Lucy Letby - Specifically those who think she is guilty…

[BEAchDays2]

I’ve just been reading massive amounts of posts of Facebook following the new doc out about LL. (Blame a long train journey!) and it got me thinking, those who still think she is guilty what are your reasons?

It does feel like the tide has turned generally. I haven’t watched the new doc yet, likewise has anyone seen it, and is it worth it?

So nobody who thinks she's guilty has any qualms about Dewi Evans "changing his mind" about causes of death periodically? Or that he based one "theory" on an x-ray taken the day before Lucy Letby was on shift? Or that Ravi Jayaram gave fifferent accounts of the "she was just standing there" incident in court and in other communication? Or that the door swipe data was actually wrong in the first instance, and proved very little overall as there were other routes in and out if the unit?

Or that there is no other reported case anywhere of air down an NG tube causing death due to "splinting of the diaphragm"? Or overfeeding for that matter?

And currently the AE "evidence" is under scrutiny as there was no sign of it at post mortem.

Is all of this really of no consequence because she was "white and weird"? Or is that the standard of justice you're happy with? Because what it might mean is that you could find yourself convicted of murder where the cause of death is unascertained because you were there and someone didn't like the look of you. That's not how it's supposed to work.

I have no idea if she is guilty or innoncent.

However I do think information come out that suggest her trial was extremely flawed - the are questions round expert testomony and there seems to have been selecting data that fits the theory going on with police case.

She could still be guilty of some or all deaths but international panel of experts have cast dounbt on their actually being murders blaming just extremly poor care.

The NHS has a history of scape goating and whether she was killing or not there were clearly massive issues in that hospital.

I have to say I do not get well the jury found her guilty argument - there have been many case of miscarriage of justice where the jury found someone guilty because evidence presented in court was flawed - Sally Clark and with post office scandal where many jury's found people guilty because the courts has incorrect evidence presented to them.

Innocent until proven guilty, then guilty until proven innocent. She won't be able to do that in the UK.

Most mumsnet users are probably women. Most nurses in the UK are women. What is the basis for your claim that most people interested in this case and doubting the safety of the conviction outside this group are women? (I see mostly men, in the public sphere).

I think a few posters here are importing discourse around the Lindsay Clanchy case, where it seems to have been assumed there was a gender divide in public responses to the case. I have no opinion on that case, but it's obviously a very different one, in a different jurisdiction, where much of the public response has been misogynistic commentary on women's capacity for rational thinking.

What about each death made it suspicious? That has never been answered. The only thing seems to be that someone (the consultants who only graced the ward twice a week rather than twice a day) decided Lucy was suspicious and therefore that made the death suspicious as she was present. They discounted any deaths where she wasn't present.

Go follow Victoria Rixon who has just left midwifery see all the people that follow her that have been bullied horror stories.i know of midwives that have committed suicide because managers have thrown the on the ground staff under the bus.

I also think that the average person doesn't understand what research really entails.

People as a whole struggle with the concept of unknown or unproven facts. They need things to be black or white. They seek reassurance in the worlds of research and the law.

These two disciplines can only attempt to get as close as possible to 'the truth' without ever fully getting to it. Even the most regulated discipline, pharmaceutical science, gets it wrong at times, with horrible consequences.

Research is just a science that use a process of demonstration. This is why you can have two valid researches, working on the same or very similar hypotheses, coming up with different outcomes.

We can only seek to get as close as possible to what we consider to the truth. This is done by the demonstration of quality and quantity.

In the case of the prosecution, the quality is what is mainly questioned. The quantity of evidence out forward isn't though. So many oddities that alone might be almost meaningless but out all together start to reduce the chances of coincidence drastically.

The defense does exactly this, encourage the jury and the public to look at these oddities separately to make a case for insignificance.

As for the quality, well it comes down to the battle of research. Researchers kick is to try to get closer to the truth than their colleagues. It's an extremely competitive profession, and getting closer to the truth does involve discrediting other research.

I think it’s a difficult one because most depictions of serial killers show them to have the want to kill and enjoy it. I believe Lucy Letby is guilty but I think what she was doing was a means to an end, not a want to kill for killings sake.

She became addicted to the high of the drama. She liked the attention of being a main character in someone else’s tragedy. She also had an obsession with the older Doctor and valued his attention more than she valued the lives of the babies. I’m not sure she thought of the babies as human beings, more a tool at her disposal to get the attention she needed.

Yes. Many people are unaware that non-suspicious causes of death were found for five of the children at autopsy. One was considered so unsuspicious by his consultant that he had no autopsy. The other was unascertained with possibility of natural death or death caused by medical procedure both considered by the coroner.

Yeah that's how I feel. The last paragraph of what you said there.

I picture something happening to a baby, (she's there but she didn't necessarily cause it first time) her then confiding in and bonding with this doctor over it.

Then her realizing this was a way to get close to him so she starts orchestrating these emergencies on purpose. And she gets a buzz from his sympathy. And ramps up the harm as she gets addicted to his attention.

She became addicted to the high of the drama. She liked the attention of being a main character in someone else’s tragedy. She also had an obsession with the older Doctor and valued his attention more than she valued the lives of the babies. I’m not sure she thought of the babies as human beings, more a tool at her disposal to get the attention she needed
This is exactly my psychological analysis of Lucy. She didn't seem to meet the profile, but there were many signs. She grew up being the complete centre of attention of her parents. She was desperate for love and having a family, children of her own. It wasn't happening and this was making her extremely anxious.

Her actions were both punishing those who were having what she thinks she deserves to have herself, a family and babies, whilst getting the dramatic attention she craved. Her rumbling notes, even without trying to interpret each phrase, do show a very emotionally and psychologically disturbed person, especially for her young age.

Many people are unaware that non-suspicious causes of death were found for five of the children at autopsy. One was considered so unsuspicious by his consultant that he had no autopsy. The other was unascertained with possibility of natural death or death caused by medical procedure both considered by the coroner
Again, it doesn't have to be black or white. Both natural and criminal deaths can take place alongside each other. It's actually the opposite that would be suspicious.

It also comes down to how much evidence could be gathered for each. Even if she did murder all, the strength of evidence wasn't available for some of them.

That does not lead to cause and effect: that if some death were concluded not to have been as a result of murders, that the others ones couldn't have been either.

But he was only there for the last two of the fifteen events she was convicted of causing. It is easy to make up stories - I could make up dozens to try to explain how various people acted around this. But you need to pay attention to the facts.

He started in September 2015 so there were only 5 or 6 deaths before.

I do agree though that HE wasn't the main catalyst. Her psychological dysfunction was, but her obsession for his attention became the main focus.

Because people are examining the evidence critically rather than making a gut reaction about her appearance.

Very few of the experts raising concerns are women & many are from ethnic minorities & from across the world not just in the UK.

Weird to dismiss the growing amount of evidence based on a women's hair colour?

Nobody. That's the problem. It was never proved that they were murdered, just that she was on duty at the time a lot of babies died.

I have. I’m unwavering. She is guilty.

The senior members of the trust at that hospital have blood on their hands though. Some of those babies would never have come into contact with Letby if they’d listened and then investigated and acted accordingly. She was given so much opportunity to carry on killing babies. And that is what she did, unpalatable as it is to many.

It is kind of amazing how much cod psychology this case generates.

Personally I like actual facts rather than she looks a wrongun.

An international panel of 14 medical experts announced in February 2025 that they found no medical evidence of deliberate harm or murder in the Lucy Letby case, concluding instead that the infant deaths and collapses were due to natural causes or poor medical care. The panel reviewed 17 cases and stated that alternate, plausible explanations existed for every deterioration, pointing to a catalog of substandard clinical care rather than malfeasance

Now I think that's very odd and hope somewhere someone official was having a look and checking i's were dotted and the t's crossed - how much evidence did that panel have access to for a start.

However I know other case where experts - statctical in Sally Clarks case - and IT in Post office were raising concerns for bloody years if not decades and many were trying to shout them down till they finally got somewhere.

That the issue for me - did she have a fair trial and it's starting to look like the answer is no.

Any thoughts at all on the medical evidence? Or doesn't it matter because of your remote psychological profiling?

So nobody who thinks she's guilty has any qualms about Dewi Evans "changing his mind" about causes of death periodically? Or that he based one "theory" on an x-ray taken the day before Lucy Letby was on shift? Or that Ravi Jayaram gave fifferent accounts of the "she was just standing there" incident in court and in other communication? Or that the door swipe data was actually wrong in the first instance, and proved very little overall as there were other routes in and out if the unit?
But these all together still weigh so much less than all the evidence that was put forward. A guilty verdict is not proving someone is guilty, it's considering the evidence and concluding that they much more likely to be guilty than not.

An independent jury found her guilty based on the evidence they heard. If her team has new evidence (I had seen that 2 of her witnesses have dropped out) then let’s see/ hear it.

No, you have got that wrong there.

A guilty verdict is based on the finding that there is no reasonable doubt, or that the jury is completely sure, of the defendant's guilt.

Any thoughts at all on the medical evidence? Or doesn't it matter because of your remote psychological profiling?
Not saying In anyway that my psychological profile is correct. Couldn't possibly insist that it is. Just sharing what I think.

It's considering what the motive could have been, not that it's evidence of her guilt.

A guilty verdict is based on the finding that there is no reasonable doubt, or that the jury is completely sure, of the defendant's guilt
No REASONABLE doubt. That's different to no doubt at all.