The investigation of Lucy Letby on Netflix

[TheRozzers]

Anyone watched it yet? It’s a really excellent documentary with loads of footage of her police interviews.

You see the police asking her questions about those ‘confession’ notes.

I won’t put spoilers in the OP but I’d love to hear what others made of her responses.

Mid way through I thought she’s 💯 guilty but by the end I’m really not sure. A lot points to her being innocent.

I feel for the parents of those babies so much, the uncertainty must be horrendous 😞

I am very sorry for the families, but they aren't medical experts and their views and pain don't mean that we can ignore a miscarriage of justice. There have been hundreds of successful cases at the court of appeal since the CCRC was set up. I'm sure most victims of these crimes believed, sincerely, that the jury and the police had got it right the first time. But sadly that doesn't guarantee anything. Miscarriages of justice cause more pain on both sides

And too much milk.

Yes, this is how I understand it too.

I agree with Dewi Evans - there’s no new evidence to see here, only new opinion, and appeal courts rightly take a dim view of ‘expert shopping’ on appeal until you find someone who backs you. We’ll see what the CCRC says, but new opinion isn’t likely to get Letby much further.

I believe Mark McDonald has already said he won’t represent Letby if the CCRC does find that her case can be re-presented to appeal court.

I work with 2 nurses who are now solicitors and they both have a very similar view to yours .
I also worked for a few years in medical negligence cases and nurses are indeed one of the easiest scapegoats the nhs uses .
Personally I think there should be a retrial

I really don’t want to believe she is guilty but unfortunately she does present like a sociopath - she seemed to show absolutely zero remorse at all. I think it’s hard to look at her and make sense of what she’s done because it’s so horrific but I do think all the evidence, whilst circumstantial, does stack up. In the small clips we see, she never provides any explanation that’s plausible for any of the behaviours.

At Thirlwall a set of parents spoke about a nurse who they said had been really inappropriate and cold with them, and when that mother heard her baby collapsed she said to her husband that that nurse had harmed her baby. That was a different nurse and not Lucy Letby, by contrast those parents said Lucy Letby was kind to them.

I wonder how many more stories of possibly weird or inappropriate behaviour or comments would have came out about that other nurse if she was the one accused of harming the babies.

That's a very weak case. Lots of nurses, and the doctor who was on the spot, told the Thirlwall Enquiry there was nothing unusual at the time. The prosecution experts contradicted themselves on the evidence they brought about the child's stomach being empty at the key point. The international expert panel commented that symptoms (including nappies) indicated a gastric infection, not overfeeding.

I see many comments saying what’s her motive, she doesn’t look/appear to be murderer. However, IF she is guilty, she would’ve always had pyschopathic tendencies which lay dormant and she could’ve masked for many years.

The fact she desperately wanted to be a neonatal nurse since she was a child after learning she was very poorly when she was born, and almost died, could well play a part in it. She said she wanted to help other sick babies and their parents. As an only child who was doted on, you could imagine her parents drilling this in about how lucky they were to have her. If you were a Pyschologist looking for a motive, you might hypothesise that she had a God complex and it gave her power over the lives of vulnerable babies and she sought out reactions of parents, giving her a sense of importance comforting them. Parents commented on odd things she said to them after a baby passing, and colleagues described her as almost being gleeful after collapses or deaths.

This theory does tie in with her searches for parents on Facebook (sometimes even hours after a baby had passed) and over 200 searches a month. It would suggest she had a morbid fascination with following the parent’s grief journey. Looking for sympathy and validation in texts to colleagues also fits this type of personality disorder. She continually appeared flat and monotone (there is speculation about being dosed up on meds) but it was pointed out by many people in the court how she only seemed to show emotion when it was something relating to her ie when the Doctor she clearly fancied spoke in court, or when references were made to her home or cats.

I am not saying this all points to 100% guilt but it does give an oversight and possible explanation to why and how she could have done this as so many people seem to say she doesn’t fit the stereotype.

@freakingscared I'm around nurses constantly and I'm not sure I know any who are satisfied that Letby's convictions are safe. Speaks volumes

If she didn't do it then she wouldn't be showing remorse either.

I don't know all the ins and outs as I haven't really followed it. I just find it hard to believe that such an incredibly long and thorough trial with so many legal and medical brains could have got it so wrong. If what you say is true, how come it didn't influence the outcome? It's possible that the trial could have got it wrong, but not likely.

Really ? I know quite a few .

How familiar are you with miscarriages of justice in this country?

And they are just the ones we know about.

I know they asked on that podcast and it was very clear they didn't understand what he was trying to tell them.

Absolutely the CCRC may want to know and may ask her to waive privilege or they may have already asked and no one would know about it, but if you're talking about that podcast I'm fairly sure that interview was conducted at the CCRC when he had literally just dropped the submission off, they asked if she had waived privilege, he said no, no client waives privilege unless they have to. The CCRC wouldn't have asked at that stage.

Not overly. But did they have such long and thorough trials? As I said, I know it's possible. Just doesn't seem likely. Perhaps I'm wrong.

No I know what you’re saying but there would be some sense of grief or emotion at the gravity of the claims? I’d be besides myself if someone thought I was murderer! I think most people would be?

Perhaps I’m being unkind but personally she seemed totally emotionless. Unless she was on a heavy dosage of medication - I can’t wrap my head around it!

Ah that reminds me of harold shipman - I’m sure he’d seen the drs giving his mum morphine or whatever and saw the power and was replaying a moment from her death every time - like he came obsessed with that moment

not sure if I’m explaining it right

How would you explain famous miscarriages of justice following jury trials such as those of Andrew Malkinson and Victor Nealon who were convicted of rapes that it was later conclusively established by DNA evidence were done by other men? 17 years in prison apiece.

Trial by jury is not infallible. The evidence in those cases will also appear to have ‘fitted together’ but it later transpired that the reason for that was wrong identification aided and abetted by police misconduct. The victims thought the right men had been convicted all that time whilst their real rapists were walking free. Miscarriage of justice is a disaster for victims and their families as well as the wrongly convicted.

People must have said that about the hundreds of miscarriages of justice that have been officially overturned over the years though.

I know you aren't saying it, but I find it frustrating when people say the jury agreed it so it must be right. We know for a fact that miscarriages of justice happen. We know the government set up that CCRC so that this could be dealt with. It's just a sad but unavoidable fact.

So you could blame all sorts of things for what went wrong at the trial. It might be our expert witness system which makes experts speak for one side instead of for the court, even though they are meant to be impartial and give both sides. It might be legal aid - would that have paid for the expertise Lucy Letby needed. It might be our education system - are judges and lawyers as good with science as they are with words? It might be the sheer length of the trial. Was it reasonable to try all those cases at once? Could people remember at the end what they'd heard at the beginning, or could errors slip in?

There could be lots of reasons, and we know things can go wrong because we know they do go wrong. So it seems only sensible to be open to the possibility that this one went wrong, when so many qualified experts with no skin in the game have come out to put their reputations on the line and say, it doesn't make sense. This is incredibly unusual and I think has to be taken seriously to the extent of testing their contributions in court.

Yes I completely understand you. There would’ve always been a tendency for narcissistic or sociopathic behaviour, but sometimes it would take an event or an image/idea of something that affected them which would trigger this ‘need’ to commit such acts.

However, IF she is guilty, she would’ve always had pyschopathic tendencies which lay dormant and she could’ve masked for many years.

Most likely they would have found something in her past which showed this, but they didn't, and no one has said there was anything, which would be highly unusual for someone with psychopathic tendencies.

This theory does tie in with her searches for parents on Facebook (sometimes even hours after a baby had passed) and over 200 searches a month. It would suggest she had a morbid fascination with following the parent’s grief journey.

Over 200 a month and most didn't relate to the babies, wasn't there over 2000 searches and only a couple of dozen related to the babies, so if she did harm the babies that would be extremely unusual for serial killer behaviour, it showed only a tiny curiosity in line with her curiosity for every other random person, not a morbid fascination.

She continually appeared flat and monotone (there is speculation about being dosed up on meds)

Meds can do this, so can trauma.

but it was pointed out by many people in the court how she only seemed to show emotion when it was something relating to her ie when the Doctor she clearly fancied spoke in court, or when references were made to her home or cats.

This is perfectly normal behaviour for anyone accused of crimes they didn't commit. Obviously your main concern would be for yourself and what you'd lost and the impact on yourself. It's weird to think that anyone in that position should or would be more concerned and upset about the people they were falsely accused of harming than for themselves. If it were you who was falsely accused you would be the exact same.

That’s why court of appeal rejected her appeals (twice) they were safe convictions with fair trial and nothing met the threshold for over turning

You could make up some psychobabble bollocks motive like that and fit it on anyone though. It is not evidence of wrongdoing. It is beside the point as it proves nothing at all like most of the evidence as far as I can see. Notes and social media behaviour and her demeanour are all completely useless and not evidence at all. I remain unconvinced that any crimes were committed at all. I can’t see how it differs from the case Lucille de Berk who was found to be innocent as no crimes were committed.

“It's weird to think that anyone in that position should or would be more concerned and upset about the people they were falsely accused of harming than for themselves. If it were you who was falsely accused you would be the exact same.”

I’m sorry to say but yes I would be more upset about the lost lives of innocent babies than some man I fancied or seeing pictures of my room. And I would certainly be proclaiming my innocence a lot more furiously than she did. But that’s me.

Internally of course, but that can impact a person in many ways, one being numbness and appearing flat.

Medication or the trauma of the situation itself can 100% cause that.