UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #9

[katydid23]

So
Why weren't they presented at the beginning?
To the Judge, Jury and families of victims?

Are they going to jump out, all of the sudden, as "rabbits from the magician's hat"???

IN all of the trials I have followed, the prosecution puts forth their experts and witnesses first. Then they rest their case.

Then the defense puts forth theirs.


Both sides get to cross examine and ask questions of the other's witnesses.

 

[Dotta]

IN all of the trials I have followed, the prosecution puts forth their experts and witnesses first. Then they rest their case.

Then the defense puts forth theirs.


Both sides get to cross examine and ask questions of the other's witnesses.

Does it mean each Baby will be discussed all over again with other experts?

Phew!

I hope this trial finishes before Jury's retirement age

 

[Tortoise]

I found this in the criminal procedure rules

Pre-hearing discussion of expert evidence​

19.6.—(1) This rule applies where more than one party wants to introduce expert evidence.

(2) The court may direct the experts to—

(a)discuss the expert issues in the proceedings; and

(b)prepare a statement for the court of the matters on which they agree and disagree, giving their reasons.

(3) Except for that statement, the content of that discussion must not be referred to without the court’s permission.

(4) A party may not introduce expert evidence without the court’s permission if the expert has not complied with a direction under this rule.

[Note. At a pre-trial hearing, a court may make binding rulings about the admissibility of evidence and about questions of law under section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987(11); sections 31 and 40 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996(12); and section 8A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980(13).]

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2020


Firstly I think the defence doesn't have medical experts, because if they did, disagreements between experts would have been addressed before trial, and brought up by the prosecution in their questioning of their own experts, to prepare the jury and knock it on the head before it happens. It sounds to me as if this rule above is exactly for that purpose. I don't think it would make for good practice to have the jury sit through months of expert opinion over 17 cases, to then move onto the defence case and have the jury compare the differences with what they heard much earlier.

Secondly I just don't think there is enough time left in the trial timetable to go through defence expert evidence for 17 cases.

 

[Dotta]

I found this in the criminal procedure rules

Pre-hearing discussion of expert evidence​

19.6.—(1) This rule applies where more than one party wants to introduce expert evidence.

(2) The court may direct the experts to—

(a)discuss the expert issues in the proceedings; and

(b)prepare a statement for the court of the matters on which they agree and disagree, giving their reasons.

(3) Except for that statement, the content of that discussion must not be referred to without the court’s permission.

(4) A party may not introduce expert evidence without the court’s permission if the expert has not complied with a direction under this rule.

[Note. At a pre-trial hearing, a court may make binding rulings about the admissibility of evidence and about questions of law under section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987(11); sections 31 and 40 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996(12); and section 8A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980(13).]

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2020


Firstly I think the defence doesn't have medical experts, because if they did, disagreements between experts would have been addressed before trial, and brought up by the prosecution in their questioning of their own experts, to prepare the jury and knock it on the head before it happens. It sounds to me as if this rule above is exactly for that purpose. I don't think it would make for good practice to have the jury sit through months of expert opinion over 17 cases, to then move onto the defence case and have the jury compare the differences with what they heard much earlier.

Secondly I just don't think there is enough time left in the trial timetable to go through defence expert evidence for 17 cases.

That is what I thought.

Fair Play -
meaning all cards on the table at the beginning of the trial.

Both Prosecution and Defence can cross examine OBJECTIVE experts/PROFESSIONALS as much as they want.

My Opinion

 

[Tortoise]

I wonder if we're going to hear, as the trial progresses, evidence of what was going on in terms of staff concerns and management discussions. Or if that's off limits. For instance why the doctor was questioning the other nurse towards the end, and how the decision was finally made to take LL off the unit.

 

[mart321]

View attachment 396729
https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-live-a-poisoner-was-at-work-in-the-hospital-nurse-accused-of-killing-seven-
babies-goes-on-trial-12716378

The note is pretty clear-cut to me. You only get to an alternative meaning by adulterating select sentences and by ignoring the words “on purpose”.


The defence says "it does not say guilty".

1. Words LL did not write down are not evidence. Picking any word that she did not use is a straw man argument. What LL wrote is the evidence - she didn't write not guilty, or innocent, but that will not and never will be evidence either.

2. LL had not been accused of murder/attempted murder, arrested, cautioned or charged. "Guilty" is vocabulary, an available plea, for persons who have been accused by the police. She was going through a grievance procedure with the NHS, 'slander, discrimination and victimisation', were her stated concerns. You don't plead guilty to colleagues' and bosses' suspicions.

3. LL wrote "I DID THIS", twice. Three words replete with pronoun making it a reliable statement, admitting responsibility, with the same meaning as 'guilty'. Not only that but she preceded one of them with "I AM EVIL", giving the context of evil to whatever "THIS" is.

4. LL wrote "I haven't done anything wrong". The words only mean that the writer believes everything they did was justifiable. She's not writing with the consideration of what anyone else will think about that, or that it will be discovered in a house search, these are her private thoughts.

5. Good, horrible, awful and evil. “I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them & I am a horrible evil person.” “I am an awful person”: A nurse qualified in healthcare who did actually know practically how to save the lives of babies, and demonstrated she did know how to provide the taught standards of care, is obviously able to care for them. I believe the words mean she doesn’t care for them and being good enough means being caring. If the allegations against her are proven, describing herself as horrible and awful doesn’t come close to an awareness of the egregiousness and the suffering inflicted. One might use horrible and awful to describe the windy weather out, but not a hurricane. I think the words she chose show a disconnect, and she doesn’t have the capacity for assessing the impact on others. Thus, to her, good, horrible, awful and evil are merely labels identifying caring or not caring, empathy or no empathy. IMO

6. LL wrote "I'll never have children or marry I'll never know what its like to have a family". Is it reasonable to think that slander discrimination and victimisation will follow her forever and prevent her from marrying or having a family? Or is it reasonable to think that she sees a future where she will not be free to have these things? Is it reasonable to think she believes the investigation will find evidence of things she didn't do and she will be convicted by a jury as an innocent person?


"on purpose"

"I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them & I am a horrible evil person I don't deserve Mum & Dad [Tom & Matt?]"

On purpose only has one meaning - non-accidentally. Killed only has one meaning – to inflict death upon. The next line about deserving is not consistent with one who believes they have been slandered discriminated against and victimised. The note demonstrates progression in her stance, mood and thoughts, IMO.


This is my opinion and as we all know, LL denies the charges.

Brilliantly put. I really don't like how the defence are playing the mental health card with this letter, it's just too obvious. In that case we can just disregard any murder confession note that's ever been written and explain it away by saying they were having a bad time of it.

I personally believe this was the only outlet for her true feelings.

 

[mart321]

I wonder if we're going to hear, as the trial progresses, evidence of what was going on in terms of staff concerns and management discussions. Or if that's off limits. For instance why the doctor was questioning the other nurse towards the end, and how the decision was finally made to take LL off the unit.

I would like to think the prosecution have some other things that they will come through with as opposed to just going through each and every case as they have thus far.

I think it's a strong case personally but it needs something extra. I feel very much G at this point but wonder what others will make of the defence when they have their chance.

I don't feel BM will have too much of a difficult time calling into question the failings and practices of the hospital. That really doesn't explain what has gone on here though.

With that being said, I fully expect the jury to be far more aware of the full picture, as they are hearing it all first hand.

 

[ColourPurple]

View attachment 396729
https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-live-a-poisoner-was-at-work-in-the-hospital-nurse-accused-of-killing-seven-
babies-goes-on-trial-12716378

The note is pretty clear-cut to me. You only get to an alternative meaning by adulterating select sentences and by ignoring the words “on purpose”.


The defence says "it does not say guilty".

1. Words LL did not write down are not evidence. Picking any word that she did not use is a straw man argument. What LL wrote is the evidence - she didn't write not guilty, or innocent, but that will not and never will be evidence either.

2. LL had not been accused of murder/attempted murder, arrested, cautioned or charged. "Guilty" is vocabulary, an available plea, for persons who have been accused by the police. She was going through a grievance procedure with the NHS, 'slander, discrimination and victimisation', were her stated concerns. You don't plead guilty to colleagues' and bosses' suspicions.

3. LL wrote "I DID THIS", twice. Three words replete with pronoun making it a reliable statement, admitting responsibility, with the same meaning as 'guilty'. Not only that but she preceded one of them with "I AM EVIL", giving the context of evil to whatever "THIS" is.

4. LL wrote "I haven't done anything wrong". The words only mean that the writer believes everything they did was justifiable. She's not writing with the consideration of what anyone else will think about that, or that it will be discovered in a house search, these are her private thoughts.

5. Good, horrible, awful and evil. “I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them & I am a horrible evil person.” “I am an awful person”: A nurse qualified in healthcare who did actually know practically how to save the lives of babies, and demonstrated she did know how to provide the taught standards of care, is obviously able to care for them. I believe the words mean she doesn’t care for them and being good enough means being caring. If the allegations against her are proven, describing herself as horrible and awful doesn’t come close to an awareness of the egregiousness and the suffering inflicted. One might use horrible and awful to describe the windy weather out, but not a hurricane. I think the words she chose show a disconnect, and she doesn’t have the capacity for assessing the impact on others. Thus, to her, good, horrible, awful and evil are merely labels identifying caring or not caring, empathy or no empathy. IMO

6. LL wrote "I'll never have children or marry I'll never know what its like to have a family". Is it reasonable to think that slander discrimination and victimisation will follow her forever and prevent her from marrying or having a family? Or is it reasonable to think that she sees a future where she will not be free to have these things? Is it reasonable to think she believes the investigation will find evidence of things she didn't do and she will be convicted by a jury as an innocent person?


"on purpose"

"I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them & I am a horrible evil person I don't deserve Mum & Dad [Tom & Matt?]"

On purpose only has one meaning - non-accidentally. Killed only has one meaning – to inflict death upon. The next line about deserving is not consistent with one who believes they have been slandered discriminated against and victimised. The note demonstrates progression in her stance, mood and thoughts, IMO.


This is my opinion and as we all know, LL denies the charges.

As I've said before due to the different writing styles/size/mix of capitals and lower case and how some things appear squashed in or written over others, I do suspect the note wasn't written in one go but if you look at just the writing from the top left side down, that does all appear to be in the same size and style etc. so possibly written in one go... she makes a number of "I" statements :

(from top to bottom)
I can't breathe
I can't focus
I haven't done anything wrong
I feel very alone and scared
I don't deserve to live
I killed them on purpose
(because) I'm not good enough to care for them
I am a horrible evil person
I don't deserve mom and dad


There is absolutely nothing to indicate or suggest that she is talking about others opinion of her, and those who think she is, seem to have cherry picked just the more incriminating "I" statements from the list and decided that only those "I" statements aren't her own thoughts. Why only those? Why must only the statements that could suggest guilt, be about what other people think instead of being her own thoughts? They presumably accept that the rest of the note is about her own thoughts so why would the parts that suggest guilt not be her own thoughts too?

There is nothing any different between the way she writes "I can't breathe" "I feel very alone and scared" and "I haven't done anything wrong" and the way she writes "I killed them on purpose" "I don't deserve to live" and "I am a horrible evil person" so why would the latter examples be about what other people think rather than her own thoughts ? They're not written in a different style or case. They're not prefaced by the words "They think " or "everybody is saying". IMO the most obvious explanation/conclusion is that all of the "I" statements are talking about herself and her own thoughts. Now whether she was of sound mind when she wrote those thoughts or wrote them whilst in an "anguished" state is another matter. And that seems to be what the defence are arguing.

Having said that I'm not of the opinion that the post it note is a "That's it. Case closed" moment or anything either.

IMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

I would agree it would be difficult to make sense of that note without adding missing words, you could take a guess by looking at the context though.

you would have to employ an understanding of psychology to read into all the possible explanations for reasons why someone would write it. Also maybe to explain some of the apparently unfinished sentences like “every of” coming aftr taking over my life. Those words don’t seem to fit with any other part of the note. However if you look at how it is written with there being no discernible difference in the immediate preceding sentence between font, pressure and ink on the paper I think you could reasonably put in the word “day” so would read. “Everything taking over my life every day of”.

one of the obvious concerns in the note is that the police investigation forget so she was aware of police and potential legal implications.

the word “this” actually suggests psychological distancing I would sooner expect the word “it” which would be a direct reference to her understanding of the deaths of the babies which Atm in the trial she seems to be aware are unusual but not necessarily nefarious. I might also suggest the word ”this” is a broad and non specific word to use when she would presumably know if guilty exactly what she could be accused of, it’s also dramatic so is a warm word rather than cold. I will also add there is no reference to the collapses she is accused of inflicting, only deaths, we see no reference to harm or injury Which if she was guilty she would be aware of. Does that suggest she is unaware that the collapses are unusual Or at least eventually will be seen that way? No reference at all to the hurt she would presumably understand she had caused if guilty.

the words what does the future hold, how can I get through it and what will things be like again suggest she isn’t completely aware of how the situation could possibly unfold, suggesting she isn’t completely aware of what she is being accused of But going by the evidence presented at this point the only thing she would presumably be able to think of is the unusual deaths.

I think the references to not having family or be married is actually a description to her feelings of low self esteem and general unattractiveness at that point in time and not a reference to a possible conviction. I might assume the word horrible more fitting for someone describing another person’s appearance appealing or not. The fact she is mentioning other people ie a romantic partner also gives an indication that she is thinking about other people when writing the note. It’s in line with the heading of the note “not good enough“ And someome feeling shame. also think the entire note is centred around her inner experience at that point in time, it’s directed inwardly. I also think the words on purpose could be present for three different reason, could be she has entertained the idea the deaths were through malpractice or not being good enough at her job and that’s what she is accused of, a clarification that she killed them deliberately to a perceived outer Audience which isn’t in line with the note taken as a whole as the only direct reference to outer people is her family and not deserving them presumably due to the shame of being associated with someone accused of something like that or she may think that she is accused of not being a very good nurse and that is true and knows it and so may think she shouldn’t be working as a nurse Which is in line with the low self esteem evident in the note. That all fits with someone who is also thinking of how others are perceiving her otherwise she wouldn’t mention something she doesn’t currently have ie a family or partner. I don’t get why she would feel the need to say she did it on purpose if there was no doubt in her mind that she had indeed killed them on purpose.

jmo

it’s certainly Not a straight cut confession at all. If it was she would simply say I killed them,I did it, I have done bad things I can’t control myself, I don’t know why I did it etc. she would be well aware of what she would be accused of She also presumably wouldn’t add a reason for killing with that reason being she is a horrible evil person. If you did take the words I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough literally you would be saying She is projecting her feelings of inadequacy onto the babies Or using them as an outlet. Her writing she is a horrible evil person again sounds like drama very much the kind of thing a young person would write if feeling bad and ugly Rather than a confession from someone detached from an understanding of the enormity of these wrongs if guilty. Its really not in my mind at least the kind of thing someone maturely and rationally writing a confession down would write at all. It’s all quite warm language as well not like a cold confession.

she also writes “I hate myself“ again suggesting low self esteem that’s the only statement regarding directed feelings and its at herself. Also the words killing me suggest someone in a great deal of hurt. I doubt almost entirely the phrase “good enough“ is a reference to her morale character.

in Regards to the note I will be interested to see how the defence try to paint it not forgetting that this one supposed confession comes within a batch of statements saying she is innocent. We have also heard evidence coming from her personal diary used by the prosecution, she noted the events of a few cases. the prosecution stated it as damning Evidence of her recording her crimes. Again though the prosecution have failed to bring evidence forward of her being someone capable of this and any deceit or two facedness. Her diary would be revealing.
jmo.

I will be paying particular attention to her personal and professional coms when it comes to child L. This was when she was put on day shifts due to the concerns and worries from some consultants. If she is as oblivious then as she seems right now she is probably not looking out for possible signs that she is suspected of wrong doing.

 

[Sundial]

Maybe she doesn't believe she did anything wrong? If she did these alleged attacks, she must have had some compelling reason that made it make sense to her.

My friends 14 yr old twins got caught shoplifting expensive make up. One daughter promptly said to her angry parents," I didn't do anything wrong. "

Her sister chimed in ---" yes, they charge way too much and besides, their corporate insurance pays for the loss, so..."

In their minds they did nothing wrong


.
I read her ' I AM EVIL. I DID THIS' literally, and did not add in extraneous thoughts attributed to her. She said 'I pay for that everyday' and ' I did this on purpose'

If she meant all this to be describing what others thought of her, why not say that?

I would have a really hard time writing down these kinds of horrid confessions over and over if I was just thinking about what others thought of me. It doesn't make sense to me.


This note is evidence set before the court. So I think there is value in discussing our individual interpretations. I am sure the jurors will have to do the same thing. I think this note will actually end up having a big impaction the end.

I know of a family member who was allegedly said to be cheating on her partner. She denied it when confronted, cried and was upset, even to the point where she stated through her tears, “I have done nothing wrong”.
But the thing is she was extremely unhappy in her relationship (not that cheating is ok of course), and 6 months later, was then separated and with the very person she was accused of cheating with.

IMO they can be examples of denying what someone is accused of through fear of being found out and justifying them (as you describe) as being ok. It makes no sense, but to some kind of people (I guess if guilty) they rationalise “why” and talk themselves into believing their actions are right.

 

[WaxLyrical]

As I've said before due to the different writing styles/size/mix of capitals and lower case and how some things appear squashed in or written over others, I do suspect the note wasn't written in one go but if you look at just the writing from the top left side down, that does all appear to be in the same size and style etc. so possibly written in one go... she makes a number of "I" statements :

(from top to bottom)
I can't breathe
I can't focus
I haven't done anything wrong
I feel very alone and scared
I don't deserve to live
I killed them on purpose
(because) I'm not good enough to care for them
I am a horrible evil person
I don't deserve mom and dad


There is absolutely nothing to indicate or suggest that she is talking about others opinion of her, and those who think she is, seem to have cherry picked just the more incriminating "I" statements from the list and decided that only those "I" statements aren't her own thoughts. Why only those? Why must only the statements that could suggest guilt, be about what other people think instead of being her own thoughts? They presumably accept that the rest of the note is about her own thoughts so why would the parts that suggest guilt not be her own thoughts too?

There is nothing any different between the way she writes "I can't breathe" "I feel very alone and scared" and "I haven't done anything wrong" and the way she writes "I killed them on purpose" "I don't deserve to live" and "I am a horrible evil person" so why would the latter examples be about what other people think rather than her own thoughts ? They're not written in a different style or case. They're not prefaced by the words "They think " or "everybody is saying". IMO the most obvious explanation/conclusion is that all of the "I" statements are talking about herself and her own thoughts. Now whether she was of sound mind when she wrote those thoughts or wrote them whilst in an "anguished" state is another matter. And that seems to be what the defence are arguing.

Having said that I'm not of the opinion that the post it note is a "That's it. Case closed" moment or anything either.

IMO

I’m someone who’s suggested she’s talking about the thoughts of others, and may potentially be seen as cherry picking, so it might help if I explain a bit.

I should preface that I’m looking at the note from the perspective that it isn’t a confession. There is one side of me that’s happy to accept she wrote the literal truth (I killed them on purpose) and there’s another side of me that’s explored what else I think the note could represent (if she didn’t in fact kill anyone on purpose).

Firstly, the note was written when she was going through a disciplinary? (maybe grievance?) procedure at the NHS, not after she’d been arrested. At that stage, I think it’s fair to say she’d have put two and two together considering the deaths were being investigated and she appears to have been the only one put on admin duties. Plus it sounds like gossip etc was rife. She may well have been told the cases were being referred to the police, I’ve no idea.

Nurses are taught to write reflections. In fact, I believe it’s part of their continuous professional development. They’re encouraged to jot down notes about situations. In evaluating a situation, they might consider “what was I thinking and feeling during the situation, and before and after it”, as well as “what do I think other people were/are thinking and feeling about the situation”, and “what do I think and feel about the situation now”.

If this is a piece of reflection about a complaint or suspicion she’s been made aware of, where she’s been falsely accused of harming patients, then there’s not a huge amount of cherry picking to be done. She wasn’t writing this note for anyone else to see, it would be a stream of consciousness keeping the above questions in mind. She wouldn’t need to write headings, or write complete sentences, it’s about identifying the thoughts and emotions and getting them down on paper.

Obviously I’m just speculating. I feel like if it was an actual confession, it wouldn’t contain phrases like “I haven’t done anything wrong” and “slander”, “victimisation” etc. To me, those seem more like answers to the “what do I think about the situation (grievance)” part of a reflection.

The part of the note that causes me to pause is “I am an awful person I pay for that everyday”.

 

[katydid23]

I’m someone who’s suggested she’s talking about the thoughts of others, and may potentially be seen as cherry picking, so it might help if I explain a bit.

I should preface that I’m looking at the note from the perspective that it isn’t a confession. There is one side of me that’s happy to accept she wrote the literal truth (I killed them on purpose) and there’s another side of me that’s explored what else I think the note could represent (if she didn’t in fact kill anyone on purpose).

Firstly, the note was written when she was going through a disciplinary? (maybe grievance?) procedure at the NHS, not after she’d been arrested. At that stage, I think it’s fair to say she’d have put two and two together considering the deaths were being investigated and she appears to have been the only one put on admin duties. Plus it sounds like gossip etc was rife. She may well have been told the cases were being referred to the police, I’ve no idea.

Nurses are taught to write reflections. In fact, I believe it’s part of their continuous professional development. They’re encouraged to jot down notes about situations. In evaluating a situation, they might consider “what was I thinking and feeling during the situation, and before and after it”, as well as “what do I think other people were/are thinking and feeling about the situation”, and “what do I think and feel about the situation now”.

If this is a piece of reflection about a complaint or suspicion she’s been made aware of, where she’s been falsely accused of harming patients, then there’s not a huge amount of cherry picking to be done. She wasn’t writing this note for anyone else to see, it would be a stream of consciousness keeping the above questions in mind. She wouldn’t need to write headings, or write complete sentences, it’s about identifying the thoughts and emotions and getting them down on paper.

Obviously I’m just speculating. I feel like if it was an actual confession, it wouldn’t contain phrases like “I haven’t done anything wrong” and “slander”, “victimisation” etc. To me, those seem more like answers to the “what do I think about the situation (grievance)” part of a reflection.

The part of the note that causes me to pause is “I am an awful person I pay for that everyday”.

Good well thought out post. Thank you for the bit about writing reflections. That's a good way to describe it.

I have never thought this was meant to be a written confession. It always seemed more like an offhand journal of thoughts.

My husband is a writer by profession, and he jots down thoughts and tidbits of ideas, and things to remember all over the place, constantly. He writes on post its, and notepaper and paper napkins---whatever is handy when he has the urge to write something down.

I have always thought this green post-it was something she'd written on at several different times. Each time, she may have been spurred on in different ways. One set of 'thoughts' seems to be very raw, negative and emotional. Another seems more like what thoughts she had about her legal situation. A different set seems to be a more optimistic and hopeful group of thoughts. Some are more free form than others.

Even if this was a free form stream of consciousness exercise, some of the statements are very worrisome and hard to ignore. Even if you are doing a deep dive emotionally and writing ones feelings in a deep reflective exercise---how do you come to write the following:

I don't deserve to live
I killed them on purpose
(because) I'm not good enough to care for them
I am a horrible evil person
I am an awful person. I pay everyday for that'
I AM EVIL I DID THIS
I DID THIS WHY ME'

I don't understand how writing out one's thoughts and feelings in a therapeutic manner gets one to write such strong assertions of guilt. They do come off as someone trying to deal with and accept the truth of the situation, IMO.

She writes conflicting thoughts. As opposed to the assertions of guilt she writes:

'Kill myself right now. Overwhelming fear. I haven't done anything wrong'
'Police investigation. Forget. Slander discrimination victimisation'
Despair, panic, fear, lost, HATE'

But I don't think any of the above thoughts do anything to override or discount the 8 strong assertions of guilt.

 

[squish]

Bringing this in too highlighted from above;

both parents had cried and hugged her saying they’d never be able to thank me enough for the love and care I gave them.

I get the sense it’s more to do with the parents imo. Oddly there is more reference in her conversations regarding the parents (and her self-driven feelings) than the actual patient; those little babies themselves. It’s almost like they are void in the whole thing. It does make you wonder (aside from thinking she is innocent and loved her etc), genuinely what her relationship was actually like with her own parents. Just why does she need to trawl through these parents social media when they are grieving or already distressed? Why is that necessary? Surely it can’t be to “see how a xyz is doing” when she’s so emotionally disconnected from them whilst they have been in her care.

Strokes of affection spring to mind here imo.

She recognises that emotional turmoil and pain the parents are going through “crying on the floor”. She also recognises “both parents cried and hugged her”, “thinking of me when they have lost him”

So why does she not recognise the pain and suffering all these babies, her patients in her care, went through? It’s really unsettling imo

Psychopathy makes the person indifferent to suffering, while still able to recognise and perceive it.

It’s kind of the inverse of autism: people with autism (like me!) struggle to interpret body language and have to do it consciously and inadequately. But we do care how people feel, even if we miss it, or don’t get it.

Whereas psychopaths (anti social personality disorder) are fully capable of seeing and interpreting body language, but there is a disconnect in caring. They lack sufficient white matter to connect their frontal lobe (conscious thinking) with their limbic system (the emotional, loving part of the brain).

If guilty, IMO, this is a potential explanation.

 

[squish]

Good well thought out post. Thank you for the bit about writing reflections. That's a good way to describe it.

I have never thought this was meant to be a written confession. It always seemed more like an offhand journal of thoughts.

My husband is a writer by profession, and he jots down thoughts and tidbits of ideas, and things to remember all over the place, constantly. He writes on post its, and notepaper and paper napkins---whatever is handy when he has the urge to write something down.

I have always thought this green post-it was something she'd written on at several different times. Each time, she may have been spurred on in different ways. One set of 'thoughts' seems to be very raw, negative and emotional. Another seems more like what thoughts she had about her legal situation. A different set seems to be a more optimistic and hopeful group of thoughts. Some are more free form than others.

Even if this was a free form stream of consciousness exercise, some of the statements are very worrisome and hard to ignore. Even if you are doing a deep dive emotionally and writing ones feelings in a deep reflective exercise---how do you come to write the following:

I don't deserve to live
I killed them on purpose
(because) I'm not good enough to care for them
I am a horrible evil person
I am an awful person. I pay everyday for that'
I AM EVIL I DID THIS
I DID THIS WHY ME'

I don't understand how writing out one's thoughts and feelings in a therapeutic manner gets one to write such strong assertions of guilt. They do come off as someone trying to deal with and accept the truth of the situation, IMO.

She writes conflicting thoughts. As opposed to the assertions of guilt she writes:

'Kill myself right now. Overwhelming fear. I haven't done anything wrong'
'Police investigation. Forget. Slander discrimination victimisation'
Despair, panic, fear, lost, HATE'

But I don't think any of the above thoughts do anything to override or discount the 8 strong assertions of guilt.

She also doesn’t write any actual assertions of innocence. Just streams of self-pity.

 

[Legal]

She also doesn’t write any actual assertions of innocence. Just streams of self-pity.

Yes, I was just going to mention this. All the "I" statements in the note, it's all about her. Even in the text messages, I don't recall her ever asking any of her colleagues how they were feeling and if they were ok. Correct me if I'm wrong but it was all about her and seeking their comfort/ advice/ attention. I had a friend like this for several years, and all our interactions were based on her problems and needs, she was never interested in my life and the 'friendship' actually became really stressful because she drained me emotionally. We can't diagnose LL but with regards to my now ex-friend, I strongly believe she was a narcissist.

If I was innocent and accused of such hideous crimes, I would be writing on a post it 100 times "I am innocent".

 

[katydid23]

I saw an interesting article about the upcoming case, which we may hear about on Monday. It is about baby I---

Introducing the case of Baby I, Mr Johnson said: 'There were four separate occasions on which we allege Lucy Letby tried to kill Baby I. She was resilient, but ultimately, at the fourth attempt, Lucy Letby succeeded in killing her'.

By September 29, the infant was eight weeks old and the clinical concerns about her had diminished.

She had no breathing problems, was 'in air', gaining weight and being fed both by bottles and a tube.

Mr Johnson alleged that Letby carried out her first attack on Baby I the following day, September 30 – 'a couple of days after she had tried to kill Baby H and a week or so after events two and three for Baby G.

Letby was on a 12-hour shift that began at 8am, and she was Baby I's designated nurse.

She had two other babies to look after in Room 3, yet despite this she was also involved that shift with G and H.

According to Baby I's mother, Letby expressed some concern to her and indicated that the infant would be reviewed by a doctor.

Mr Johnson said: 'When she made the requisite note, Letby reversed the concern, saying that it was Baby I's mother who had raised an issue about her abdomen, writing 'Mum feels it is more distended to yesterday and that I is quiet…not on monitor but nil increased work of breathing'.

He asked the jury: 'Was it Lucy Letby trying to cover for what she was going to do?'

She fed the sleeping baby 35mls of expressed breast milk via the NGT at 4pm. Half an hour later an emergency 'crash call' was put out.

Lucy Letby 'tried to kill baby girl four times before succeeding'

The 32-year-old allegedly killed five boys and two girls, and faces a total of 22 charges of both murder and attempted murder involving 17 babies.

www.dailymail.co.uk

So it seems like this case might be more straight forward than the confusing baby H case. And baby I'd mum was present and involved and will likely testify about what she saw that concerned her most.

 

[MsBetsy]

She also doesn’t write any actual assertions of innocence. Just streams of self-pity.

Yes, it's interesting that her thoughts seem to be on the investigation and the effect it's having on her without once mentioning the victims or their parents.

Or questioning how these babies suddenly and mysteriously died, especially considering how involved she was in each case.

As a poster pointed out the other day, it could be significant that she is defending herself against potential charges before police ever accused her of any wrongdoing.

It seems as if she starts out by writing she's done nothing wrong so why does she have to hide away, etc.

I wonder if as she was expressing her feelings she started feeling guilt and thought getting the truth out on paper would relieve her conscious. She wrote those words with more emphasis and with capitals. It's as if she went from denial to calling herself a victim, to expressing feelings of despair and self loathing as she acknowledged what her future might hold.

When she says she's a horrible person and pays every day for this, it's possible she actually has feelings of remorse, although also possible that she's just feeling sorry for herself.

Then finally admitting guilt by writing, "I AM EVIL, I DID THIS."

The prosecution stated there were other notes found with some of her colleagues names on them. I wonder if by the time she wrote the note she had lost the support of her colleagues that had praised and supported her earlier on.

I can see why she would have felt despair and fear about the possibility of spending the rest of her life in prison.

 

[MsBetsy]

I saw an interesting article about the upcoming case, which we may hear about on Monday. It is about baby I---

Introducing the case of Baby I, Mr Johnson said: 'There were four separate occasions on which we allege Lucy Letby tried to kill Baby I. She was resilient, but ultimately, at the fourth attempt, Lucy Letby succeeded in killing her'.

By September 29, the infant was eight weeks old and the clinical concerns about her had diminished.

She had no breathing problems, was 'in air', gaining weight and being fed both by bottles and a tube.

Mr Johnson alleged that Letby carried out her first attack on Baby I the following day, September 30 – 'a couple of days after she had tried to kill Baby H and a week or so after events two and three for Baby G.

Letby was on a 12-hour shift that began at 8am, and she was Baby I's designated nurse.

She had two other babies to look after in Room 3, yet despite this she was also involved that shift with G and H.

According to Baby I's mother, Letby expressed some concern to her and indicated that the infant would be reviewed by a doctor.

Mr Johnson said: 'When she made the requisite note, Letby reversed the concern, saying that it was Baby I's mother who had raised an issue about her abdomen, writing 'Mum feels it is more distended to yesterday and that I is quiet…not on monitor but nil increased work of breathing'.

He asked the jury: 'Was it Lucy Letby trying to cover for what she was going to do?'

She fed the sleeping baby 35mls of expressed breast milk via the NGT at 4pm. Half an hour later an emergency 'crash call' was put out.

Lucy Letby 'tried to kill baby girl four times before succeeding'

The 32-year-old allegedly killed five boys and two girls, and faces a total of 22 charges of both murder and attempted murder involving 17 babies.

www.dailymail.co.uk

So it seems like this case might be more straight forward than the confusing baby H case. And baby I'd mum was present and involved and will likely testify about what she saw that concerned her most.

This case will be especially disturbing, I think. Baby I's mother is the one who stated Lucy walked in as she was bathing her dead child, smiled and told her she was present for the baby's first bath.

Letby also sent the family a sympathy card and kept the image on her phone, IIRC

She told investigators it was unusual to send cards but it wasn't every day that she got to know a family so well or something along those lines.

I think she said that about another family, too.

 

[Dotta]

Yes, it's interesting that her thoughts seem to be on the investigation and the effect it's having on her without once mentioning the victims or their parents.

Or questioning how these babies suddenly and mysteriously died, especially considering how involved she was in each case.

As a poster pointed out the other day, it could be significant that she is defending herself against potential charges before police ever accused her of any wrongdoing.

It seems as if she starts out by writing she's done nothing wrong so why does she have to hide away, etc.

I wonder if as she was expressing her feelings she started feeling guilt and thought getting the truth out on paper would relieve her conscious. She wrote those words with more emphasis and with capitals. It's as if she went from denial to calling herself a victim, to expressing feelings of despair and self loathing as she acknowledged what her future might hold.

When she says she's a horrible person and pays every day for this, it's possible she actually has feelings of remorse, although also possible that she's just feeling sorry for herself.

Then finally admitting guilt by writing, "I AM EVIL, I DID THIS."

The prosecution stated there were other notes found with some of her colleagues names on them. I wonder if by the time she wrote the note she had lost the support of her colleagues that had praised and supported her earlier on.

I can see why she would have felt despair and fear about the possibility of spending the rest of her life in prison.

Also, the word "HATE" written in distinctive black and circled seems to be a conclusion.

A final touch.

As if this particular emotion was governing her life.

HER emotion b/c the note was all about HERSELF.

My opinion

 

[mart321]

I saw an interesting article about the upcoming case, which we may hear about on Monday. It is about baby I---

Introducing the case of Baby I, Mr Johnson said: 'There were four separate occasions on which we allege Lucy Letby tried to kill Baby I. She was resilient, but ultimately, at the fourth attempt, Lucy Letby succeeded in killing her'.

By September 29, the infant was eight weeks old and the clinical concerns about her had diminished.

She had no breathing problems, was 'in air', gaining weight and being fed both by bottles and a tube.

Mr Johnson alleged that Letby carried out her first attack on Baby I the following day, September 30 – 'a couple of days after she had tried to kill Baby H and a week or so after events two and three for Baby G.

Letby was on a 12-hour shift that began at 8am, and she was Baby I's designated nurse.

She had two other babies to look after in Room 3, yet despite this she was also involved that shift with G and H.

According to Baby I's mother, Letby expressed some concern to her and indicated that the infant would be reviewed by a doctor.

Mr Johnson said: 'When she made the requisite note, Letby reversed the concern, saying that it was Baby I's mother who had raised an issue about her abdomen, writing 'Mum feels it is more distended to yesterday and that I is quiet…not on monitor but nil increased work of breathing'.

He asked the jury: 'Was it Lucy Letby trying to cover for what she was going to do?'

She fed the sleeping baby 35mls of expressed breast milk via the NGT at 4pm. Half an hour later an emergency 'crash call' was put out.

Lucy Letby 'tried to kill baby girl four times before succeeding'

The 32-year-old allegedly killed five boys and two girls, and faces a total of 22 charges of both murder and attempted murder involving 17 babies.

www.dailymail.co.uk

So it seems like this case might be more straight forward than the confusing baby H case. And baby I'd mum was present and involved and will likely testify about what she saw that concerned her most.

So she put across that it was the mother that noted this instead of her?

What is this inferring?