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 #38

[Parker Knoll]

Just the usual word salad from Letby whilst she was in the box.
Absolutely no mention of being written on the advice of any professional and that was the moment she could have spoken up if true.

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-04-27/accused-nurse-wrote-note-about-baby-deaths-because-everything-got-on-top-of-me

 

[Marantz4250b]

I don't think it matters if she was advised to write them or not. My personal feeling is that if the notes were written on advice they might have been less frantic, but who knows.

If the notes were really written on medical advice would there have been issues putting them into evidence, I wonder, as they'd presumably be considered part of her confidential medical records?

 

[Ruthbullock]

It was discussed at trial, if I recall. Neither she, nor her defence, claim that they were written while under therapy.

They were written prior to her first arrest. There is no evidence that she was undergoing any therapy or treatment during that time.

If they were written on the advice of a doctor, therapist or other medical professional you should be able to find evidence of same. It's impossible to prove a negative. The "written under therapy" explanation was only ever speculation as to why she wrote them after they came out at trial. Nothing more.

MM has allowed (and that's being charitable) the journalist to believe that they were written under therapy.

Edit: and the parts of your post that I cut out, kinda prove my point. No evidence of why they were written so until it's proven otherwise, there is no evidence that they were written on advice of anyone.

So the initial articles from the trial I shared didn’t include questioning about why she wrote them- that’s not to say it didn’t happen, just that it wasn’t reported and framed that she just wrote them off the cuff for no reason other than her own guilty conscience.

As you said there was no evidence in them- so until proved otherwise you will stick to your belief. The guardian did find evidence that she was advised to write them after the trial as a coping mechanism and reported it in the press.

‘I am evil I did this’: Lucy Letby’s so-called confessions were written on advice of counsellors

Prosecutors used densely written Post-its to build case against nurse, but she was told to write down her feelings to cope with extreme stress, sources say

www.theguardian.com

You can accept one article or the other, or in fact do as most of us do, which is question what we was initially reported and shared in the trial, but what we can’t do is claim it’s a myth and state that as a fact- either journalist could be telling the truth, or a part truth we just don’t know.

 

[marynnu]

If the notes were really written on medical advice would there have been issues putting them into evidence, I wonder, as they'd presumably be considered part of her confidential medical records?

I don't think they would have been considered confidential unless given to a health professional & filed. Even then, maybe they could still be accessed given that this was a murder trial?

 

[Marantz4250b]

So the initial articles from the trial I shared didn’t include questioning about why she wrote them- that’s not to say it didn’t happen, just that it wasn’t reported and framed that she just wrote them off the cuff for no reason other than her own guilty conscience.

As you said there was no evidence in them- so until proved otherwise you will stick to your belief. The guardian did find evidence that she was advised to write them after the trial as a coping mechanism and reported it in the press.

‘I am evil I did this’: Lucy Letby’s so-called confessions were written on advice of counsellors

Prosecutors used densely written Post-its to build case against nurse, but she was told to write down her feelings to cope with extreme stress, sources say

www.theguardian.com

You can accept one article or the other, or in fact do as most of us do, which is question what we was initially reported and shared in the trial, but what we can’t do is claim it’s a myth and state that as a fact- either journalist could be telling the truth, or a part truth we just don’t know.

We can speculate all day as to why she wrote them but there is zero evidence that she wrote them under the direction, or on advice of, any medical professional, let alone a therapist.

Sources close to the case have told the Guardian that the Countess of Chester hospital’s own head of occupational health and wellbeing, Kathryn de Beger, encouraged Letby to write down her feelings as a way of coping with extreme stress. Letby’s Chester GP also advised her to write down thoughts she was struggling to process, according to these sources.

This has been suggested before but I'm sure than in the actual trial Letby herself said she didn't write the notes on the advice or under the direction of anyone. Indeed, I'm sure that she specifically said that she didn't write them under advice of KD-B. Someone here will be able to pull up the specific link.

That article makes a lot of claims but offers precisely zero evidence to back them up.

If there is no evidence of something and it's being quotes as fact (as MM seems to be doing) then the word "myth" is a perfectly apt description.

 

[Marantz4250b]

And also on the matter of that article:

But no expert forensic psychologists were called to give evidence on how to interpret the notes.

And that says it all, really. It's the whole story of this case and the ridiculous conspiracies surrounding her "innocence".

She had ample time to call whatever experts and whatever evidence she liked. There was no pressure of time or resources yet they called no one other then LL herself and a plumber!

Defendants and their supporters can't just go around claiming that something means something significant when they didn't make those claims when they had the chance in the proper setting.

 

[joltz]

This isn’t about LL, why do you think this tweet is relevant? He’s just a journalist with dubious reporting- most of us are already becoming more conscious of not just accepting media reporting on a case.

This person has peddled misinformation about the Letby trial for a long time. He actually attended asaik and was very vocal online about Letby being innocent and the police all being in an a cover up etc.

It's good that it's out in the open, that this is the type of person he is.

 

[Ruthbullock]

This person has peddled misinformation about the Letby trial for a long time. He actually attended asaik and was very vocal online about Letby being innocent and the police all being in an a cover up etc.

It's good that it's out in the open, that this is the type of person he is.

Yet I had never heard of him before today until someone posted on here that he was in court over his reporting from a completely different crime

 

[joltz]

Yet I had never heard of him before today until someone posted on here that he was in court over his reporting from a completely different crime

K

 

[May72031]

The guardian did find evidence that she was advised to write them after the trial as a coping mechanism and reported it in the press.

That Guardian article found some unnamed sources who made the claims. Who were these sources? For all we know, it could be any of the Letby defenders who are so annoying on social media.

 

[Ruthbullock]

I was looking through the charges and am sure someone on here knows the answer.

Why, with the no verdict outcomes, was only Baby K sent for a retrial?

What happened to Baby J and Baby Q?

The other charges with no verdict results also had guilty charges, so a partial outcome for the parents, so I can understand why they perhaps didn’t need or warrant a retrial for Baby H and Baby N.

 

[Ruthbullock]

That Guardian article found some unnamed sources who made the claims. Who were these sources? For all we know, it could be any of the Letby defenders who are so annoying on social media.

You could have just agreed with my point in my post where I shared both the trial reporting and a further article and said neither confirmed it- neither article is informative or explains anything and we don’t know why she wrote the notes. It is just your opinion, and there is no evidence or statement to confirm your opinion from the trial reporting , that she was or was not having therapy. The question was either never asked in court, or wasn’t reported on.

 

[joltz]

You could have just agreed with my point in my post where I shared both the trial reporting and a further article and said neither confirmed it- neither article is informative or explains anything and we don’t know why she wrote the notes. It is just your opinion, and there is no evidence or statement to confirm your opinion from the trial reporting , that she was or was not having therapy. The question was either never asked in court, or wasn’t reported on.

Theres not been any evidence presented to show that Letby was asked to write this down on the advice of a therapist, it's that simple. We don't need to trip over ourselves to try and find excuses for possibilities that she might have. No evidence. End of story.

From memory didn't Letby also give a date when she claimed that she wrote this down. A date that was well before any police intervention or any so-called therapist involvement.

 

[Baileyboo]

You could have just agreed with my point in my post where I shared both the trial reporting and a further article and said neither confirmed it- neither article is informative or explains anything and we don’t know why she wrote the notes. It is just your opinion, and there is no evidence or statement to confirm your opinion from the trial reporting , that she was or was not having therapy. The question was either never asked in court, or wasn’t reported on.

Baby H had a not guilty for one charge and no verdict for the other.

I don't think the prosecution gave a reason why they didn't seek a retrial for the other hung verdicts.

The hung verdicts have been left on file so maybe tried again at a later date.

 

[katydid23]

Are you a doctor?

The reason I asked was because you were saying Dr Bohin's medical testimony was 'complete nonsense.' I wondered what expertise you had in order to call hers nonsense.

She has 40+plus years as a Neo-natal physician, was the head of her Neo-natal unit for years. I imagine that would give her the knowledge, experience and respect needed to give her medical opinion.

CV – Dr Sandie Bohin

paediatricexpert.com

Junior paediatrics jobs in Bristol, Nottingham and Leicester

1996 – Dec 2008 Consultant Neonatologist,

University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester Royal Infirmary.

2002 – Dec 2008 Head of Neonatal Service,

2009 – Current Position Consultant paediatrician/neonatologist

Medical Specialist Group, Guernsey

 

[katydid23]

Oh right, we need to be doctors now to discuss the evidence. Better let the jury know. Why is so hard to say you don’t know the answer.

We don't have to 'be doctors' to discuss the evidence.

But we cannot call a Doctor's expert witness medical testimony 'COMPLETE NONSENSE' when we do not have the same medical expertise to challenge it. IMO

 

[Ruthbullock]

“In February, the CCRC received an application from Lucy Letby, the former nurse convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others. It's a high-profile, complex case, arriving at a significant moment of flux.

Asked if she thought the CCRC could deal with it, Dame Vera said: "Remember I'm quite new to it. It will need complexity. It will need a team. It will need the readiness to commission reports, I would guess from what's been said about the lack of scientific value in some of the things that were asserted.

"So it's going to be a very complex task."

New miscarriage of justice watchdog chair calls leadership 'unimpressive'

Dame Vera Baird said the organisation does not communicate with applicants, is "reluctant to challenge the Court of Appeal" and looks for reasons "not to refer rather than to refer".

news.sky.com

 

[WaneLyrical]

We don't have to 'be doctors' to discuss the evidence.

But we cannot call a Doctor's expert witness medical testimony 'COMPLETE NONSENSE' when we do not have the same medical expertise to challenge it. IMO

I can. In one baby she said such an acidic aspirate can only mean there is no milk in the stomach. Which was the basis for the allegation of overfeeding. But a separate baby had milk specifically aspirated with a lower ph, i.e. more acidic than the other baby. When questioned on this, Bohin was unable to give an answer.

Without further explanation, those two things are not compatible. They do not make sense. Therefore they are nonsense.

 

[Marantz4250b]

We don't even need to speculate because, as you allude, the answer is in the court transcripts that have been posted elsewhere. She was directly asked to explain the notes and she said it was something she'd always done throughout her life. No mention of a medical professional or therapist directing her to do it, the exact opposite.

The Guardian's writer is lying and hoping that no one will go looking for the transcripts - but Crime Scene 2 Courtroom already posted them in full.

Thanks, I knew it was mentioned at the trial.

So, circling back to the point where all this started, Mark MacDonald, - yes PK was correct in saying that he's basically a Snake Oil salesman. Whether he told the 60 Minutes reporter outright that LL wrote these as part of professional therapy, or whether he simply allowed her to think that and didn't correct it, makes little difference. Either of those scenarios makes him dishonest, imo.

I've asked this a couple of times before - how does he make his money? He seems to have a habit of taking on lost causes related to serious criminals who are serving life terms so he's not getting legal aid on their behalf. Those fourteen experts who flew in from all over the world for a pointless press conference at an expensive venue in London won't have been fronting the costs themselves (possibly a few might but certainly the majority won't have) so just who is paying the bills here, I wonder?

 

[JosieJo]

I can. In one baby she said such an acidic aspirate can only mean there is no milk in the stomach. Which was the basis for the allegation of overfeeding. But a separate baby had milk specifically aspirated with a lower ph, i.e. more acidic than the other baby. When questioned on this, Bohin was unable to give an answer.

Without further explanation, those two things are not compatible. They do not make sense. Therefore they are nonsense.

Though obviously what you are saying specifically regarding this part of the evidence of overfeeding is true ...the jury were award of this ...and because it was only a small part of evidence amongst other evidence of overfeeding...it didn't alter the jury's mind on it.

T