Lucy Letby case expert witness was under fitness to practise investigation

[ITMA2000]

Wow! Pot, kettle, black? Need a new investigation?
Lucy Letby case expert witness was under fitness to practise investigation during trial | Lucy Letby | The Guardian

Ironically, a lot of the case against LL was the prosecution inferring what they liked, it was not a fact.

Were there any murders? We can infer there were if we only look at a specific sample of the statistics.

Blotchy skin seen only a time of death - infer air embolism from an old academic paper as none of us can think of anything else (other plausible explanation provided after the case).

Trauma to liver, infer deliberate blunt force injury even though we don't know how or when (other plausible explanation provided after the case).

Insulin poisoning, well if you've already inferred the other deaths are murder, and we infer that these are overdose cases, then you can infer much more likely LL spiked bags with insulin even though we don't know how or when, she wasn't actually there at the time of all the administrations and there is no evidence of tampered bags.

Texts between young nurse and married doctor, infer she is misleading this upright older more qualified man for evil kicks.

Facebook searches on all and sundry, infer the few that related to these cases were the act of a deranged, murderess stalker

Many, many handoversheets brought home, not disposed of correctly, let's infer that the few that relate to the relevant cases are the only relevant ones and therefore evil trophies.

Ramblings, let's ignore all the sentences that might infer innocence and only highlight those that infer guilt.

Once again FF comes up with the definitive proof we need to accept there was no mistrial and the verdict is sound.

I expect the average Mumsnet poster on women’s rights is able to agree with him on one issue without this clouding their judgment about his actions and views on other issues.

To be clear, I agree with his reported concerns about prescribing puberty blockers.

I have concerns about a) his findings on insulin poisoning (the test results and the mechanism of administration) and b) his lack of truthfulness to the court about his position.

If the GMC investigation is shown to be unimportant (e.g. malicious complaint) then this has no impact on any of the above.

So why do people act as if this proves she only wrote it on the advice of her therapist about what others were saying and it's not a confession? It could just as easily be her guilt talking, as the Stepping Hill case proves.

Exactly, it could be an indication of either eventuality and is proof of nothing. I trust you'll make that point next time someone suggests having written that shows she's guilty.

According to forensic psychologists and experts "unfiltered" handwritten notes can be a mechanism for processing overwhelming thoughts on the part of the accused.

• Extreme Stress and Trauma Coping: When under intense investigation, an innocent person may suffer from overwhelming anxiety and trauma. Experts note that "unfiltered" handwritten notes can be a mechanism for processing overwhelming thoughts and 'noise in their head'.

• Coerced-Internalized False Confessions: If an innocent person is repeatedly interrogated and told by authorities that they must have committed the crime (even if they have no memory of it), they may begin to doubt their own innocence. They might internalize this pressure and write notes as they begin to believe they must have done it, despite not having committed the act.

• Mental Health Struggles: Individuals experiencing deep depression, low self-esteem, or disorders such as OCD may experience "unwarranted guilt" or intrusive thoughts, leading them to write self-hating or self-incriminating notes that do not reflect reality.

• External Advice to "Write Things Down": Sometimes, individuals under immense pressure (including those later revealed to be innocent) are advised by healthcare professionals or well-meaning people to write down their feelings, fears, or the "bad thoughts" they are struggling with, which can lead to incoherent or incriminating notes.

She worried she may have inadvertently committed nursing malpractice that contributed to the deaths. The phrase "not good enough" comes up multiple times in her text messages and notes. She wrote: "I don’t know if I killed them. Maybe I did. Maybe this is all down to me." A killer wouldn't wonder -- they'd know. She also wrote: "We tried our best and it wasn't enough." She's lamenting that her team ("we") failed to prevent the deaths. Why would a killer feel bad about that?

Literal reading of her notes doesn't work. "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them", i.e. "I killed them on purpose through my incompetence" -- how does that make sense? It's one or the other. And it's only the "because not good enough" part that jibes with a consistent theme running through her texts/writings.

A noted expert on confessions thinks this isn't one, and has quit his job to work on her case. There is also a good by someone who has done many in-depth interviews about the case.

There are lots of cases of innocent people signing confessions due to police interrogation.

One famous one involved Jeffrey Deskovic who admitted to raping and killing his classmate despite being totally innocent. Police suspected him because he cried at her funeral... He spent 16 years in jail before being exonerated. DNA evidence proved that the rapist and killer was Steven Cunningham who had since been jailed for raping and killing another woman. Cunningham confessed while in jail.

I was just thinking if there's a re-trial that I hope these post-its don't feature at all, they prove nothing but thinking about it some more I'm curious what way does it work for something like this in a trial?

I know that there is an expert willing to provide evidence to say that the notes are meaningless, in that case when the prosecution know that there would be a defence expert ready to refute them strongly, would the prosecution just not bring that piece of evidence at all to trial because all they can really say is 'look what she wrote' whereas the defence could put their expert on the stand for hours to really hammer home how meaningless the notes were.

But then obviously they will struggle to find a jury who don't know about these notes even if it wasn't brought up at a re-trial so the defence would possibly want that expert to give evidence, but not sure if they could call them if the prosecution hasn't mentioned the notes?

Glad you're admitting it could just as easily be a confession, thanks.

Have you mixed me up with another poster? I've never suggested otherwise, unlike you. I don't think we can say it proves anything. But not to worry, it's available for anyone who wants to quote you now!

This is the phrasing, in case of any deletions:

So why do people act as if this proves she only wrote it on the advice of her therapist about what others were saying and it's not a confession? It could just as easily be her guilt talking, as the Stepping Hill case proves.

(Emphasis mine)

If she didn't have such notes in her house people would be saying "well she didn't have any hospital documents and she didn't write about having done the crime so she must be innocent" people will argue anything if they want to believe it badly enough.

And if you come at it from an interest in MOJs and only after the trial you obviously have a bias towards wanting her to be innocent.

Who would say that? 😂

people will argue anything if they want to believe it badly enough.

Ironic you just said that considering what you've just argued there 😂

People will argue anything if they want to believe it badly enough

You're spitting nothing but truths tonight @firefly1987!

Well they're already saying "why didn't she have any google searches related to poisoning or air embolism" despite the fact she learnt everything she'd ever need to know on the job, so it's not such a fantasy is it.

People just throw that in as something that makes them doubt her guilt to some extent. It's weak circumstancial evidence, I'd say. Nobody would expect her to be exonerated on that basis.

@Oftenaddled along with the "no insulin was missing"!

Yes, that's circumstancial too and could be circumvented.

The argument that the jury was misinformed on the significance of the insulin tests is the key thing there.

Literally all you're showing here is that those things are irrelevant, that they are not evidence of anything.

Yeah the only things that really matter in the insulin cases is whether she had opportunity, whether the bag was tampered with (obviously we don't know as it wasn't kept) and whether the tests were accurate or not.

And the absence of that evidence highlights exactly how unsafe these convictions are.

Yes to me the insulin tests haven’t been refuted but people like keep saying they have when its really just a difference of opinion

Well, some important points have definitely been refuted, on the insulin.

The idea that the insulin - C-peptide ratio meant poisoning has been proved wrong for newborns.

The idea that the test couldn't react to interference and throw up false insulin results has been proved wrong.

So whether the tests were accurate or not, the way that the jury was told to interpret them wasn't accurate

And those two are on data and research produced independent of the new defence experts after the trial. So even without taking anything those experts say on trust, the insulin evidence looks very vulnerable to challenge by now.

I disagree

Some people have disagreed and thats all i see