Lucy Letby thread

[Words]

Starting this as don’t think we have a new one.

She wasn't in the right state of mind, that's the point, who would be in the right frame of mind when they knew that people were suspecting them of harming babies?
She wasn't looking after babies at the time.

Ah yes, anyone writing notes like these should definitely be in charge of caring for newborn babies. Of course she didn't do it! Innocent until proven guilty, right!! Oh wait...

She was 'looking after' the babies when she killed them, and tried to kill others. When she wrote the notes is honestly irrelevant, and only further evidences that she did it. The hospital is 100% accountable for this, I fully support that. She should have never been looking after them. Regardless, she is in no way innocent. People were suspecting her because she was and is guilty.

Oh dear, how embarrassing for you.

No, I very much am not claiming to know that she is innocent. That's why nothing in any post I've written says that. Speaking of common sense, you should get a bit better at comprehension before kicking off.

In answer to the rest, I'm not actually qualified to assess whether someone is in their right state of mind, and unlike far too many other people who don't know what they don't know I therefore refrain from doing. But she was suspended when she wrote it, so not looking after anyone.

I'm not embarrassed at all. It takes a shred of common sense to realise someone who writes notes like that is not in any fit state of mind. You are capable of making that assessment, as it is very obvious. Idk what this "she didnt write it while killing them so it isnt evidence" nonsense is. Further demonstrating a lack of common sense.

here's less reputational risk to speaking out at a trial as a hired defence expert than to offering your services free of charge because you believe that an existing murder conviction is unjust. The first is doing a paid job that someone has to do. The second is really putting your head above the parapet.

Sorry but this is ridiculous. A defence expert's reputation depends on them being able to tell the truth at trial. Once credibility is lost, it is extremely difficult to rebuild.

Presumably none of this experts could predict what the prosecution would claim at a trial that hasn't happened yet, so there is no sense in blaming them for not speaking out before or - due to contempt of court laws - during the trial. And many were in countries where this simply wasn't in the news anyway.

The prosecution have to provide the evidence to the defence, so yes, the defence (one of the best KCs in the country) could absolutely prepare his defence experts.

Yes, a shred of common sense is probably about the amount you've got. Sadly not enough to render you able to read and understand a post.

Since the post it notes were written after she'd been accused, arrested, questioned etc. rather than before, you could conclude that being accused of murder and losing her job caused her to be in an unfit state of mind.

Either way, there are experts who have spoken out and said that these should not be taken as confessions, which is what the prosecution presented them as.

Thanks. Your argument is literally "she admitted to killing them after she killed them, so maybe she's innocent".

Common sense? ❌️
Brain go brrrrr ✔️

Do you think she's innocent?

It's extremely relevant.

No it isn't. Try reading my post again without making anything up.

I don't know, would you not only accuse someone whom has serious evidence against them for killing these babies? You realise you've been found out and have a mental breakdown. The truth starts to come out. Her prosecution wasn't based on the notes alone, she didn't get 15 whole life orders for nothing. You could never convince me that she is innocent.

I thought the notes were from before she was even arrested?

You could excuse any murderer writing something like that by saying at that point they'd lost the plot just from being suspected. How do you determine the difference?

Someone could also equally have a mental breakdown when they are being falsely accused.

I'm not trying to convince you that she's innocent. We are just discussing the points you made. You're talking about someone writing those notes not being in the right state of mind, yes of course they're not, and that doesn't not prove guilt, someone could very easily end up in that state of mind when falsely accused. You make out it's irrelevant when she wrote the notes, which is just a very silly thing to say. So no I'm not trying to convince you she's innocent but you can't expect to just comment what you like and not have people point out the issues with it.

Your question was about why people currently working with the defence didn't speak out during the trial. The answer is that they could not speak out before the trial because they did not know what information and arguments would be produced then, and of course there were media restrictions. These media restrictions continued during the trial.

I really don't see the logic in criticising them for not foreseeing the details of the case and, in most cases, respecting media restrictions.

My point is broader, that her multi million defence couldn't muster up any defence experts at the trial.

Well then the notes, to me, are irrelevant. She was found guilty because she is, so the notes don't matter anymore. One life order taken off her for her mental breakdown post being found out, is just one justice taken away from one murdered baby, and their family.

Before she was arrested; during the suspension from the ward and the police investigation.

I haven't seen anyone argue that the notes prove she is innocent, @worldshottestmom . The point posters are making is that they don't prove her guilty.

My point is why debate it when we all know that she is guilty

I think it's possible she's guilty. She could certainly easily be negligent or careless or just a bad nurse (as could anyone else at that hospital) or she could have been doing her best in a failing unit and you could have had the same outcome.

They have some deaths and collapses every year, so I think the first step is to show without any doubt that the harms she was accused of were definitely deliberate and the ones that she wasn't were definitely not. I think they failed at that step when some incidents moved between suspicious/not suspicious depending on whether she was there or not.

I also think there were a lot of problems with the way the evidence was presented to the jury. There are so many experts in statistics and neonatal medicine coming forward now (who weren't part of the defence team so couldn't speak up at the time) questioning what happened at the trial.

There's also a lot of things that the jury wasn't allowed to hear about - the independent reports, the grievance, the problems in the maternity ward, the unit being downgraded, the other babies who collapsed or died etc. which make me think that poor medical care and looking after too many babies and those who should have been at a level 3 unit are much more likely to have caused the harm.

I'm concerned that the reason that there were so many cases all tried at once was that they were all evidentially weak, but it could almost look like if you weren't sure about part of it then she must have done something to be accused of so much. They're all quite diverse cases too - air embolism, air in NG tube, overfeeding, insulin poisoning, injury to liver etc. To me it doesn't stack up that a serial killer who "enjoyed hurting babies" would use so many different methods (and fail at some too - surely there's not many victims who would be easier to kill?). There's no escalating pattern or victim type either - multiples, singles, boys, girls. If she's a serial killer she's a very unusual one.

Whatever you think about her guilt or innocence, the idea that we all know she is guilty is just a denial of objective reality. There is certainly not much point in discussing anything if that is your starting point, but other people will carry on discussing anyway.

It's interesting how often people fail to understand the distinction between X is a bad argument/not evidence and X means she's innocent. Not the same thing at all.

I'm not the only person who doesn't rule out the possibility that she killed at least one baby, but could still end up going free because of the litany of problems in the case.

Well I agree that the notes don't matter anymore because I highly doubt they will even be considered when it comes to the CCRC etc.

I personally believe that there is a high chance that these families have not got justice yet, and many others are concerned about the same.

Because we don't know that she is.
You are convinced she is and legally she has been found guilty.
That doesn't mean that everyone is convinced.

Obviously there would be no debate at all if we all knew that she was guilty.