.

Those who think this conviction is unsafe are offering other explanations.

If there are other possible explanations, the prosecutions case is at least dodgy.

Ok so just everyone who doesn't agree with your side...
It says far more about you than it does about them that you dehumanise people just because they're scientifically minded, on a sub that is concerned with science!

How thoroughly depressing. Some of these people probably have to consult a textbook every time they have an emotion.

It's depressing that you can explain human emotions with science? I don't think you understand what science is tbh.

Just an example of extreme 'othering' of people just because they don't agree with her.

Yes, I’m aware of all this. The point I was making here is the same one I was making earlier on in this thread, ie to take issue with the sweeping statements of ‘fact’ (there was no medical evidence of murder) which keep getting dropped in by some posters. As things stand these statements are just opinion, have not been tested through any formal process, and are far from the accepted position.

The accepted opinion is that there is no other explanation. That's literally why she's in jail. The dissenters are saying there are other explanations.

The existence of other explanations is sufficient to discredit the argument that "there is no other explanation"

Currently the only "evidence of murder" appears to be that Lucy Letby was present when some collapses and deaths occurred on a NICU that was understaffed, not properly geared up for complex cases, and that had extremely worrying issues around sewage.

Which is why we're trying to unpick the medical evidence. Given that the medical evidence is as ambiguous as it is, it makes the conviction unsafe. Murder requires an element of intent, but this hasn't been demonstrated either.

This whole case is utterly surreal on every level.

No people who post and upvote hugely offensive things like this-

Talk about dehumanising... And they know what they're saying is massively wrong and offensive and SHOULD get downvoted. But surprise surprise, in that sub they don't.

I tried to add a screenshot but it might take a while for MN to approve if they think it's technically an "image".

Watch the Amanda Knox documentary on Netflix she had a similar presentation

I’d be inclined to agree with you if it wasn’t for the fact that Myers and his team didn’t put forward any witnesses.

Which is why we're trying to unpick the medical evidence.

Can you tell us in what way you are qualified to do this?

I think in some forums which are wholly on one side or the other it can have a weird affect where people just want to go there to support their cause and avoid any disagreement. I would guess that such offensive posts just have less engagement than others. Either way I don’t think you can say anything wider about those on either side of the debate from a Reddit post.

Tbh I don’t know if she is guilty or not, I definitely flip flop but to judge her on this is ridiculous. I didn’t cry and my mums funeral, I almost found it strange that others were but that was my bodies response to what was happening. I have no idea why.

Done it before due to being falsely accused of harming my own child, from the perspective of being "told" something as a fact by "medical professionals" when in fact other explanations did exist.

For example "he can't have brittle bones, because his calcium levels are fine".

When calcium levels in blood don't reflect bone density, and there are more than one form of brittle bones - to whit, OI and other collagen disorders.

So I may not be "qualified" to your standards, but I have had crash courses in medical grade bullshit requiring me to dig deep. Most recently around mental health in the elderly.

Where medecine and legal matters collide, I've been as unlucky as Lucy Letby in some regards, and if things had been different I might have ended up convicted of child abuse 30 years ago.

So you can of course claim I am not a doctor, not "qualified" indeed I am not, but I am able to read and research and I can recognise patterns and understand how dogmas form - "metaphyseal fractures only ever occur in child abuse" .

So I have an interest. And I object to injustice and our adversarial system that reduces the pursuit of justice to spectacle and traumatises people due to poor practise, hubris, ego, whatever.

But I've posted all this before, you can AS me if you like. I'm nothing if not consistent.

Ridiculous question - there is no verification of people's claimed ability, just because someone says "I'm an expert in ..." doesn't make it so, from what I see it's used to try and shut down debate "Challenge me if you dare - I'm an expert"

What qualifications did the jury members have to make their decision ?

That other sub was brought into it because the poster made a claim that many people who doubted the verdict had a certain cognitive style where they focus on fine details and can't see the bigger picture, and when it was pointed out that it's actually her who appears to have that cognitive style she then ignored that, brought up a sub where people focused on the science (a big thing), criticised the people on it for being cold and unfeeling and then told another poster they were probably a member 😅

It's just constant theories and digs and trying to label people who don't agree with the verdict, rather than accepting the most obvious explanation which is that many people just weren't convinced by the evidence and see many issues with it.

We don't have to agree with the accepted position though, it's important to have people who don't always agree with the accepted position, I'm not talking specifically about this case, just in society in general, if everyone just accepted the formal position then nothing would ever change. Again I'm not talking about this specific case, but you're being critical of something that is extremely important among a functioning society.

There was no concrete evidence of murder, that is a fact, maybe it's not a legal fact, maybe it's not an accepted position, but it's a fact in the most true sense of the word.

Yeah that's really not me. I take the case at face value and look at the whole not try and find ways to pick everything apart separately. Your way it's just one excuse after another instead of just accepting it is how it looks. No the insulin tests aren't wrong, no the tube dislodgement stats aren't wrong, yes it was AE, overfeeding and inflicted injury and all the rest.

It's just constant theories and digs and trying to label people who don't agree with the verdict, rather than accepting the most obvious explanation which is that many people just weren't convinced by the evidence and see many issues with it.

Ironic since you can't just accept the most obvious explanation that she's guilty! Like I said, the more intelligent often the less common sense. I would say that fits the likes of Richard Gill et al. I'm sure he's a genius, I'm also sure I and most other people would run rings around him when it comes to understanding human behaviour. Someone good at science or stats is just good at that one area and will overly focus on that subject only, that's why we don't want experts serving on juries. And why we shouldn't take the opinions of Richard Gill, Jane Hutton etc. seriously.

It isn't just one excuse after another, it's people showing that there's alternative explanations for everything that has put forward as a sign of guilt. And it's not like the explanations are outlandish.

No it's not ironic, I think the most obvious explanation is that she didn't do it, but I accept others are convinced by the evidence, you should do the same and accept that others aren't, but you won't do that, you just keep trying to label and other people and come up with all of your theories and project things about yourself onto others.

You definitely don't understand human behaviour and wouldn't run rings around anyone, you've mentioned several times you're interested in the psychology of her as a serial killer but you don't even understand psychology of normal people, you should start there.

And yes someone good at science or stats will often overly focus on that area, there's literally nothing wrong with them doing that, but yet to you that means they're robots and cold and emotionless. Those people are important to society.

That’s what Dr Lee and his colleagues have concluded (no evidence of murder). But could their methodology be flawed? I was also wondering why the full report hasn’t been made available yet (from what I can see).

We’ll see what happens in a few months’ time when the CCRC make their decision. As you say, it’s a fact - according to Dr Lee et al - that there is no concrete evidence of murder that was committed, so surely she’ll soon be heading to the Court of Appeal.

There's no reason to make the full reports available - wouldn't be normal practice at all. But they've been made available to the CCRC who will be able to commission experts to scrutinize them.

It's hard to think that the expert panel would be using a flawed methodology to do a case notes review. They wouldn't be unaccustomed to this sort of work and, as well as bringing much deeper expertise to the cases than the prosecution witnesses, they've also conducted double blinded review, again unlike the prosecution witnesses. You could certainly say the prosecution witnesses' methodology was flawed if you consider that the standard in trying someone for murder should be equal to, for example, marking an undergraduate dissertation.

You are half right. We should take experts' opinions seriously when they are talking about their area of expertise. That is where Richard Gill and Jane Hutton should be respected.

We shouldn't see their opinions on anything else as more or less important than anyone else's. There's a slight proviso - good habits of research and argument from evidence can transfer from one area to another. But of course, the main question is, can any reasoned argument presented by one expert be tested by other experts and found convincing.

That is where Evans and Bohin fail to convince. They have worked outside their fields of expertise and their claims have been met with alarm and astonishment by numerous fellow experts.