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 😞

Why not? Can only experts start threads about Netflix documentaries now? Getting different perspectives is the point of the thread and I’m finding it really interesting to hear from lawyers, nurses etc who do have that insight.

Interested to know which podcasts? A lot of ‘don’t believe what you watch on Netflix’ on this thread so if anyone wants to share what they think is a more credible source it would be interesting to take a look?

Exactly - and why didn't she return them to the hospital once she realised she brought them home 'accidentally'? Ludicrous.

They didn't need to find a scapegoat for anything, it was a functioning neonatal unit with statistics aligned with the rest of England and Wales before Letby.

It's delusional to argue baby deaths occuring with that frequency on that unit could have been "forgotten". As a professional these are the very cases that stay with you forever, you remember them vividly. Letby was not first interviewed after "7 years" either, you have your timelines completely wrong. She was also researching information about these babies and their families, not something that slips one's mind, unless concealed deliberately.

The Thirlwall inquiry can confirm this is not factually correct. This is all in the public domain.

On most threads about this person there are the same individuals hellbent on pushing positive PR about her. Yes, PR, not legal defence and not even the facts.

Notes definitely should have been returned but I can see how she may have taken them home in her pocket, keeping them on her person gives instant access to important information if it’s needed quickly, relevant if the patient is very poorly. It’s plausible she would have added them to the box as and when they were brought home therefore they would have been in date order. Ripping up notes and disposing of them at home is very inappropriate, even with a home shredder. Clinical notes are taken by a specialist company and incinerated.

250 notes? Then stored chronologically in a box marked as "Keep"? Not returned to the hospital that owns the records? This is not coincidentally bringing them home and getting confused.

I know how confidential records ought to be stored and disposed of. All medical professionals know this too.

Having watches it last night. There is "reasonable doubt" for certain. If any of this has been entered into the trial it's very doubtful she would have been convicted. Im still not sure of she is or didn't do it based on a one hour program but definitely has reasonable doubt for a conviction

It is possible she hadn’t prioritised bringing them back. She said she didn’t know how to dispose of them in her interview, she definitely did but once such a large pile had accumulated it would have become a problem. Huge miss management of confidential information which needed to be addressed however knowing how hectic and demanding her work schedule would have been I’m still leaning towards the possibility of her being innocent

The Thirlwall Inquiry backed this up, in fact. The hospital conducted and commissioned reviews, ending with reports from Drs Hawdon and McPartland that attributed the deaths and collapses to natural causes and significant failings in care.

The consultants refused to accept the recommendations of these reports, and ended up persuading their managers to arrange for them to meet the police. Evans phoned the police to offer his services, and unlike the doctors and pathologists who had seen the cases before him, or since the trial, he declared that there had been significant harm.

it was a shit poor defence. If there’s a retrial, they’d almost certainly find her not guilty

Totally agree and I’m only half way through it. Saying goodbye to her cat. Going no comment. Storing confidential documents she shouldn’t have had in a special box in chronological order. Asking “are you going to search the house” knowing fine she had incriminating stuff that would be found. Contacting the police asking them when they’d be speaking to her, because she wanted to know if they were onto her or not and she couldn’t contain herself.

You think she’s guilty because she said goodbye to her cat?

I am genuinely interested in the insistence from some she’s guilty as I’m not seeing it, but I really do not see how saying goodbye to a cat is indicative of guilt

Yes I also thought this, I love cats, if anything wanting to give your cat a cuddle is a positive personality trait. Not that it has any relevance to the case

Those saying that the evidence is circumstantial answer me this.
I know somebody involved in a trial with the following evidence..
A member of the public phones 999 to report suspected domestic violence happening at a neighbours home.
Responders find a woman beaten unconscious with a broken chair leg beside her.
The suspect (victim’s boyfriend) has run away from the scene.
Victim recovers and states her boyfriend beat her with a chair leg.
Doorbell footage shows the boyfriend kicking and forcing entry around 30 minutes prior to the 999 call.
Police find and question the boyfriend.
He states that yes he kicked the door in and there was an argument but that the victim picked up the chair leg herself and was trying to frame him.. She according to him hit herself around head with the chair leg.
He could (seems unlikely) but he could be telling the truth. None of us have X-ray vision or a time machine so does beyond a reasonable doubt mean you’d vote not guilty?
Does evidence have to be completely 100% black and white before we say actually when you put all of the circumstances together it’s enough to give a guilty verdict?

They werent. The assay used is provenly flawed

@cobrapaw its not really comparable. The evidence being circumstantial would be damning if murders were a definite conclusion (this was what Beverley Allitt was ultimately found guilty of I believe)

This is different because it is disputed that murder happened at all.

Circumstantial evidence can be stronger or weaker. Your example is stronger than anything in the Lucy Letby case. Your accused is likely to be convicted on forensic evidence and expert evidence showing that the woman didn't hit herself, anyway.

I don't tend to object to the evidence in the Lucy Letby case because it's circumstantial, but because it's weak, largely irrelevant, and based on fantasy medical scenarios.

Something to read on circumstantial evidence if interested
https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php/Circumstantial_evidence

She said she didn’t have anyway of getting rid of them. The police then asked her did she have a shredder. She said no but one was found in her house.

Even if she didn’t know the shredder was there, the normal thing to do would be to burn them or buy a shredder disposed of the 250 confidencial pieces of paper.
To file them in a box and mark it “KEEP” is a very strange thing to do and for a lot of people points to some morbid motivation.

People keep trying to make excuses for these notes which I think is one of the strongest pieces of evidence against her.

In the documentary she acknowledges the notes and explains she couldn't destroy them at home as she didn't have a shredder but there was a shredder found in the home.

I also think the astrix on the dates a child died is very interesting. As in the police tapes she immediately knew they linked to a child being very unwell. So she remembered doing that but couldn't explain why she did it.

I am someone who has gone back and forth with her guilt and innocence. I found the statement from the neonatal experts extremely compelling. But the notes at home and the astrix marked dates are absolutely weird and it is one factor that cannot be explained logically.

Just remembered this as it was mentioned on another thread. LL failed her final nursing placement as amongst other things, her mentor felt she needed a lot more supervision to pass and she had a lack of empathy. If only that mentor had been listened to.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyz904y0xyo.amp

Also another report of this which adds LL making an inappropriate comment about the death of one of the babies.

https://news.sky.com/story/cold-lucy-letby-failed-final-year-student-nurse-placement-inquiry-hears-13234225

Poor Lucy has such a lot of bad luck doesnt she 🤔

Ok so the evidence in court used to convict LL was from an expert witness who misinterpreted the findings of a paper. And circumstantial evidence.

It seems odd that the circumstantial evidence was so avoidable.

Her being on shift is easily explained by her being the most senior nurse. It appears that if police hadn’t found those hospital notes or rambling post it notes they wouldn’t have enough to charge her with.

If the search of LL’s house came back with nothing then she’d be a free woman.

That’s terrifying if she’s guilty. Desperate if she’s innocent.

Just hearsay by someone who thinks she can judge someone's feelings from their tone. Have you ever been on a hospital ward? There are a lot of murderers out there if this kind of thing is evidence of murder.