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…

@NorfolkandBadBy the fact that it’s not happening at the moment.

It's with the CCRC. They routinely take 3 years or so to reply and they've only - only - had it a year.

If I have learnt anything about reactions in my job acting for very vulnerable people who have been mistreated and/or been in traumatic situations, it is that there is such a massive range of reactions to traumatic situations, that until you spend at least 10/ 15 years working with hundreds of people in that situation, it is almost impossible to fully understand how very wide the range of responses are. It is absolute madness to think that everyone will react in even a similar way, let alone the same way.

And people always think they know how they will react in certain situations. You really, really, don’t. Something I regularly hear from clients is “I don’t know why I did that, I always thought I would do this.”

It is supremely foolish to try to judge someone’s guilt or innocence based on how you think they should have reacted, which is itself based on how you think you would react.

And as for people diagnosing her from afar (psychopathy, autism, etc etc) I am astonished that people are arrogant enough to do so.

I have no idea if she is guilty or innocent and I would never presume to make such a judgement without seeing all of the evidence.

@OftenaddledFair enough. We’ll have to wait and see then.

Agreed. I don't know if she did it or not but not being hysterical enough isn't evidence of anything. People react differently to stress situations. If there were a fixed way of knowing when people are lying, we'd have a 100% perfect crime conviction rate and The Traitors wouldn't exist.

But still, if it was me...
We would be in a very dangerous justice system if we all had to react like you. Or like me. As posters have said, there is not one way of reacting to such a horrific situation. You cant judge people on reactions. Evidence based justice is the only way.

When I received the call that my Mum (who I adored) has suddenly died I had the most bizarre reaction. I just felt numb. Didn’t cry or scream. Just numb and totally calm . I myself could not believe it and my husband could not believe how I reacted. The rage and tears came later and I still cry now, 15 years later. At the time though it was like my brain was anaesthetised . I think it may be the body way to deal with trauma.

No, it very much is not just my opinion that we don't know what the jury thought about Letby's demeanour. It's not my opinion that the prosecution saying something doesn't mean they believed it, because that's the way our system works. And it's not my opinion that you don't have any relevant professional or personal experience qualifying you to assess what's normal behaviour when accused of serious crimes, because you told me that yourself.

Quite what emotional void your belief that you know what you're talking about is filling in you, one dreads to think. I hope you don't have any clients of any kind who might suffer because of your inability to recognise your own limitations.

I agree OP. I have been on the fence and leaning towards the not guilty due to watching an interview with her friend.

Why would you not admit to remembering one of the poor babies, especially if you looked up their family on Facebook. That is a huge red flag for me. But apart from that, I think everything else is a bit iffy.

YABU. You don't know how you would react in that situation, you just think you do.

Excellent post.

It's fascinating the way people who know fuck all but haven't let that stop them react to being told they know fuck all. The arrogance is off the charts.

And making things up to apparently support their lack of knowledge.

Give over. On what basis do you think she was involved? The cartwheels? There was zero evidence against her compared with bucket loads to convict Rudy Guede. We should all be very worried about the treatment of women like Amanda Knox. Misogyny pure and simple imo.

If there were trophies hidden in the garden and the police hadn't dug the up the garden to check they'd be wrong.

The police searched the office where she'd been working on the day she was arrested too.

I see a lot 'well maybe she did maybe she didn't' posts, so just a reminder of the legal burden placed on a jury in order to convict a defendant. This is what 12 adults have to decide:
Judges define "beyond reasonable doubt" as the highest standard of proof in criminal law, requiring that jurors or magistrates be "sure" or "satisfied so that they are sure" .
For that, it helps to see more than a handful of facial expressions carefully selected for a one-hour Netflix entertainment show.

The unit averaged 3 deaths a year prior to the spike. It was a scbu rather than NICU. They had 2 other hospitals that unwell babies were transferred to (Liverpool womens and arrowe park) who were too unwell for their unit. Babies who were kept at CofC were expected to survive. The very fact that they weren’t equipped or skilled enough for more unwell babies but had to keep them anyway may be itself responsible for the spike. One of the babies did so well after her stint at arrowe park that she was transferred back, when she promptly started collapsing again. Could be coincidence, poor care, neglect murder, but in general this wasn’t a unit where people routinely died. Most would be either discharged home or transferred to tertiary centres and most staff would very much remember the deaths, especially babies who had been there a while or the ones that they personally were there at the end for.

Lots of people have said that the police were only given the collapses and deaths that LL was personally involved with. The police have said that each case was dealt with separately by a separate team to prevent bias and each time LL stuck out as suspicious. How do we know that there were other suspicious deaths that were excluded? Was there evidence or is it just one of those things that’s been repeated over and over? How many other babies died during that time and how many of those were suspicious?

@CommonlyKnownAsGive over. All I said was that writing “I killed them on purpose” was suspicious, and the prosecution also obviously thought it was a suspicious enough detail to question her on - because why would they question her over something that isn’t suspicious at all.
I didn’t say it’s definitely conclusive evidence that she’s guilty and that the prosecution and jury definitely believed it too. It’s actually worrying how poor some people’s reading comprehension is, and how invested you are in this.

Guilty. All those who attended the trial day after day said the same thing.

This is just being hashed to death because it makes money for MSM

There's an interesting podcast here featuring Josh Holliday, who attended the trial every day, believed the guilty verdict was probably safe, and changed his mind after hearing from Shoo Lee's panel of experts

www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2025/feb/11/lucy-letby-and-the-medical-experts-who-believe-she-is-innocent-podcast

I easily lied on certain antidepressants, obviously not in any situation as serious as this. Feeling so flat made it really easy and I could still think things through - in fact it made thinking things through very clear without emotion being in the way. I can see how they can increase the risk of suicide as well.

That is not all you said. It's worrying that you don't even remember what you wrote a couple of hours ago.

You said people wouldn't write something if they'd done something by accident. This uninformed speculation is what started our discussion in the first place.

You said the prosecution thought it was suspicious, when actually you have no idea what they thought- identifying a potential line of questioning doesn't tell you what they personally believed. It's also possible they know it's bollocks but realised lots of people fancy themselves as psychological experts and thought it might go down well with any jurors who fall into that category. The way our adversarial system works is that a prosecuting barrister could believe the defendant didn't do it, but as long as they're not breaching professional conduct rules they may still prosecute and should make the case to the best of their ability.

Then you said it certainly formed a big part of the case, didn't attempt to quantify that (like do you mean percentages, some other definition?) and said I was talking bollocks after I pointed out things that were unambiguously true.

I do hope you're never in a position where your ignorance and inability to recognise it can impact on anyone vulnerable.

@CommonlyKnownAsYou’re really just arguing for the sake of arguing now. I think I’d know what I wrote and what I meant. You’re just making yourself look quite deranged now.

Why would an innocent person write that, even under great mental strain, if they know they definitely didn’t do it, or even if they think they may have done it through negligence etc? You wouldn’t say “on purpose” in that case.

Yes. That poster is getting desperate and is way over invested.

@NorfolkandBadWhats your point?