UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #35

[Sweeper2000]

Doesn't change a thing for me but as far as I can figure out my guess about why Mr myers didn't present that info seems likely correct. Anyone else have a guess if you don't agree.

@Marantz4250b you may be correct there sir, she had a history of it.

 

[DianaWW]

Does it even matter why she wrote the notes? She still wrote that she killed them on purpose, before she’d actually been accused of killing them on purpose…I don’t think the notes were what swung it did the jury in any case tbh, just more nonsense articles…but that’s JMO.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Interesting.

"David Wilson, who specialises in serial killers, said if they had been written as part of counselling the confession notes should be rendered as having no value in evidence."

Lucy Letby wrote ‘I am evil I did this’ notes ‘on advice of counsellors’

Lucy Letby’s ‘confession’ notes ‘meaningless’ as evidence, claims serial killer expert

www.independent.co.uk

Imo the notes were of no value in the evidence tbh they seemed what they were that is random jottings written as many said at the time as part of a therapeutic process.

I might give some credit to the thought that it has damaged the fair trial but I would only think this is relevant to other cases. I think the med files are concrete as are many other parts of the trial like the datix forms. Wasn't those notes or the damned rota or statistics that got her convicted. Discount them and you still have a solid conviction.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I'm almost confident that the reason why Mr myers didn't mention the counselling was due to her having a history of it. I can't see any other reason for its obviously deliberate omission especiallyif it was new to her. I think it would likely have had an adverse impact on his presentation of herself.

 

[SolVic]

Gotta love these “experts” saying that she’s not guilty because “the note was coerced” or whatever.

They sound exactly like the same people who defend Gilles de Rais, William Heirens, and Si Ouey.

 

[MamsBestGirl]

I might think the only reason these experts are putting so much emphasis on the stats and chart is due to hearing somewhere "it was key" when actually it was only very very briefly a part of the evidence. There was much more emphasis placed on her falsification of med notes. I would like to see any of the experts contest the case files of Baby E as easily one of if not the strongest bits of evidence against her.

I’ve asked them about Baby E, over a few platforms. Usually silence is the reply. Twice I’ve been told baby E’s mother was confused (they can’t answer the evidence on her phone) and three times I’ve been told baby E’s mother lied!!

It takes a very special person to defend a serial baby killer - especially when they are happy to call a grieving key witness, who provided evidence, a liar. What is the world coming to?

 

[Sweeper2000]

I’ve asked them about Baby E, over a few platforms. Usually silence is the reply. Twice I’ve been told baby E’s mother was confused (they can’t answer the evidence on her phone) and three times I’ve been told baby E’s mother lied!!

It takes a very special person to defend a serial baby killer - especially when they are happy to call a grieving key witness, who provided evidence, a liar. What is the world coming to?

Yes that what I have been doing, looking up x to see way too many people saying they think she is innocent. It's not good at all. I can only guess people would prefer to believe she is innocent. J h c though to outright call that woman a liar is beyond despicable, that's really bad and I hope she doesn't hear it. That's terrible.

I can half understand some of the stuff coming out recently but to me it's not relevant to whether she is guilty or not. For instance the way the prosecution presented the therapy notes, not exactly impactful evidence but I'm a bit surprised both parties knew they were written under guidance and the presentation and the lack of rebuttal by the defence. Doesn't affect the verdict but I can see how that might cause concern for folks. I agreed with one account on x that it may discourage folks from seeking therapy or support, that's not good.

 

[marynnu]

Can somebody explain to somebody who isn't medically trained how the insulin/c-peptide cases could possibly not point to intentional murder? It's 100% got to be? Right?

(Note, the charge was attempted murder as both babies survived).
I'm no expert but as I understand it both the insulin and c-peptide levels were measured. The issue is, was it insulin produced naturally or was it artificial? It seems there is a test to distinguish the two but this was never performed.