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 #36

[Sweeper2000]

If Dr Crawford is correct, then that makes her even more despicable (if that's possible) than she already is.

I actually thought the sheer level of deceit pointed that way, someone who finds nothing wrong in lying. Doesn't even think of "wrong", without remorse, glib as anything by people's accounts on here. Your right though but it does need a motive to elucidate.

 

[Highlandspring]

@Tortoise @Anxala I did get all of that but to me that reads more like a specific quote from the jury themselves but that might just be me reading too much into it. Presumably one wouldn't know that the jury thought she was a "habitual liar" without direct communication. Might just be me.

Um, she lied throughout her trial.

If more confirmation needed CS2C's channel has the full cross exam transcript with NJ's exceptional work piecing the jigsaw together exposing all the lies, read aloud by CS2C case by case. It's incredible. He splits it into 20 minute to 1 hour videos starting with, I think, The First Murder but might be one before it. Under his Letby playlist. The cross totalled 15 hours.

 

[Parker Knoll]

I am reading the book and it is really interesting I must say ( if interesting is the correct word here )
When the sequence of events is put down on paper over the course of around 80 pages from start to finish it is staggering and I have been following this case for years but in written form it just hits a little differently.
Judith mentions that during the court case she did not look over at the parents once in all those months and it was like she was in a trance, now I get should was most probably medicated and assessed by doctors at Ashworth Hospital before the first trial started as she was “ incoherent “ apparently but trance is the word I was looking for when I tried to describe her up thread.
She’s totally in her own world.

 

[Highlandspring]

Is it me? She's obviously a multiple murderer in the juries eyes but "habitual liar"? That's not what she was convicted of, as far as the jury knows and is concerned she may have had the genuine belief that she was innocent. How is it that captain NJ knows the jury thought she was a liar? I thought they had to take the reasons why they thought that to the grave or something? It's just very specific to me.

ETA.

As far as I know the only confirmation of the prosecutions story received from the jury was that they thought she was guilty of those crimes not that she was also lieing.

Yes, well I'd say so. The verdicts were cemented by her exposed lies imo.
They were the nail in the coffin anyway.
I think the Guilty camp here was nervous that she wouldn't take the stand, thinking of the jury's possible doubts, which they had for some obvs. We hadn't seen all the evidence after all.

 

[Anxala]

I actually thought the sheer level of deceit pointed that way, someone who finds nothing wrong in lying. Doesn't even think of "wrong", without remorse, glib as anything by people's accounts on here. Your right though but it does need a motive to elucidate.

^ No it doesn't and I don't really understand your ongoing need to understand and explain her. Or why you've taken issue with NJ saying the jury found her guilty of habitual lying, as if it's a liberty take on his part? As opposed to a night following day factual conclusion that no rational person, having followed the trial, would even begin to question.

And yet you've continued to question it, post after post, despite numerous people explaining that NJ was just stating a known and entirely conclusive fact.

She's so not worthy of the effort you're putting into trying to understand her. If not actually excuse her.

 

[Sweeper2000]

^ No it doesn't and I don't really understand your ongoing need to understand and explain her. Or why you've taken issue with NJ saying the jury found her guilty of habitual lying, as if it's a liberty take on his part? As opposed to a night following day factual conclusion that no rational person, having followed the trial, would even begin to question.

And yet you've continued to question it, post after post, despite numerous people explaining that NJ was just stating a known and entirely conclusive fact.

She's so not worthy of the effort you're putting into trying to understand her. If not actually excuse her.

The NJ statement I read incorrectly as him directly quoting the jury which he isn't allowed to do as far as I know. He doesn't know what it was that made the jury think she was G as he was not the jury. He cannot quote from the horses mouth.

I wouldn't say I'm trying to understand it either but I do want to know why she did it. Its very difficult to state with confidence what it was that she was getting out of it. I'm obviously not the only person interested to see that aspect of the events as you have probably seen how many articles are written addressing that. Numerous people have expressed surprise at that mystery.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Unmasking Lucy Letby by Jonathan Coffey and Judith Moritz review — of course she did it, but WHY?

A book mainly on that subject.

Unmasking Lucy Letby by Jonathan Coffey and Judith Moritz review — of course she did it, but why?

The BBC journalist who followed the story since it emerged and her Panorama producer, who harbours doubts, form the perfect pair to make sense of this horrific case

www.thetimes.com

 

[Highlandspring]

Unmasking Lucy Letby by Jonathan Coffey and Judith Moritz review — of course she did it, but WHY?

A book mainly on that subject.

Unmasking Lucy Letby by Jonathan Coffey and Judith Moritz review — of course she did it, but why?

The BBC journalist who followed the story since it emerged and her Panorama producer, who harbours doubts, form the perfect pair to make sense of this horrific case

www.thetimes.com

We've all posited many various motives haven't we. None of us are wrong or right as we'll never know. Plus, there were varying motives depending on each incident. Enjoying the drama; getting one over whoever she was angry with at the time; jealousy; superiority complex; attention; playing god; gambling (her talk of chance and fate, betting on the Grand National a few hours after Baby L's insulin poisoning and his twin's collapse); later, enjoying seeing medics' panic; addiction to death and grief (memory boxes, bathing and dressing them, stalking facebook) and an overwhelming one for me destroying people's happiness. They all have credibility and all are equally disgusting.
The parents' impact statements give insight on their thoughts. Also you probably know of Hare's checklist for psychopathy, not used nowadays but still relevant imo. Not saying she is a psycho but def shows a few traits. Lying, acting/masking, shallow affect, self grandiosement, little empathy, manipulation, narcissism etc. I don't agree with Crawford's 'empty life' opinion on Letby, it's not valid. Hers was far from empty anyway. ‘Lucy Letby has destroyed our lives’ – the family victim statements

As I say we'll never know. Especially if even the experts don't, what chance have we.

Edit - just remembered another poster's incisive motive - that she had a strong resentment of the mothers and no doubt jealous of the attention they got and their happiness.

 

[Anxala]

The NJ statement I read incorrectly as him directly quoting the jury which he isn't allowed to do as far as I know. He doesn't know what it was that made the jury think she was G as he was not the jury. He cannot quote from the horses mouth.

I wouldn't say I'm trying to understand it either but I do want to know why she did it. Its very difficult to state with confidence what it was that she was getting out of it. I'm obviously not the only person interested to see that aspect of the events as you have probably seen how many articles are written addressing that. Numerous people have expressed surprise at that mystery.

I know, Sweeper, but, bottom line, only LL knows why she did it. And since she's still presenting herself as innocent of all charges, we're unlikely to ever know what motivated and drove her.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Full appeal here if anyone is interested ( it’s long ! )

 

[Tortoise]

Full appeal here if anyone is interested ( it’s long ! )

Quite interesting that Nick Johnson KC states that Letby could have presented expert witnesses at her trial for the attempted murder of baby K to try to prove that she was not guilty of what she had already been found guilty of.

Seeing as Myers had already tried to appeal her first convictions, he still didn't take the opportunity to present Dr Shoo Lee (in respect of the air embolus convictions) at her trial for baby K when he could have done. I'm amazed by that. This was the perfect forum for it.

 

[Parker Knoll]

It’s very interesting isn’t it, Why does nothing make any sense in this case ?
It did feel it straw grasping by the defence at times and I was surprised with some of the points of appeal as they were so easily debunked.

 

[Tortoise]

Yeah, he didn't call the original pathologists, didn't call any of his experts, in two trials. For good reason IMO. And she still used him for her appeals so she had no complaints about him, despite being a serial complainer.

It'll be very interesting to see who represents her if there are any new charges brought.

 

[Parker Knoll]

I think he’s suffered enough tbh !

 

[PoirotPink]

I haven't watched the Panorama because this interview with the show producer was off-putting

One example.


Sunday Times 20 Oct 2024

https://archive.is/Q6zW3#selection-1627.0-1627.262

This Times interview with Jonathan Coffey ( and Judith Moritz) was a promotion for Panorama and for the new book they have co-authored ( The book which one of the family's KCs criticised at the start of Thirlwall.) TBH the Times piece has a lot of other problematic material which many WS members would likely point out.

Anyway..... on the subject of their new book
The father of the victim babies L & M made this point at the inquiry (page 6 of PDF)

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Thirlwall-Inquiry-24-September-2024.pdf

No doubt that this issue of forthcoming books is problematic. I guess if you're a parent and have had to suffer this incessant nonsense with journalists, public figures and politicians jumping on the Letby Loons' bandwagon, it must feel like another blow.


View attachment 539352
Personally I just don't see how you can write a book in early 2024 to ' unmask' the perp, when prosecutions & inquiry is still ongoing and so few can speak on the record and so little material can be divulged at this stage

I've just watched the Panorama episode and my impression of it is that all the sceptics are ignoring how the law is applied in this country. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is a high bar, which is intended to reduce the risk of wrongful convictions. It does not mean that juries have to be absolutely convinced about every element of a case. Likewise, the sceptic "experts" are simply nitpicking the scientific assertions made in court without consideration for the totality of the evidence that was available (which is what led to those conclusions). Legal trials in the UK are not about truth-finding. There can be certainty about someone's guilt with uncertainty over precisely how the crimes were committed.

 

[Tortoise]

Quite interesting that Nick Johnson KC states that Letby could have presented expert witnesses at her trial for the attempted murder of baby K to try to prove that she was not guilty of what she had already been found guilty of.

Seeing as Myers had already tried to appeal her first convictions, he still didn't take the opportunity to present Dr Shoo Lee (in respect of the air embolus convictions) at her trial for baby K when he could have done. I'm amazed by that. This was the perfect forum for it.

Actual quotes from the appeal hearing:


From 1.16.19:



NICHOLAS JOHNSON KC: Another part of the context was that in the retrial Lucy Letby could have called medical evidence in the retrial, to establish that she was not guilty of the 14 offences of which she had been convicted. By the time the retrial started, nine months had passed since the convictions, and yet she chose not to call that evidence. She could have called it, she chose not to. And so it follows that the learned judge, we submit, was ruling on an application to stay knowing that this applicant wasn’t even raising an evidential issue backed up with evidence, concerning her convictions.

LORD JUSTICE WILLIAM DAVIS: Well, I assume he knew that when she was to give evidence she was to say ‘I did not commit any of these crimes’.

NICHOLAS JOHNSON KC: Absolutely My Lord.

LORD JUSTICE WILLIAM DAVIS: But your point is, that’s the only evidence she relied on to discharge the burden that was on her to demonstrate she was not guilty.

NICHOLAS JOHNSON KC: Precisely My Lord, and in this context, given that the burden passes on the balance of probabilities to a defendant to disprove the convictions, any sensible dispute about the convictions necessarily, we would submit, would have had to have involved calling medical evidence.

(my words) - To clarify - the standard for 'balance of probabilities' is, from my understanding, 'more likely than not', so over 50% likelihood, as opposed to the standard for a conviction which is basically close to 100% certainty of guilt.

 

[Tortoise]

Just looking at this report from the Inquiry in the light of the texts LL sent at that time -

[...] Letby started a new temporary clerical role in the hospital's risk and patient safety office, the Thirlwall Inquiry into events surrounding Letby's crimes has heard.

[...]

A colleague who worked with Letby in the office told the inquiry she believed it was "not appropriate" that Letby was placed there.

Annemarie Lawrence said Letby initially worked in the complaints department in an adjoining office, but would often come into their room to make teas and coffees.

[...]

She said: "I was coming into work one morning, and as I came up the stairs, Lucy came out of her office on the corridor to greet me and she was very distressed.

"She almost jumped down my throat really, and said, 'There's been a collapse and a baby has been transferred out, does that mean somebody else is going to be under investigation and I can go back to work?'

"She bombarded me with a lot of questions and I didn't know what she was talking about because I wasn't aware of a collapse .. but she knew this information and it had not reached me."

She said she had wondered if she was being fed information by someone in the neonatal unit.

Asked if she knew if Letby had access to patient notes or baby death reports, she said: "I think if she wanted to look at them she absolutely could have."

Letby could have accessed death reports after removal - inquiry

An inquiry led by Lady Justice Thirlwall looks into how Letby was able to murder and harm babies.

www.bbc.co.uk

Text message written by Letby on 16th July 2016:

"Hoping to get as much info together as possible -if they have nothing or minimal on me they'll look silly, not Me"

The text messages Lucy Letby sent as she murdered babies

Messages on Letby's phone show her trying to win sympathy or deflect blame after murdering babies.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[JosieJo]

Just looking at this report from the Inquiry in the light of the texts LL sent at that time -

[...] Letby started a new temporary clerical role in the hospital's risk and patient safety office, the Thirlwall Inquiry into events surrounding Letby's crimes has heard.

[...]

A colleague who worked with Letby in the office told the inquiry she believed it was "not appropriate" that Letby was placed there.

Annemarie Lawrence said Letby initially worked in the complaints department in an adjoining office, but would often come into their room to make teas and coffees.

[...]

She said: "I was coming into work one morning, and as I came up the stairs, Lucy came out of her office on the corridor to greet me and she was very distressed.

"She almost jumped down my throat really, and said, 'There's been a collapse and a baby has been transferred out, does that mean somebody else is going to be under investigation and I can go back to work?'

"She bombarded me with a lot of questions and I didn't know what she was talking about because I wasn't aware of a collapse .. but she knew this information and it had not reached me."

She said she had wondered if she was being fed information by someone in the neonatal unit.

Asked if she knew if Letby had access to patient notes or baby death reports, she said: "I think if she wanted to look at them she absolutely could have."

Letby could have accessed death reports after removal - inquiry

An inquiry led by Lady Justice Thirlwall looks into how Letby was able to murder and harm babies.

www.bbc.co.uk

Text message written by Letby on 16th July 2016:

"Hoping to get as much info together as possible -if they have nothing or minimal on me they'll look silly, not Me"

The text messages Lucy Letby sent as she murdered babies

Messages on Letby's phone show her trying to win sympathy or deflect blame after murdering babies.

www.bbc.co.uk

"If"

 

[Parker Knoll]

She will absolutely of been looking at patient information.
Surely like any other business dealing with sensitive information there would have been evidence of her logging into them ?

 

[Tortoise]

She will absolutely of been looking at patient information.
Surely like any other business dealing with sensitive information there would have been evidence of her logging into them ?

She had to have been accessing records of patients she wasn't supposed to be accessing for years.

Knowing baby D's parents names for example and looking them up on Facebook, months later, when she had no involvement with baby D before murdering her, and the parent's names aren't on the handover sheets.

I suppose they'd have had to prove which machine she was logging into to, to do a forensic examination.