UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #16

[katydid23]

...Snipped for focus...[ I will answer the questions you posed]

1. do you have anything that suggests the way they were found was a strategy?

I could suggest it was a strategy because it seemed to have worked on you...you say it couldn't be a trophy because she stores it willy nilly in a bag under her bed, so it is not kept as a trophy...so to me, it seems like it could have been a strategy. A way of keeping them that would look less guilty if they were ever found by LE.

2. I don’t believe there is anything to suggest these large amount of documents would hold such value to a guilty person that they would keep them “at all costs” including the ability to keep them if significant for longer as it’s against the rules of self preservation

If she was truly concerned with self preservation, many of her actions would be much different. In other words, self preservation does not seem to be a big priority. She had many chances to do things in a less suspicious way and she didn't take those opportunities.

3. I said “normal for her” not “it’s the done thing generally“.
it’s still the lots of them that makes me think it. Not normal for everyone but normal for her. In other words highly irregular but not unexpected.

Ok, so then we agree that she does things that are highly irregular? And it is normal behaviour for her, although highly irregular?

4. the reason I think it’s a lack of fear is because if she was guilty she would know what the police finding them could potentially do instead more “nothing to fear officer, carry on”
anything that suggests it’s something other than a lack of fear?

A 'lack of fear' can mean many things but it does not automatically mean 'lack of guilt'. Just because she appeared to exhibit a lack of fear does not mean it was because she had done nothing wrong.

Often a 'lack of fear' is false bravado, or arrogance and/or denial.

5. What is it about that sentence that you think is in line with someone who knows they are guilty of the most heinous crimes? If she was worried and showing it it would be “I am worried about dr asking” etc

She was concerned about the doctor asking her coworkers about her actions, in reference to a collapsed baby. Innocent or guilty, that would be of concern to an attending nurse, who had been present for 22 previous incidents of unexplained collapses.

“how could she not worry“ because in her mind she hasn’t done anything wrong. As far as I know a guilty person and innocent person in police interviews act very differently from each other, the innocent act more confident and without fear whereas the guilty will act in a way that is noticeably different.

I do not agree with your characterisation of how innocent vs guilty parties act when questioned. Quite a few guilty people act like 'they are not worried' and act as if 'they have done nothing wrong'.

If their actions were always noticeably different the detectives would have no problems differentiating the two.

You can use your imagination to figure out how. Bit like “it’s a bit of a worry if it’s going that far” which is an universe sized understatement if she’s guilty. Seemingly no fear about the internal investigation but a bit worried about it being external suggesting she didn’t think there would be anything to find.

right, she knew the alleged trophies were just strewn about here and there, and some in plastic bags under the bed, so no need to worry that they would look suspicious. Maybe it was a strategy?

im not saying anything about certain points in time I’m drawing this from looking at her across the entire year and after.

im sure this is getting ahead, I don’t think we have heard the police interview when they asked her about the notes. I won’t be surprised if it’s more nothing to fear again.

i will say at this point I’m not going to be surprised if allot of stuff comes out after the trial and then all will be made clear.

 

[esther43]

How would we know that the documents were "strewn around the house"?

I don't recall reading it.

IMO, If guilty, she might have felt she left no traces.
Didn't she text (ironically) about minimal evidence, if any?

Wasn't she supported by her fan - Dr A, who assured her she had nothing to worry about?

I wonder if he recommended her as a baby sitter to his friends?

JMO

Imagine if Dr choc takes the stand for the defence and LL walks free, it will be a true love story. Willy wonka meets orange is the new black.

 

[katydid23]

Then why not get rid of it? like a guilty person.

Are you saying that ONLY a guilty person would get rid of medical paperwork that was not supposed to be in one's home?

 

[Dotta]

Imagine if Dr choc takes the stand for the defence and LL walks free, it will be a true love story. Willy wonka meets orange is the new black.

"And they lived happily ever after"

 

[Sweeper2000]

I could suggest it was a strategy because it seemed to have worked on you...you say it couldn't be a trophy because she stores it willy nilly in a bag under her bed, so it is not kept as a trophy...so to me, it seems like it could have been a strategy. A way of keeping them that would look less guilty if they were ever found by LE.


If she was truly concerned with self preservation, many of her actions would be much different. In other words, self preservation does not seem to be a big priority. She had many chances to do things in a less suspicious way and she didn't take those opportunities.


Ok, so then we agree that she does things that are highly irregular? And it is normal behaviour for her, although highly irregular?


A 'lack of fear' can mean many things but it does not automatically mean 'lack of guilt'. Just because she appeared to exhibit a lack of fear does not mean it was because she had done nothing wrong.

Often a 'lack of fear' is false bravado, or arrogance and/or denial.



She was concerned about the doctor asking her coworkers about her actions, in reference to a collapsed baby. Innocent or guilty, that would be of concern to an attending nurse, who had been present for 22 previous incidents of unexplained collapses.

I do not agree with your characterisation of how innocent vs guilty parties act when questioned. Quite a few guilty people act like 'they are not worried' and act as if 'they have done nothing wrong'.

If their actions were always noticeably different the detectives would have no problems differentiating the two.



right, she knew the alleged trophies were just strewn about here and there, and some in plastic bags under the bed, so no need to worry that they would look suspicious. Maybe it was a strategy?

<modsnip> Just so you know I haven’t said anything certainly only the way the the evidence presents imo. i Can’t just say I think the prosecution have presented a miraculously perfect case even if that is what people want to hear.

 

[Anxala]

Thats my point really. Well yeh innocent people act innocent like they’ve got nothing to hide. Leave everything as is as I havent done anything wrong so have nothing to worry about.
you help the investigation, you remain open and unmoved. Steadfast and sure but not necessarily 100% sure. Tbh if I had kept med records at home and then had a police enquiry about possible involvement in murders the last thing I would be worrying about is what work or police say if they found them, if innocent. If I was guilty the police wouldn’t find them.

You're still looking at it from a perspective that's placing logic at its core. As much as we may try and put ourselves in LL's shoes, we still have have no idea who she is or what her shoes look like. If guilty, logic may play no part here.

I just saw that the judge sentencing a couple for the murder of their baby has exempted the jury from ever sitting again, it was so traumatic. I sincerely hope this happens for these jurors, whatever the outcome.

I'd hope it would be left up to the individual jurors to decide, rather than it being decided for them.

 

[Anxala]

Duplicate DBM

 

[Sweeper2000]

I could suggest it was a strategy because it seemed to have worked on you...you say it couldn't be a trophy because she stores it willy nilly in a bag under her bed, so it is not kept as a trophy...so to me, it seems like it could have been a strategy. A way of keeping them that would look less guilty if they were ever found by LE.


If she was truly concerned with self preservation, many of her actions would be much different. In other words, self preservation does not seem to be a big priority. She had many chances to do things in a less suspicious way and she didn't take those opportunities.


Ok, so then we agree that she does things that are highly irregular? And it is normal behaviour for her, although highly irregular?


A 'lack of fear' can mean many things but it does not automatically mean 'lack of guilt'. Just because she appeared to exhibit a lack of fear does not mean it was because she had done nothing wrong.

Often a 'lack of fear' is false bravado, or arrogance and/or denial.



She was concerned about the doctor asking her coworkers about her actions, in reference to a collapsed baby. Innocent or guilty, that would be of concern to an attending nurse, who had been present for 22 previous incidents of unexplained collapses.

I do not agree with your characterisation of how innocent vs guilty parties act when questioned. Quite a few guilty people act like 'they are not worried' and act as if 'they have done nothing wrong'.

If their actions were always noticeably different the detectives would have no problems differentiating the two.



right, she knew the alleged trophies were just strewn about here and there, and some in plastic bags under the bed, so no need to worry that they would look suspicious. Maybe it was a strategy?

I’m not really following here katydid, for instance I didn’t say they couldn’t be trophies only that nothing about the evidence says that imo. I kind of need you to quantify your opinion using the evidence as given please. I’ve told you what I think and why the evidence points that way. If you can provide your angle using the evidence and why then I would be very grateful indeed. With full respect.

 

[esther43]

I think she did explain her thinking in relation to the evidence found under the bed.

 

[Sweeper2000]

It was found in a bag under the bed isn’t really a reason why the evidence pointed to it being placed there as a trophy. I don’t really understand why that is considered a strategy either. Not ruling it out though.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Are you saying that ONLY a guilty person would get rid of medical paperwork that was not supposed to be in one's home?

Nope only that a guilty person who knows they were there would get rid of them if it is to their benefit. I think you would more likely find them from someone who considered themselves to have nothing to fear.

 

[ColourPurple]

You're still looking at it from a perspective that's placing logic at its core. As much as we may try and put ourselves in LL's shoes, we still have have no idea who she is or what her shoes look like. If guilty, logic may play no part here.

Exactly! And if she is guilty it's not like she'd have bought a "How to be a serial killer" book, that would explain what trophies or souvenirs were. Sure, Websleuthers or people who are into true crime, would likely know about them, but if she doesn't fall into that category then maybe she just felt an overwhelming urge to keep something related to the alleged attacks, didn't really know why, and didn't realise they would be a possible red flag if found.

Alternatively, if guilty, maybe she had heard about serial killers keeping trophies but had only heard about them keeping items that actually belonged to the victims, like clothing or ID, and thought nobody else would ever think of the medical notes as trophies, or realise their significance if they found them.

Or if guilty, maybe she had more obvious trophies, that she got rid of as soon as the police investigation started and had either forgotten about the paperwork they did find, or again felt they wouldn't see the possible significance of it.

Or if guilty, maybe she was just too arrogant or confident in her methods, to think police would ever find enough evidence to link her to the deaths. Or maybe she assumed she would would be given prior notice of any interviews and didn't realise they would search her property without warning.

Or maybe she knew the paperwork might be seen as trophies but just could not bear to part with them, especially if she thought police may never search the place.

Or maybe she's completely innocent and just messy and disorganised at home.

All IMO

 

[DianaWW]

Nope only that a guilty person who knows they were there would get rid of them if it is to their benefit. I think you would more likely find them from someone who considered themselves to have nothing to fear.

Her being guilty, and her considering herself to have nothing to fear, are not mutually exclusive. She could be both. Similarly, an innocent person who knew they were under suspicion, would also benefit from getting rid of the paperwork. I don’t think there’s any logic to her keeping it regardless of innocence of guilt. However we really haven’t heard much about the paperwork in actual evidence yet, so all any of us can do is interpret things in our own way. JMO.

 

[Dotta]

Im sure Prosecution will explain the significance of documents found at home.
They wouldn't bother to bring this issue if it wasn't relevant to the case, right?

It is just another piece of the puzzle.
Or "another brick in the wall"

JMO

 

[bbsaz]

I just saw that the judge sentencing a couple for the murder of their baby has exempted the jury from ever sitting again, it was so traumatic. I sincerely hope this happens for these jurors, whatever the outcome.

The judge did the same for the Cashman/Olivia Korbel Pratt case. The judge will certainly do the same here.

I was reading that you have approx. a 30% chance of being called for jury duty in the UK. I assumed it would be much higher. So youve a fairly slim chance of being called even once in your life

 

[Sweeper2000]

Her being guilty, and her considering herself to have nothing to fear, are not mutually exclusive. She could be both. Similarly, an innocent person who knew they were under suspicion, would also benefit from getting rid of the paperwork. I don’t think there’s any logic to her keeping it regardless of innocence of guilt. However we really haven’t heard much about the paperwork in actual evidence yet, so all any of us can do is interpret things in our own way. JMO.

True.we Have a couple of handover sheets, a blood gas record , the paper towel and a reference to scribbled notes and bits of paper By the defence. now to speculate would that then infer that the large amount of documents found and mentioned by the prosecution consist of paperwork that isn’t a major part of a file for instance the admission sheet or discharge sheet? would it also possibly be multiple sheets of paper but of the same kind? So let’s just say she has a bad habit of taking certain bits of paperwork home ?

I think that if so many have been found it suggests at least some importance otherwise they would be discarded upon discovery. many potentials here could simply be she didn’t want to dispose of what is technically trust property Or they were kept for some other reason.

your right, not many details on the notes etc but that’s what I got and jmo

 

[katydid23]

Nope only that a guilty person who knows they were there would get rid of them if it is to their benefit. I think you would more likely find them from someone who considered themselves to have nothing to fear.

But so would an innocent person. If I know others are suspicious of me, and are investigating deaths of my patients, then innocent or not, I am going to rid myself of anything that might look suspicious to others.

She neglected to do so, for some reason or another. But that doesn't make her not guilty. Doesn't make her guilty either. But it isn't a sign of innocence, IMO.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I just saw that the judge sentencing a couple for the murder of their baby has exempted the jury from ever sitting again, it was so traumatic. I sincerely hope this happens for these jurors, whatever the outcome.

They haven't been sentenced yet, as far as I'm aware.

Total scum, though, and I hope they get decades!

 

[Dotta]

I don't really get something

So,
she said in Police questioning she didn't remember WHY she checked parents' FB, right?

On Anniversaries of deaths??

Really?

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

But so would an innocent person. If I know others are suspicious of me, and are investigating deaths of my patients, then innocent or not, I am going to rid myself of anything that might look suspicious to others.

She neglected to do so, for some reason or another. But that doesn't make her not guilty. Doesn't make her guilty either. But it isn't a sign of innocence, IMO.

It’s just the way I see it tbh. A difference in motivation. The guilty knows they are guilty and actively try’s to present themselves as innocent that includes removing things that make them look guilty. Innocent people are much more straight up and they hide nothing. Police investigators would very much disagree with you that it isnt a sign of innocence what it isn’t is proof of innocence. Obviously any police doing interviews look at you very differently if you comply and cooperate with the investigation for instance if you say “no comment” to everything they say they look at you like your hiding something. another example relevant to the US is lie detectors, if you take it and pass it’s considered in your favour but not necessarily proof.

i can give you an example of how this is known to people in the criminal world, recently in the UK we had a trial involving a hitman who murdered a child. He complied with the investigation even telling them he was a high level drug dealer, that was supposed to be perceived by the police as an olive branch. An offering of something as proof of good character only thing is it was a false offering. The evidence said otherwise to what he said. He was lying. The evidence was different in this case, she had more than ample opportunity to remove the evidence but didn’t. Another example of this in the court system is that it is perceived that it is in one’s favour to take the stand in ones own defence.