Personal feelings? It is proven in a court of law she is a liar. I don't need to remind you about what I'm sure, there are too many to remember. Her lies were proven, as required by a UK court, via documentary evidence (false/altered nursing notes, her messages, handover sheets, digital searches), other witness testimonies (most of the 246 witnesses including expert witnesses), and other evidence, like telling a doctor that a mother had commented on a baby not looking as good as before, and that mother saying she never said that, major discrepancies between what she told eg police interviewers and the jury. Her defence was that she was scapegoated and was a victim of a campaign. And yet, when she was asked countless times to specify what the 'gang of four' had done, she offered barely anything specific. Because she was lying about this campaign. And the obvious lie about how she was isolated and banned from seeing colleagues when she actually socialised with them regularly. And the relatively more minor 'go commando' comment and the infamous Lee Cooper leisure suit. The jury is directed that lies can be considered evidence if they think the lie is deliberate and related to a specific issue. It is fact that the jury mostly believed other witnesses over her and considered her lies deliberate and related to specific issues. Her whole time on the stand was spent desperately trying to use generalities, avoid a question, be deliberately obtuse, answer a different question obfuscate and lie. If she hadn't done any of that, and was a credible witness giving straight answers, the jury may have spent even longer deliberating. Her pathological lying (or shall I say perjury?) was a significant support for the verdicts. People are given the Miranda warning for a reason.
No doctor was proven to have lied, as far as I know. Dr Jayaram was believed over her in her trial for Baby K. Anyway, none of them are sitting in a jail cell and never will be. Dr U, I suppose, could face charges of some kind, maybe civil ones.
A credible witness giving straight answers?
I AM sure she's guilty, beyond reasonable doubt. For many many reasons. Off the top of my head, here are a few of them. She's a pathological liar and manipulator, obsessed with the NNU patients and not in a good way. Evidenced by thousands of manipulative and gaslighting messages about them. The pattern of collapses followed her work pattern, too many times for coincidence. There was NO alternative explanation for collapses, searched for tirelessly by the real experts who treated them and knew their all too short histories. There was NO evidence of scapegoating. The doctors were the ones who kept trying to investigate and report the collapses, and were silenced by the execs covering up and silencing any alarms. Dozens if doctors treated those babies, did they all manage to hatch a plan to frame one random nurse? Very clever if so, seeing how incapable they're meant to be. There is no valid question mark over the insulin. As explained in full at the Inquiry. An engineer without clinical knowledge is the person now questioning it and he has no credibility. As will be the CCRC opinion. She stood in the dock and lied, evaded and obfuscated for 15 hours. Her straight answers were noteworthy for their rarity. She even accused parents of lying. That time zone argument is total fiction, they were plenty of witnesses. No innocent person needs to dodge and weave and calculate their way through questioning - that they've had 7-8 years to prepare for.
That's just the tip of a massive iceberg. A 5 year investigation and counting, 2 trials, 3 appeals, 5000 pages of evidence at first trial, 246 witnesses. And further imminent charges against her.
And the actual targets weren't the babies, they were primarily their parents.
She's guilty. Many more than 15 times.
Bring on the CCRC and CofA, cannot wait.
’too many times for coincidence’ - how many times do you need it explained to you that the original chart which completely tilted the whole trial against Letby from the start, is complete rubbish. The statistically-illiterate prosecution speculated on the basis of the chart that the probability was somewhere on the order of a million to one. But then after the professor of statistics whose help the police originally invited to give guidance explained that it was a statistical fake and entirely invalid and misleading, well, at that point the prosecution disinvited her.
So no, it was not too many times for coincidence. The odds might have been 50/1 or 30/1.
The odds of a serial baby killer whose MO is an elaborate series of mediums from the mundane to the arcane, all of which completely escaped detection by pathologists at the time and a worldwide team of the best experts in the treatment of newborns who pored over the case notes for weeks and months, the odds of that are absolutely astronomical. Not 50/1.
She used air embolism, because it’s easy to find air in a dead body and would be, she presumably thought, impossible to detect. Even although it was such a rare event in the entirety of medical history, she thought of it as way of doing harm to kids. Never mind that when Dr Jayaram read about this technique in an obscure paper and a shiver went down his spine, the author of said paper has come out to explain that the prosecution witnesses have badly misinterpreted it.
So even although the original chart showing her present at all the deaths was an abomination, and a bunch of the greatest experts in the world have concluded that her alleged victims were victims of a badly run hospital and medical errors, taking apart the supposed smoking gun evidence of her alleged use of insulin to poison the babies, the people who continue to defend the verdict simply aren’t able to answer the grave doubts that have been cast on her guilt.
The idea that anyone is still defending her ‘confession’ notes is laughable. No one who hasnt completely invested their ego in the outcome here who has any common sense thinks they have any evidentiary weight.
‘I don’t know if i killed then. Maybe I did, Maybe this is all down to me’.
I mean, that must go so hard if you’re caught up in a witch hunt.
She literally says in court this was how she was feeling at the time, and crossing it out is ‘just something she would do - a way of me processing and dealing with things’.
‘We tried our best but it wasn’t enough’.
‘I can’t do it any more’.
‘Kill myself right now’.
The name on one of the notes is Kathryn de Berger who was the woman in occupational health supposed to have been like a counsellor to her. So we can see that her name is on the notes and mentioned in trial.
You can rely on fine distinctions (just like how the prosecution had to claim the babies Letby allegedly attacked by force feeding with milk exhibited not mere vomiting but projectile vomiting despite the fact that at least one other baby had shown the same symptoms while Letby was not present) by saying she wasn’t a counsellor but the gist of the point remains.
‘Did you get any support from work?’ ‘Yeah they referred me to occupational health and things’.
As top criminologists and forensic psychologists point out these notes are far from a gotcha moment, they’re meaningless given the circumstances.
The whole case against her has been dismantled.
