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…

From the limited information I've seen from the tv documentary her defence could have done a much better job. If there's question marks over certain things her defence should have hammered those home in an attempt to spark the seeds of doubt in the jurys mind. But with that said, I'm not them nor did I attend the trial and hear what was said word for word so can't really speculate with any certainty.

Also, I saw a comment on a Facebook post the other day saying that she must definitely be innocent because she kissed her cats goodbye and serial killers are known to be cruel to animals 😂😂😂. Yes, the comment was deadly serious. The stupidity of the British public is on another level...I agree with a pp that the majority of people should not be allowed to serve on a jury.

A small percentage of the total pertained to the indictment babies.

I can't find that information; do you have a source or is that your opinion?

It was 21 of 257. The information is easily available online and has been well documented since the trial.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/17/lucy-letby-initials-of-babies-on-dates-of-alleged-attacks-noted-in-diary-court-told

Last line of this article.

Also no handover sheets were found for four babies from the indictment.

@CommonlyKnownAsOh come on, you’ve got to admit that writing “I killed them on purpose”, is at least a little bit suspicious 🙄
It’s one of the most high profile cases that’s in the public domain so people are going to comment on it. And the whole point of a jury is that it’s made up of ordinary people, they’re not meant to be psychological experts. But the jury did hear from experts, and heard all the evidence, and found her guilty. If there’s a serious case to be made that the evidence and the experts were dodgy then it would be up to the courts to have a retrial, or overturn the conviction, or whatever needs to happen.

Why on earth would I have an opinion like that without evidence?

Thanks to Mistress, you now have a link.

Also, she had her own experts but chose not to lodge their statements?? Why?

Does anyone know why she was taken into the station in her pyjamas and dressing gown on one of the arrests?
I found that to be utterly bizarre.

All suspects are given the chance to dress, under the supervision of a same sex officer.

Why not in that instance?

I'd like to know the rationale for digging up her garden and searching wasteland behind the house. I'm sure there's some perfectly reasonable motivation beyond newsworthy spectacle.

@CommonlyKnownAs Well the police who questioned her certainly thought it was suspicious and she was expensively questioned about it in court, so obviously the prosecution also thought it was suspicious. The jury found her guilty - not because of that point alone, but it certainly formed a big part of the case. So it’s you who is talking bollocks.
It’s quite odd that you’re so angry about this. If you don’t want to comment on the case then don’t, it’s not compulsory to be on this thread. But people are going to comment on it whether you like it or not, because it’s high profile and it’s in the public domain.

Of course that note was suspicious in the context of the other evidence and the crimes she was (then) arrested for and it’s ludicrous that anybody would seriously think otherwise.

Interestingly I've always observed that any footage of the McCann's was the same when Madeleine went missing... They too seemed flat, ''composed' etc

Any thoughts on, you know, the questionable medical evidence? The stuff that doesn't really show clear cut evidence of murder, until Evans got his paws on it?

And the dodgy medical "evidence" and opinion? Is that so much less important than everything else?

They've been criticised for it in a similar way too. Especially Kate.

She was so traumatised by being removed from clinical duties that she demanded apologies from the consultants involved and threatened with them with the GMC if they refused......

Lucy Letby demanded that consultants apologise to her in
late 2016 and early 2017 following her removal from the neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

• Grievance Submission (September 2016): After being moved to an administrative role in July 2016, Letby lodged a formal grievance against the Trust, accusing consultants of bullying her and orchestrating her removal without evidence.
• Pressure for Apology (January 2017): Following threats from Letby's parents to report the doctors to the General Medical Council (GMC), hospital management upheld her grievance. In late January 2017, senior management ordered the consultants to apologize to her in writing and "move on".
• Mediation and Retaliation (March 2017): A mediation meeting was arranged for March 2017, where Letby told a consultant she was returning to the unit "whether you liked it or not". Letby claimed she had been "fully exonerated" by an internal investigation and demanded that her colleagues be "sensitive and supportive" upon her return.

In my armchair way she has always struck me as having psychopathic traits - a sense of superiority (Grandiose Self Worth) Shallow Affect (limited emotional range), Lack of empathy - such as being told repeatedly to stay out of a room where parents were grieving for their baby but going in anyway, more than once - the Staff Nurse eventually had to send her to another area of the unit to stop her doing it or removing a baby's breathing tube "for a photo" that she sent to the mother - when questioned (immediately, by the mother) she said she "thought it would be nice for them to have a photo of him without all the tubes" 😱

This gets worse with every post. You not only have no idea what you're talking about but you don't know what you don't know.

One, we do not know why the jury came to the verdicts they did. So even if you could quantify your claim about 'a big part of the case' (show your workings) this still doesn't tell us what they found persuasive. You can't just decide what they believed and what they didn't, in the same way that a not guilty verdict doesn't mean they thought everything the defence said was true.

Two, do you think the prosecution saying something means they personally believe it? If so, I have some challenging news for you about the basic workings of our system.

Three, it's always a bad sign when the only thing someone can say in defence of their nonsense is that they're allowed to say it. Equally, other people are allowed to tell them they're wrong. It's not compulsory for you to delude yourself that you know what you're talking about.

And lastly, this is important because anyone reading this might be on a jury one day. It matters a lot that this sort of thing is challenged, because people dimwittedly assuring themselves that they know how an innocent person would behave is a problem. So if you continue to talk bollocks, it's going to be pointed out.

@MistressoftheDarkSideIf there’s a serious case to be made that the evidence was dodgy then there needs to be a retrial, but that doesn’t look like it’s likely to happen at this stage.

but that doesn’t look like it’s likely to happen at this stage.

Evidenced by what exactly ?

She didn't remove the tube for a photo in that anecdote. She took a photo when the tube was out (presumably being changed). The parents treasured it and had it on their mantelpiece until she was charged with crimes years later. Then they thought it might be sinister.

I think this is a good example of how you can take a handful of events from anybody's life and twist them to tell whatever story you want to tell.

It's very likely to be referred back based on non disclosure of evidence by the prosecution alone. The CCRC and the courts of appeal take this very seriously, as you can see from their decisions in other cases.

The only unanimous verdicts were for children F, L and O. The verdicts for children F and L came back first.

The jury was instructed that if they thought Lucy Letby was guilty of any charges, they could consider this in judging the remaining charges.

For children F, L and O, part of Mark McDonald's submission to the CCRC is non-disclosure of significant information by the prosecution. This information became public only after the trials, with the Thirlwall Inquiry.

So before you even touch Shoo Lee's panel, the other expert reports produced in the UK, further non disclosures and evidence of irregularities in investigation and from the expert witness, there's excellent reason for the CCRC to refer.

@CommonlyKnownAsYou can tell people they’re wrong and “thick” and “dimwitted” all you want. It’s clearly filling some sort of emotional void where you want to feel cleverer and superior. But at the end of the day it’s just your opinion.
I’m not going to keep arguing with you because you seem to be purposely misinterpreting what I’m saying. It’s worrying if you’re indeed “legal” (though most likely just another fantasist on the internet), I hope you don’t talk to your clients like that.