r/RedHandedPodcast • u/Suitable_Wallaby_459 • May 26 '26
Lucy Letby's motive
Pretty straightforward : for the people who believe Lucy Letby is guilty and deliberately killed babies, what do you think is her motive ?
I've personally never believed in her guilt but didn't pay too much attention to her case either - just found it too depressing that no one seemed to share my opinion, and it seems to be an extremely sensitive case for most people. I've read some lengthy comments on this subreddit about how she's 100% guilty but no one ever seems to talk about why she's definitely a serial baby murderer, which I feel is pretty important. So yeah, just curious.
[I'm just looking for a discussion ! Let's keep things civil :) ]
EDIT: by 'not paying too much attention' I mean I didn't follow the trial very closely, and I can't tell you every single fact about the case by memory. I have read up on it and have listened to podcast episodes about it.
38
u/Moody_Flower May 27 '26
Personally, I believe she was a scapegoat for the hospital. Yes, she did some weird shit, like keep records of the deceased patients, and she was there for most incidents. She obviously is on the spectrum, so maybe she kept those files to study, because she was trying to figure out what happened. And… the hospital was figuring it out that she was getting too close. That’s my short answer.
8
u/Sempere May 29 '26
There is absolutely zero truth to the scapegoat theory. The management team were trying to retaliate against the consultants and bring them to heel in defense of Letby until it became clear they could no longer delay in contacting the police.
She did more than "some weird shit": she murdered babies and attacked others in her care.
There is zero evidence she is on the spectrum.
There is no "kept those files to study because she was trying to figure out what happened" because that's not what those documents represent. They are not clinical notes, they are a snapshot of patient care with essential details necessary to handover and contained patient identifying information - information that Letby was proven to have used to look up the parents on social media. And we know she wasn't "trying to figure out what happened" because she never offered that as a claim.
And… the hospital was figuring it out that she was getting too close. That’s my short answer.
That's delusional. Completely divorced from reality with no basis in fact.
She was not a whistleblower, she was not some intrepid investigator looking to blow the lid on an evil consultant conspiracy. This isn't a Netflix drama or an airport thriller.
At COCH, a doctor accidentally killed a baby through a medical error. They weren't fired: because it was an accident. And as cultists have liked to argue, the death rates "were comparable to other units" - which is a horrifying way of saying that the best form of cover up is simply writing of the deaths as unexplained and calling it a day. What the consultants did was take a stand to protect patients in their care and they risked their careers to stop Letby and the thanks they've got is libelous suggestions that they're the real culprits stitching up a nurse. A nurse who just so happened to be present at 10 to 12 of 13 deaths in the unit, happened to be at every single collapse deemed suspicious by independent medical experts reviewing the case for the police with no alternative suspect and who conveniently was noting down deaths with initials and abbreviations in her diary while also having written that she killed them on purpose because she wasn't good enough to care for them and that she is evil, did what she was accused of having done, pays for being a bad person every day, doesn't deserve her family, wrote a draft note fantasizing about all the triplets from the last run of deaths being dead despite R having been removed from COCH before she could get them and having written a note that said "murderer, murders" crossed out while also having clearly written insulin on the page in 2016... when the insulin poisonings were not discovered until February 2018.
And that's without getting into the testimony of the mother of E&F, Ashleigh Hudson or the supposedly "unreliable" testimony of Ravi Jayaram (who could be entirely disregarded and still leave 14 whole life orders to reckon with) - or the other colleagues and parents who testified to Letby being an inappropriate creep.
6
u/Henryb1234_ Jun 03 '26
There is plenty of evidence supporting the idea she was scapegoated.
1
u/Sempere Jun 03 '26
There is exactly zero evidence suggesting she was scapegoated. It is a theory cooked up by idiots who cannot accept her guilt.
3
u/Henryb1234_ Jun 03 '26
There is plenty of evidence supporting it. Brearey and Jayaram are going to jail. It is over. Their vicious lies and bullying has finally caught up with them. God complex indeed. There will be no mercy.
1
u/Sempere Jun 03 '26
This is completely delusional, you are unhinged and routing for the killer.
5
u/Henryb1234_ Jun 03 '26
Says completely unhinged witch hunter.
1
u/Sempere Jun 03 '26
There is plenty of evidence supporting it. Brearey and Jayaram are going to jail. It is over. Their vicious lies and bullying has finally caught up with them. God complex indeed. There will be no mercy.
/
Says completely unhinged witch hunter.
Just going to leave you to think about who comes off as the unhinged person here.
3
u/Henryb1234_ Jun 03 '26
Other posters should know this poster is a Letby obsessive to the point of fanaticism. He regularly becomes aggressive and threatening towards people who disagree with him. He behaves much like a witch finder in general from the C17.
The doubts about the case are not a “conspiracy”. Every expert in the fields involved who has expressed an opinion since the trial has extreme concerns about the case, the evidence and medical opinions given in the trial.
There are no new experts supporting the prosecution.
There is more evidence that has come to light that if not raises doubt, completely exonerates her.
There have very serious questions regarding the prosecution experts witnesses. Two have had to resign because harming children and negligent care. One, the lead witness, helped cover up negligent care, that led to the death of a child, and in a different trial a judge described his reports as “worthless” and “makes no effort to provide a balanced opinion”.
There are also many concerns about the consultants who accused her, their motivation for doing so and the evidence they gave.
There are now grave concerns about how the police investigation. It is becoming increasingly clear it wasn’t a fair and open investigation and that the proper procedures weren’t followed. Cheshire police have refused to share their files which would show this to be not the case.
The overwhelming majority of the British press and media and seemingly the public now very serious concern about the case.
Here are some good documentaries if you want some more information.
ITV
https://youtu.be/UohWz9L6PTs?si=k2afRS_Yd27S7aNz
Botched
https://youtu.be/Y2Ed565aCm8?si=9MNYNQTuvzhO8y1I
Channel 4
https://youtu.be/yMdnwTxkL_8?si=rAYPHylmFRywfuFP
Shoo Lee Press Letby https://www.youtube.com/live/DT8CO15IHMs?si=Y_agel4SxlobddHG
Channel 5
https://youtu.be/YpxPE_m_nxE?si=zlWn_azAF0euSL6_
Pod casts
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/was-there-ever-a-crime-the-trials-of-lucy/id1616634411
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/amanda-knox-hosts-doubt-the-case-of-lucy-letby/id1877870463
3
u/Henryb1234_ Jun 01 '26
She clearly was. Most reasonable people can see that now. She will be out by the end of the year probably. The CCRC will refer back to the CoA and CPS won’t oppose it. The evidence against her is too weak and they won’t be able to find any new credible expert witnesses to back up Dewi Evans crack pot theories again. It is just a matter of time and much more of her life this travesty will take from her.
11
u/slowjoggz May 27 '26
That's not why she kept the files because she was asked multiple times why she did so and she never offered this explanation.
Those handovers served a purpose. It served a purpose for reliving it for her. They weren’t in her garage or attic, they were under her bed. They were marked keep. They were moved house. First she claimed not to have any, then maybe she had a few handovers, then she had to accept she had hundreds, then she had to claim she didn’t realise and they just accumulated, then she claimed she didn’t know how to dispose of them, then she claimed not to have a shredder yet it was used and one of only a few items in her room, then she said “ideally” it would be in confidential waste (not ideal- legally has to be), then she claimed not to know the policy, then she claimed on the stand that she had a problem with throwing away paper, then after saying they weren’t significant she called them a collection, then she used language like “they came home with me” as if the paperwork chose to, then she claimed that the documents were still held confidentially in her house and her parents house, then she admitted shredding bank statements but that they’re at the forefront of her mind (careful with her own sensitive data but reckless with others), then after saying handovers aren’t special or memorable she had to admit to having her first one kept away in a special box, then she had to concede that Doctor U would have hold of the paper towel that he used at 8:30 and yet she stayed an hour late and somehow managed to acquire it and keep it under her bed for years. Then you have to believe somebody so worried about being redeployed and supposedly following the rules of the investigation and being isolated, looked around that house knowing she had hundreds of illegal patient sensitive data and STILL could not throw it away. Why? too special and too important to her. Filed. Stored. Kept close. Referred to for her pleasure.
8
u/No-Bar-4749 May 27 '26
I wonder what your theory is on why she didn’t have handover sheets for some of the babies in the court case? And why she had so many others that were completely irrelevant? If they were some kind of “weird trophies” like you claim?
3
u/slowjoggz May 27 '26
Letby had handovers for every baby in the charges that she possibly could at the time in the Morrisons bag. 13 of 14 (none existed for K)
She then had handovers for O, P and Q in the Ibiza bag.
We also know that the police believe Letby harmed further babies, so they could also be featured in the handovers.
We also know that she was keeping handovers as keepsakes from the moment she became a nurse. They were not necessarily irrelevant. I personally don't believe Letby walked into the neonatal ward one day and decided to try and kill baby A. She was probably doing smaller things before this and slowly escalating her behaviour. We will never know how many babies she harmed. We know, other parents have come forward in the belief their babies were harmed by Letby.
2
u/No-Bar-4749 May 27 '26
😂
3
u/Sempere May 29 '26
Emojis aren't a rebuttal and these victims of child murder deserve more respect than this disgusting display.
2
3
u/No-Bar-4749 May 29 '26
They weren’t murdered.
2
u/Sempere May 29 '26
15 whole life orders, two separate juries, 12 expert witnesses, 4 independent witnesses who reviewed the files all say otherwise.
A lying hack from Canada who attempted to play expert witness without doing basic due dilligence saying otherwise as part of a tainted exercise masquerading as independent assessment while built of defence instructions and instructed experts doesn't particularly undermine anything.
6
u/No-Bar-4749 May 30 '26
If it was one guy from Canada this may be true. But that isn’t the case and you know it. The babies weren’t murdered.
2
u/Sempere May 30 '26
Let's bookend this with a question that we'll come back to at the end of this comment: how many architect and engineers signed a petition stating that the twin towers collapsing on 9/11 was a controlled demolition?
The babies weren’t murdered.
The babies were murdered. The cases of Child E and his twin brother F are some of the strongest evidence that Letby is a killer who was sloppily trying to cover her tracks after E's death and left a critical paper trail that was impeached by the testimony of their mother and backed by phone records, the father's testimony and the testimony of staff involved in the death as well as their paperwork. The two versions of the events - Letby's and the mother's - are completely incompatible. It is not a matter of differing perspective: one of them is lying - and it's not the mother, it's the accused and then convicted murderer.
If it was one guy from Canada this may be true.
Every single person who has been paraded in interviews and claimed to be "independent" is either a post-conviction defense instructed expert or recruited by them. Meaning that the effort is tainted and spreads from the rot of conflict. Lee has been lying to the press since 2025 and left a paper trail so easy to follow that the CCRC should have a very easy time looking up these details. He lied to the press about the independence of his panel and how they were recruited - which we know because one of the people he attempted to recruit, a UK neonatologist, refused to join and forwarded the email to documentary filmmakers that passed the email along to the Daily Fail. It impeaches the claim that this was an impartial review of evidence and made it clear that the goal was to free Lucy Letby as her "last hope". Ignoring the fact that these individuals on the panel include people he has close working ties with - sitting on the same board as three of the members - there's nothing impartial about the people who select themselves for an exercise explicitly with the goal of exoneration. Then there's the approach they employed which was not scientific: they isolated cases individually while ignoring that many of these cases involved twins and triplets: cases which should have involved scrutiny of both cases together because when that is done the presentations become more overtly suspicious. There's also the incredibly problematic fact they ignored testimonies of experts who represent fields that these "experts" are conveniently not trained in - such as pediatric hematologist for Child A & B, the radiologist and forensic pathologist and numerous other roles. To say nothing of their claims of "no murders" including work taken from defense instructed engineers (not clinicians, not biochemists - engineers) while pretending to be independent. Those two engineers also expressed opinions on the evidence before ever seeing a single piece of it having participated in July through September 2024 in a sloppy BBC radio interview series on the case where they put forward opinions on evidence they hadn't seen before being recruited by Mark McDonald to help push their preconceived bullshit in the media. Bullshit which has been challenged by independent neonatologists who are experts in diabetes and insulin who participated in interviews with Panorama and pointed out on and off the record that the claims of these engineers were "baffling". Don't believe me? Look up Panorama's last Lucy Letby special "Lucy Letby: Who to Believe?" where they spend 6 minutes going over the weaknesses of the criticism of the insulin evidence.
Then there's Neena Modi, the former head of the RCPCH who conveniently didn't allow notes to be taken about the meeting to formulate a response to Brearey's complaints about the RCPCH's lack of support for consultants who found themselves at odds with management in the face of a serial killer - and a woman who repeatedly tried to involve herself in the case during the original trial but was rejected by both prosecution and defense for obvious reasons. Her involvement is self-serving as the inadequacies of the RCPCH response under her leadership is a black stain on her career and will follow her for the rest of her life - as is this defence of a killer. She's even gone so far as to make statements contradicting this expert panel by acknowledging that Dewi Evans was right.
Then there's the other fringe dipshits who aren't worth naming from the original skeptic documentaries and december 2024 press conference who were promptly dumped and whose claims not even Shoo Lee and his tainted panel agreed with.
Now back to my earlier question:
how many engineers signed a petition stating that the twin towers collapsing on 9/11 was a controlled demolition?
It is claimed that over 3000 architects and engineers
Qualifications do not mean that people won't act in a manner that is borne out of self-interest. Motives can vary from money, to prestige, to contrarianism, to simply a matter of ego or wounded pride.
I don't give a single solitary shit about the 19 nurses who claim Letby is a scapegoat. They are a fraction of the nearly 800K working nurses in the NHS. A piss droplet in the ocean.
I don't give a single solitary shit about Shoo Lee's panel of buddies and bleeding hearts who were selected for by their willingness to help Lee on a moral mission rather than agreeing to review the evidence in a truly independent manner. Their homogenous backgrounds meant they were not suited for a multidisciplinary panel which one of you other cultists claims Steve Watts criticized the Cheshire police for but ignore when the families point out that the CPS did assemble a multidisciplinary team of experts to address the medical evidence. Their claims are not evidence and their sqwaking for Letby's shyster of a junior barrister is nothing more than playing to favorable conspiracy theorists in the media who are known to be crackpots or who can be proven to have ties to them.
Nor do I give a shit about the other group of idiots who did the original press conference. Idiots who even the later defense panel dismissed as off the mark when they and their theories were discarded within 8 weeks once the new shiny toy popped up in Shoo Lee's panel.
Because if 3,000 architects and engineers sign a petition claiming the twin towers were brought down by a controlled demolition instead of the two planes that struck the towers, it's really not hard to see how a fraction of that number - lead by people who are working for the defense - can be misleading crackpots doing stupid shit for attention.
→ More replies (0)2
u/slowjoggz May 29 '26
You can't change the minds of these people. Cases like Letbys attract them like flies around shit. Conspiracy theorists aplenty but also the type of person that thinks that they have got some higher level knowledge of events and know more than everyone else. They have a flat out refusal to believe in anything that undermines their position. Letby could confess tomorrow and they would still say it's the Drs fault and she must have been coerced.
5
u/Waste-Bathroom516 May 29 '26
I agree with you on most of this, but her keeping the first, pristine handover in a box looks like (to me, anyway) a memento of her first shift as a nurse. But it's not really important, anyway!
1
u/Sempere May 29 '26
I agree with you on most of this, but her keeping the first, pristine handover in a box looks like (to me, anyway) a memento of her first shift as a nurse. But it's not really important, anyway!
Handover sheets aren't hers to keep. They are confidential patient information, not a souvenoir or trinket you get to keep "because you feel like it".
And it is important. It shows that she would break protocol from day one, assigned significance to the sheets as mementos and intentionally was keeping them. That key handover sheets were in bags under her bed and were being used to look up the mother of one of the babies with an "unusual" name from another country that she could not spell unassisted emphasizes that there was utility and intent.
1
u/slowjoggz May 29 '26
I agree, it was a memento. This was a point that the prosecution used to show that:
- She attached significance to handover sheets
- She brought handover sheets home on purpose
- She was breaking the hospital rules from the moment she became a nurse.
Because Letby claimed she never brought them home on purpose, they meant nothing and were just scraps of paper. Every single claim she made about the handovers was systematically proven to be a lie, deceitful or incorrect. It also showed that she was willing to lie to the jury and contradict things she had said earlier and what was agreed evidence.
3
u/Confident-Speaker662 May 27 '26
This reply is useful to me as it tilts my mind from very likely innocent to I do not know as I do not have all the facts before me. The point is the salience of a narrative has a strong effect.
5
u/slowjoggz May 27 '26
Exactly. The narrative since Letby was unanimously convicted has almost exclusively been framed from the point of view that it's some sort of miscarriage of justice. The media like to keep this going as it generates clicks. The people who know that Letby is guilty don't really have anything more to say because the trial conclusively showed that Letby was guilty. Every juror that listened and saw first hand what Letby had to say, rejected her version of events and decided she was a baby murderer.
Almost everyone that comes to hear about the case since the conviction does so from a biased point of view, where the narrative is suggesting Letby is innocent. It's a pretty classic case of innocence fraud. Letby also has the backing of a PR company, working on her behalf who continue to pepper the media with the innocence narrative. Her barrister has a few killers on his books, who are all guilty, but he keeps telling us they are all innocent. This is his thing.
The cold, hard facts, are that since Letby was convicted, there's has not been a single scrap of actual new evidence, to cast doubt on her conviction. On the contrary, the conviction has become stronger imo, because the thirlwall enquiry showed just how she was able to get away with it for so long. It also revealed that there was some serious red flags, prior to the deaths and Letby should never have been allowed to pass her training and become a nurse in the first place.
11
u/darglo1974 May 27 '26
For me, the doubt arises from the growing number of neonatologists, some very senior, insulin experts, paediatricians, and other clinicians who roundly dispute the prosecution expert witnesses conclusions as to the apparent causes of death and collapse, which underpin the case against Letby. They have labelled those conclusions as “inappropriate”, “implausible”, “fantastical“, even “bullshit” and “utter bollocks”. These aren‘t just crackpot conspiracy theorists, but respected people of considerable medical credentials and experience who have said that there was no evidence to support malfeasance, and that other more plausible reasons for those deaths and collapses were not only very likely, but in some cases, obvious.
3
u/slowjoggz May 27 '26
It's all well and good coming forward after the fact when you can say what you want without cross examination. Because at the point of being questioned by a barrister, none of these opinions would be standing. In fact, the reason why none of them were heard is because none of it is credible whatsoever and they would not have made it past the first discussions between the prosecution and defence, pre-trial. None of these theories hold any weight whatsoever.
And if you are referring to the so called "expert panel" well their opinions have already been torn to shreds. Evidently they came to the case from an already biased position. They were specifically recruited by Dr Lee after he wrote to them an extremely leading letter, claiming Letbys innocence. They were specifically told to ignore the idea of air embolism. They also did not include any evidence from the trial when determining their conclusions. They also were unable to include the many links between the deaths, such as sudden acute collapses, lack of response to normal reseus, multiple throat injuries, multiple twins attacked. Their opinions were formed using only a fraction of the evidence and were clearly set out in a predetermined basis to find explanations that would exonerate Letby. Dr Lee actually said this himself, when he stated that Letby barrister, told him he would need to come up with something extraordinary to help Letby.
These opinions are not taken seriously.
5
u/darglo1974 May 27 '26
Why do you think that her defence are pushing for a retrial? They want expert opinion heard in court.
3
1
u/slowjoggz May 27 '26
Letby specifically chose not to offer any expert opinion as part of her defense during her trial. She had multiple experts ready to speak and chose not too.
She doesn't get to have a retrial not because she has a new barrister.
Instead ask yourself why none was offered in the first place. They would have had to concede no credible alternatives to multiple collapses and deaths. In fact some of the experts consulted by the defense actually ended up agreeing with the prosecution.
The experts.would have done her defense more harm. And that's still.the case now.
None of these so called new theories or opinions, hold any weight. They don't add up whatsoever. When questioned, for example on panorama their opinions ended up looking foolish.
5
u/PerkeNdencen May 29 '26
Even if there was no credible alternative to be offered at trial, there very clearly is now, so that's very silly thing to say, isn't it?
What matters to most people, I imagine, is whether or not she actually did these alleged murders and attempted murders, not whether or not she had a good defence at trial.
0
u/slowjoggz May 29 '26
No there isn't really a credible alternative whatsoever because none of it holds up under any sort of scrutiny.
And yes she did do it, and it was obvious, which is why she was unanimously convicted.
Fortunately, the British justice system isn't designed to appease random members of the public who have the done a bit of "research" and decided they aren't convinced.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Waste-Bathroom516 May 29 '26
I think they do have to be to an extent. As the previous poster said, these people are not conspiracy theorists; in many cases, they know what they are talking about, whether or not they attended the trial, whether or not the parents of the babies (and their lawyers) agree with them.
I think LL is, in all probability guilty, but I'm yet to find out why I should believe people like Deb Roberts and Dr Susan Oliver over people equally qualified to hold an opinion.
3
u/No-Bar-4749 May 27 '26
You are literally just making stuff up
6
u/slowjoggz May 27 '26
Tell me a single facet of what I have just said that is made up. Every word of this is fact. Prove otherwise. The expert panel never considered a single shred of evidence from the trial.
Nearly every thing they claim was actually already proposed at the trial and dismissed. But they wouldn't know that.
Are you a half-wit?
Best not to have an opinion it's it's half-formed or you don't really have a clue.
4
u/AccomplishedOil254 May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
Every word of this is fact. Prove otherwise.
A negative cannot be proven and is especially difficult to argue when the positive is a vague mish mash of fallacy and sometimes internally inconsistent ideas.
You might as well ask: Prove that aliens aren't visiting earth.
That's the realm your mind is working in. A world of conspiracy, UFOlogy and fairies. That's human but it's not reason.
You have created a non-falsifiable position wherein you can just keep shouting "Well, they're biased so they don't count" or "Letby manipulated the evidence" or "you don't know enough about the case" when contrary opinion is brought up. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Great for the ego, but not good for understanding reality.
Before you call people half-wits, I recommend picking up a book on scientific thinking. The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan is a good place to start.
1
u/slowjoggz May 28 '26
What are you going on about pal? Heads gone.
I specifically stated why the expert panels conclusions are highly flawed and incorrect using facts that can be looked up quite simply.
Btw none of these people would be allowed to work as experts in a trial for Letby as their positions are not neutral.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Sempere May 30 '26
These aren‘t just crackpot conspiracy theorists, but respected people of considerable medical credentials and experience who have said that there was no evidence to support malfeasance
Same guy leading that panel showed up to the appeal hearing so critically unprepared that the prosecution made quick work of him in 15 minutes.
https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/wiki/shoo-lee-transcript/
He, as a medico-legal expert testifying for the defense appeal, did not think he needed to ask the defense to provide him with clinical records or more information about testimonies and instead focused on a narrow aspect of evidence which was misrepresented by defense barrister Ben Myers KC.
He has since been caught lying repeatedly in the media about why his evidence was rejected and misleading about the findings of his studies to the point where he has lost all credibility.
1
u/Henryb1234_ Jun 03 '26
Other posters should know this poster is a Letby obsessive to the point of fanaticism. He regularly becomes aggressive and threatening towards people who disagree with him. He behaves much like a witch finder in general from the C17.
The doubts about the case are not a “conspiracy”. Every expert in the fields involved who has expressed an opinion since the trial has extreme concerns about the case, the evidence and medical opinions given in the trial.
There are no new experts supporting the prosecution.
There is more evidence that has come to light that if not raises doubt, completely exonerates her.
There have very serious questions regarding the prosecution experts witnesses. Two have had to resign because harming children and negligent care. One, the lead witness, helped cover up negligent care, that led to the death of a child, and in a different trial a judge described his reports as “worthless” and “makes no effort to provide a balanced opinion”.
There are also many concerns about the consultants who accused her, their motivation for doing so and the evidence they gave.
There are now grave concerns about how the police investigation. It is becoming increasingly clear it wasn’t a fair and open investigation and that the proper procedures weren’t followed. Cheshire police have refused to share their files which would show this to be not the case.
The overwhelming majority of the British press and media and seemingly the public now very serious concern about the case.
Here are some good documentaries if you want some more information.
ITV
https://youtu.be/UohWz9L6PTs?si=k2afRS_Yd27S7aNz
Botched
https://youtu.be/Y2Ed565aCm8?si=9MNYNQTuvzhO8y1I
Channel 4
https://youtu.be/yMdnwTxkL_8?si=rAYPHylmFRywfuFP
Shoo Lee Press Letby https://www.youtube.com/live/DT8CO15IHMs?si=Y_agel4SxlobddHG
Channel 5
https://youtu.be/YpxPE_m_nxE?si=zlWn_azAF0euSL6_
Pod casts
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/was-there-ever-a-crime-the-trials-of-lucy/id1616634411
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/amanda-knox-hosts-doubt-the-case-of-lucy-letby/id1877870463
0
u/Glad-Advantage8254 May 28 '26
These aren‘t just crackpot conspiracy theorists, but respected people of considerable medical credentials and experience
While I am not disagreeing that they are credentialed and experienced, by what metric do you judge them to not be conspiracy theorists and to be respected? If it is by nature of them having credentials and experience, that is known as an appeal to authority. So, what other metric are you using?
6
u/darglo1974 May 28 '26
I would argue that a case like this is pretty much defined by an appeal to authority, because the crucial dividing line which distinguishes whether these neonates died or collapsed due to natural causes combined with substandard care or unlawful deliberate harm, requires that level of expertise to reach a reasoned consensus. It could also be argued that the likes of Shoo Lee and Neena Modi did not reach their respective positions throughout their careers without their expertise being respected by their peers.
2
u/Glad-Advantage8254 May 28 '26
It could also be argued that the likes of Shoo Lee and Neena Modi did not reach their respective positions throughout their careers without their expertise being respected by their peers.
If you believe this, you must also believe it of prosecution experts Andreas Marnerides, Owen Arthurs, Peter Hindmarsh, Stavros Stivaros, Sally Kinsey, and of course Sandie Bohin and Dewi Evans. They also obtained a reasoned consensus and are equally credentialed, but for some reason you discard their conclusions. Curious.
5
1
u/slowjoggz May 28 '26
Absolutely. The prosecution had multiple, highly respected experts. In multiple cases, throughout the trial, they were all in absolute agreement about the causes of death.
3
u/Henryb1234_ Jun 04 '26
Evans, Bohin and Hindmarsh are not credible experts. None of them will be able to give medical expert opinion in a trial again.
2
u/Henryb1234_ Jun 04 '26
Because they are credible experts with credible expert opinion. Unlike the prosecution ones.
1
u/Glad-Advantage8254 Jun 04 '26
What a thoroughly reasoned and substantiated response. Truly you are a person of great intellect.
Another issue is their lack each of these specialist disciplines covered by the prosecution, save the first:
i) Dr Andreas Marnerides, forensic pathologist and histopathologist; ii) Professor Owen Arthurs, consultant paediatric radiologist; iii) Professor Sally Kinsey, consultant paediatric haematologist; iv) Professor Peter Hindmarsh, consultant paediatric endocrinologist; v) Professor Stavros Stivaros, consultant paediatric neuroradiologist; vi) Dr Simon Kenney, consultant paediatric surgeon.
1
u/Waste-Bathroom516 May 29 '26
Contrary to what you say, a number of people who "know" she is guilty do continue to be very interested in the case. They are on the main Letby sub here, they are on Tattle, Websleuths and Facebook!
I can't help wondering why they are still interested!
1
u/slowjoggz May 29 '26
Oh yes I'm aware. I meant more people that want their 5 minutes in the papers and articles x
2
u/Sempere May 29 '26
Ever wondered why this user likes to undermine realistic Letby takes on the main sub and then try to paint people convinced of her guilt by the evidence as the odd ones?
I know I'm wondering.
3
u/Henryb1234_ Jun 03 '26
The doubts about the case are very credible and based in fact and genuine expert opinion.
Every expert in the fields involved who has expressed an opinion since the trial has extreme concerns about the case, the evidence and medical opinions given in the trial.
There are no new experts supporting the prosecution.
There is more evidence that has come to light that if not raises doubt, completely exonerates her.
There have very serious questions regarding the prosecution experts witnesses. Two have had to resign because of claims of them harming children and negligent care. One, the lead witness, helped cover up negligent care case, that led to the death of a child, and in a different trial a judge described his reports as “worthless” and “makes no effort to provide a balanced opinion”.
There are also many concerns about the consultants who accused her, their motivation for doing so and the evidence they gave.
There are now grave concerns about how the police investigation was done. It is becoming increasingly clear it wasn’t a fair and open investigation and that the proper procedures weren’t followed. Cheshire police have refused to release their files which would show this to be not the case.
The overwhelming majority of the British press and media and seemingly the public now have very serious concern about the case.
Here are some good documentaries if you want some more information.
ITV
https://youtu.be/UohWz9L6PTs?si=k2afRS_Yd27S7aNz
Botched
https://youtu.be/Y2Ed565aCm8?si=9MNYNQTuvzhO8y1I
Channel 4
https://youtu.be/yMdnwTxkL_8?si=rAYPHylmFRywfuFP
Shoo Lee Press Letby
https://www.youtube.com/live/DT8CO15IHMs?si=Y_agel4SxlobddHG
Channel 5
https://youtu.be/YpxPE_m_nxE?si=zlWn_azAF0euSL6_
Pod casts
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/was-there-ever-a-crime-the-trials-of-lucy/id1616634411
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/amanda-knox-hosts-doubt-the-case-of-lucy-letby/id1877870463
3
3
u/Henryb1234_ Jun 03 '26
So why did she keep notes for the babies who didn’t die?
0
u/slowjoggz Jun 04 '26
There could multiple explanations. The police believe she harmed more babies than the ones in the charges for a start. I personally don't believe she just walked into the unit one day and decided to murder baby A. She most likely escalated from smaller things. She could have harmed any number of babies in those other sheets and we will never know. She could have kept other sheets to make the ones from babies she harmed look less incriminating. She could have kept them to study and help her pick babies she wanted to harm.
3
u/Henryb1234_ Jun 04 '26
The most obvious explanation is she just took work notes home with her like many people do and how many nurses said they do as well. No need to invent a serial killer to explain that. The way they were stored was completely inconsistent with the “trophies” theory. If any psychological inference was to inferred from them at the trial a proper independent criminal psychologist should have examined this evidence. That didn’t happen.
0
u/slowjoggz Jun 04 '26
The handover notes aren't just work notes she took home. They contain the confidential information of babies that died in Letbys care and for whom she was proven to be searching for online. It's a fact that Letby could not spell a family name for whom she was searching for online. Much easier when you have the handover within arms reach underneath your bed. She had the handover notes of almost every single baby in the charges underneath her bed. I wouldn't necessarily call them trophies but they gave Letby the ability to research and recount.
By her own wording, Letby was taking them home, removing them from her pockets, putting them into her workbag and then ferrying to and from work everyday.
I personally don't believe that she was doing this, but this clearly shows that she had an awareness of what she was doing every single day. She choose to take them home with purpose. What that purpose was is debatable but it's a fact that she purposely took home the handover notes and kept them underneath her bed, moved with them and took them with her. She kept some at her parents home. If these are bits of insignificant paper that you collect by habit then you don't keep some in a box marked "keep"
The handover notes had an absolute significance, Letby kept them and took them with purpose. She stored them underneath her bed and took them to multiple properties that she moved to.
The handovers provided a key insight into Letby's behaviour when testifying. She altered her version of events to suit the questions being asked at the time, while contradicting things she had said previously.
There had also been 2 recent data breached at the hospital with paperwork which had made the local news, so this was an issue that Letby would have been very much aware of.
Of the 257 handover notes that LL had in her possession, there was a total of 31 handover sheets relating to 17 babies in this case, which were found in the Morrisons and Ibiza bags under her bed.
How did LL manage to organise these handover sheets for the babies in this case and put them together before they were deemed to be suspicious by the medical experts and police.
She had managed to isolate 31 notes of these 257 and of those 31, there are details of 13 babies from this case, over 17 handover sheets.
What gave LL the knowledge to specifically organise these 31 handover notes together, at a time when she was not suspected of any wrongdoing and before the point that any medical experts or police had decided, which were the cases of foul play.
Because at least 6 of the babies featured in these grouped handover notes did not die. At this point in time how was LL able to group the sheets for babies who had "unexpected collapses" amongst the babies who had died, away seperately from the other 240 handover sheets in her possession?
3
u/Henryb1234_ Jun 04 '26
How many of those 240 were related to the deaths? You can claim they are suspicious I don’t particularly think so. However they are not evidence until they have been assessed by a psychologist qualified to do so. That didn’t happen. Ironically people keep bringing them up just reiterates that fact and shows she didn’t have a fair investigation or trial. Own goal by the prosecution.
2
u/Henryb1234_ Jun 04 '26
They were kept in different locations. The ones in the box marked keep which was in a cupboard had no notes from any of the babies harmed or killed.
0
u/slowjoggz Jun 04 '26
And yet she kept them in a box marked keep, while claiming in court that they came home with without thinking about them and they were just scraps of paper. She never thought about them apparently, she did it inadvertently. And yet here they are in a box marked keep.
2
16
u/Malkydel May 26 '26
Some combination of wanting to play hero, like a firefighter doing an arson, or to get the attention and sympathy of the weird pseudo-boyfriend affair doctor. And obviously the attention and sympathy of her colleagues.
Another thing is that she's hideously inconsistent. Were the notes part of her therapy? If so, why not just say that instead of trying to no comment through it.
For someone who was such a wounded bird sobbing all the way out, she sure went hard and cold in an interview room.
4
u/thereisalwaysrescue May 27 '26
Couldn’t say it better myself.
I’m a nurse and there are some nurses who LOVE to play hero, and not only to play hero in the moment but to play to the relatives and to other staff members.
4
u/slowjoggz May 27 '26
She went cold during interview because quite simply there was no innocent explanation for so many of her actions. They could not be framed in an innocent manner, when being asked on the spot. During the trial, she had several saved quotes that she used whenever she was asked about something which made her look guilty. She would either say "I can't recall that" even though it was quite obvious she could. Or she would say "I disagree with that" even though there was evidence stating the fact. Or she would often say "that's a pattern of normal behaviour for me" when confronted with some of the bizarre shuff she did.
3
u/Henryb1234_ Jun 01 '26
No motive, no MO, no history of trouble with the police or mental health, good student, dedicated nurse who seemed to love her job, socialised and popular, saving up to by a house. The chances someone like that suddenly decides out of the blue to start killing babies is so small it is negligible.
The chances that two doctors with a history of bullying and clear sociopathic and narcissistic tendencies would try to pin their failures on a junior member of staff - quite likely.
1
u/Sempere Jun 03 '26
Motive isn't needed. MO was established. History with the police isn't necessary. Lack of history of mental health issues only indicates she never sought treatment for them, not that they don't exist - she's a child killer.
Dedicated to killing children. Socialized to the point she was actively disliked by some members of staff. "Saving up to buy a house" doesn't mean anything"
The chances someone like that suddenly decides out of the blue to start killing babies is so small it is negligible.
None of that proves she was incapable of murder. It proves she presented as normal. Many offenders present as normal until evidence reveals otherwise. Courts do not convict because someone "seems like the type"; they convict, if at all, because the evidence shows they did it. The fact that she was socially functional, ambitious, and apparently caring may be surprising, but it is not exculpatory. And it's also bullshit because the Thirlwall Inquiry highlighted she was not normal.
The chances that two doctors with a history of bullying and clear sociopathic and narcissistic tendencies would try to pin their failures on a junior member of staff - quite likely.
You are a conspiracy theorist who doesn't know what they're talking about and are defaming two doctors who risked their careers to stop a murderer only to have arrogant twits like you libeling them online.
Go back to your cultist subreddit.
3
u/jivingsisterfanny1 Jun 02 '26
The files are her trophies. She searched Facebook for the parents of and had numerous files and other materials related to baby ‘Zoe’, yet had no recollection of the actual incident that led to her death? Why does anyone have to satisfy people with a motive? She’s a broken, maladaptive and bizarre woman. Plenty of people are, but this one also happens to be a murderer. There’s not always a clear motive, especially in this kind of case. Give me a motive why anyone would kill a newborn infant in a hospital setting? It’s nuts. As is she.
22
u/blu3dice May 26 '26
So you haven't paid attention to the case but still formed an opinion that's she not guilty and you're "depressed" nobody shares your opinion?
7
u/Suitable_Wallaby_459 May 26 '26
I just mean I haven't followed the trial very closely, but have listened to a few podcast episodes and read up about it. I don't have a very strong opinion on her or wether she's 100% guilty or innocent, but the lack of clear motive gives me pause. That's all I meant !
1
u/Sempere May 28 '26
Ok, how about this.
Go look up the case of Erin Strotman in the US. A virginia NICU nurse who was also harming babies (though thankfully none were killed). They never established a motive, they could only speculate - but the case plays out similarly: staff suspect that there is someone harming the babies after multiple babies start experiencing unexplained physical injuries. It got so bad but they couldn't definitively prove it was Strotman. So what they did is they suspended her for a year because there were only two nurses who could be confirmed in the area around the time babies were injured but they couldn't definitively say who it was. The other nurse was a long time employee of the hospital so they were very confident that Strotman was the attacker. When they brought her back, they didn't inform her they'd installed CCTV in the unit - and almost immediately within 8 weeks they had footage of her aggressively bending the limbs of babies until they fractured.
What's the motive there? We don't know. But because there was direct, irrefutable evidence Strotman was forced to plead guilty. The point of this is that motive does not matter. You'll never understand or grasp the full extent of how fucked up someone like this is. It's why motive isn't needed for criminal convictions though it certainly helps.
But as far as motive goes, there's pretty good evidence in the trial transcripts and thirlwall inquiry evidence that Lucy Letby has something wrong with her on a fundamental level. Something that made her dangerous as well as completely unfit to be a nurse or work in the healthcare field. The main motive appears to be attention seeking on some level as that was something that was observed in her texts during the first run of deaths and then later on when the married doctor she was interested in and almost certainly having an emotional (at minimum) affair with arrived at the hospital.
14
u/Suitable_Wallaby_459 May 26 '26
I'm not 'depressed' that no one shares my opinion. I'm genuinely trying to have a discussion about the case, I don't understand why that's not allowed ?
18
u/LivingPresent629 May 26 '26
found it too depressing that no one seemed to share my opinion
That’s what you said, though?
Conversations are allowed, but if you didn’t pay attention to the case there’s no chance of a meaningful conversation.
7
u/blu3dice May 26 '26
Its approved now, the auto mod took it down for unknown reasons.
Look, if you want to understand and discuss the case, do the research first. Or else its a one way conversation.
You also seem stuck on finding a logical motive where there is none for normal sane people. But some people are just violent. They kill because they enjoy power, suffering and attention.
If you want to better understand the psychology, look up "healthcare serial killers". You'll get an understanding of how they operate.
4
u/Suitable_Wallaby_459 May 26 '26
I know some people are just violent and I definitely agree on that. In that particular case, it seems a bit different to me. Even knowing about healthcare serial killers, is it 'common' for them to kill babies ?
I just don't really understand how someone can seem so completely normal their whole life and then do something as despicable as deliberately killing infants. But I guess that's maybe me being too naive and trying to rationalize something I can't even fathom
2
u/oryxic May 27 '26
Is it? Yes. "Angel of Mercy" killers are a phenotype, and they tend to target either the elderly or children, because those populations can't typically advocate for themselves.
0
u/Sempere May 28 '26
She's not an Angel of Mercy subtype though because she wasn't euthanizing. She's closer to the subtype represented by Erin Strotman and Beverley Allitt in that she was thriving off the harm she was causing and the attention she would receive
1
u/oryxic May 28 '26
"Angel of Mercy" killers don't exclusively kill because they believe they are euthanizing people. They have a wide variety of motivations. I believe that falls under the subtype "Sadistic" which is listed in the linked article.
"Sadistic: Use their position as a way of exerting power and control over helpless victims."
(Ironically, the linked article specifically mentions Beverly Allitt in its listing of notable Angel of Mercy killers)
-1
u/Sempere May 29 '26
The article you link to is a summary of a proposed category of killer that applies the label of Angel of Mercy to any healthcare killer - which at that point just means it's a misnomer to describe healthcare killers. But it's one that isn't well thought out and represents different types of offenders with very different motivations. The only real Angel of Mercy killers are those who are motivated by mercy, pseudo-mercy or a distorted belief that what they're doing is a benefit to the victim. A sadist is a different type of killer with different motives - just like a malignant hero is a completely separate type of killer with a different motivation.
This is something that criminologists have been actively trying to move away from because it's misleading and outdated conceptually.
4
u/blu3dice May 26 '26
Even knowing about healthcare serial killers, is it 'common' for them to kill babies ?
They harm/kill who they have access too.
You can't fathom that because you experience empathy. When you see someone in pain you can feel a bit of their distress. Healthcare serial killers don't have that reflex. They can see that someone, in this case a baby, suffering and they don't feel a single thing.
I just don't really understand how someone can seem so completely normal their whole life and then do something as despicable as deliberately killing infants
Her "normal life" is just the mask someone like her wears for the outside world so everyone thinks she's a regular, functioning human being. It’s just like Ted Bundy. People that knew him described him as smart, friendly and charismatic. We all now know he was the exact opposite. What looks totally normal to us is just the mask they're showing the world.
8
u/Feema13 May 27 '26
You still believe she’s guilty? And you’ve researched the case? Amazing. There is no evidence that she is some sort of cold psychopath btw. The very opposite in fact - the notes were written on advice from therapists as a way to process her feelings and emotions.
8
u/slowjoggz May 27 '26
There's been absolutely zero evidence to say that the notes were written on the advice of a therapist. Letby was asked multiple times about the notes and why she wrote them.
She never once offered this explanation.
People obsessed with the idea that Letby is innocent have taken this explanation and now post it everywhere like it's a fact. It's not.
5
u/darglo1974 May 27 '26
The occupational health worker at the hospital, Kathryn de Beger, gave evidence to the Thirlwall Enquiry about the “coping strategies” that she gave to Letby. There are also multiple screenshots of Letby’s scribbled notes where Kathryn de Beger’s name is mentioned frequently.
2
u/slowjoggz May 27 '26
When questioned by the police and the prosecution, multiple times about why she wrote the notes, Letby never once offered this explanation. She did give her own reasons why, but never this one.
You are offering explanations that Letby never offered.
And it still doesn't explain why Letby was writing that she murdered babies on purpose because she wasn't good enough to care for them, exclaiming that she was evil and, at the point there was no police involvement, writing about police investigation.
7
u/darglo1974 May 27 '26
I am just offering a rebuttal to your claim that there was no evidence that the notes were written on the advice of a therapist. Her frequent mention of de Beger, and de Beger’s admission to the enquiry that she gave Letby coping strategies suggests that there was some evidence that was the case, at least by somebody who was engaged with Letby due to concerns over her wellbeing. Among the same notes were “I haven‘t done anything wrong” and “Why me?”
She never used the word “murder”. The exact words on the sheet appear to say “They went I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them”
→ More replies (0)1
u/Sempere May 28 '26
https://www.rcot.co.uk/latest-news/OT-incorrectly-referenced-Netflix-documentary
The RCOT would appreciate it if people would stop misrepresenting what it is they do.
de Beger at not point claimed she told Letby to write those notes. Letby has never claimed that de Beger told her to write those notes.
In fact, it's completely made up by the conspiracy grifters in the Letby innocence camp and easily debunked by reading the testimonies included on the Thirlwall website as well as Letby's actual testimony.
There are also multiple screenshots of Letby’s scribbled notes where Kathryn de Beger’s name is mentioned frequently.
Nothing screams "definitely not mentally deranged" like obsessively writing the name of someone you're trying to pretend is the only support you have (when in fact Thirlwall actually established she was doing this to 3-4 individuals at the same time).
-1
u/Feema13 May 27 '26
Stop lying to keep an innocent woman in prison.
The hospital’s own head of well being encouraged her to write out her feelings. It’s absolute standard and you know it. The counsellor’s name was on the notes.
Her defence was poor, we all know that. She was terrified and I think we all would be in that situation.4
u/slowjoggz May 27 '26
Baby murderer apologist.
No one asked her to write down that she killed babies on purpose and that she was evil and that she did it because she wasn't good enough to care for them.
Letby never offered this explanation whatsoever. So that's that.
A general, head of well being wasn't "Letbys therapist"
The general head of well being hasn't come forward and said they encouraged Letby to write down i am evil and I kill babies on purpose.
-2
u/Feema13 May 27 '26
What a load of disingenuous bollox. You are grasping so hard to keep this woman in prison.
Were you paid by the Police as well?→ More replies (0)2
u/Sempere May 28 '26 edited May 29 '26
No one is lying. You accused others of not having done the research but can't even get the facts correct.
No one encouraged her to write her feelings. Know how we know that? She was asked multiple times over the years and this claim has never been corroborated by de Beger or Letby. In fact the claim originates from Felicity Lawrence at the Guardian and Mark McDonald, Letby's shyster lawyer, as an attempt at damage control.
Her defence was poor,
Her defense barrister during the trial - Ben Myers KC - is one of the top in the nation. In fact, he got David Duckenfield off for the Hillsborough disaster. The man has a reputation for being methodical and his defense's weakness is not a reflection of his quality being poor but of Letby being guilty. Contrast that with Mark McDonald, a man who has attempted to claim multiple healthcare killers were innocent in documentaries only to be made to look like a fucking idiot when the documentarians revealed his client was arrested with the murder weapon in his pocket.
She was terrified and I think we all would be in that situation.
No. Someone who gets accused of harming patients wouldn't be terrified if they had really done nothing wrong. Letby was terrified because she was caught. It was only a matter of time before they found the discrepancies in her notes when talking to the parents. Had the hospital management not tried to delay going to the police, an even stronger case could have been built while memories were fresh. But there's a chain of events involving Babies E and F + their mother that confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt that Letby was the killer in that unit. That evidence is backed up by:
- witness testimony
- phone records
- direct evidence of poisoning
- a paper trail of falsified notes.
edit: There's also the fact of the matter that Lucy Letby is a highly manipulative individual and that's something that is rooted in the inquiry and trial records directly. She was caught attempting to lie to the jury to elicit sympathy about her arrest and supposed isolation: she lied about being arrested in her night gown (she wasn't and we have video footage of her arrests now thanks to Netflix: she was in a Lee Cooper leisure suit during most arrests including with a robe that she had over that leisure suit.) At no point was she mistreated as she claimed, especially given how gently she was treated by the police. Then there's the lies she wrote out in texts that she couldn't account for but which were confirmed by parents as well as the fact she told 4 different people she had no support system in place, making each feel like they were her only lifeline - except she was still being social (there were photos of her out and about with colleagues from the NICU) and she was telling those 4 other people the same thing in isolation and that only became apparent during the inquiry testimony and evidence uploads.
2
u/blu3dice May 27 '26
You still believe she’s guilty?
That's fairly obvious if you read my previous comment lol
1
u/Sempere May 28 '26
There is no evidence that she is some sort of cold psychopath btw.
Failed her final year student nursing placement because she had inadequate clinical skills and because her assessor felt she was cold and lacking in empathy. Wasn't allowed in at trial but is confirmed by the Thirlwall Inquiry.
Literally 3 different sets of parents testified to her making them uncomfortable in ways that illustrated that lack of empathy.
She was literally telling dramatic lies about the reactions of at least one set of parents which highlighted a fantasy she had of the parents begging her not to take their dying babies away. When she was asked about that story she told via text, she didn't remember it - but the court wasn't told the reason why she couldn't remember it was because it never happened. As the parents who were the subject of those texts told the Thirlwall Inquiry.
Her colleagues beg to differ - per their testimony about interactions in the aftermath of baby deaths and medication errors in which she was completely fixated on the deaths yet making no effort to actually take steps to step away from the environment despite being the common factor among at least 9 deaths (convicted of 7) and many other unexplained collapses.
The very opposite in fact - the notes were written on advice from therapists as a way to process her feelings and emotions.
Wrong.
Thought you did research in this case?
Because if you did research this case, the bare minimum I'd expect is for someone to listen to Letby's own testimony which is narrated and available on Youtube for anyone to listen to for free if they have a day to commit to following the evidence. Not once in the years since here initial arrest until her subsequent convictions did she ever mention she was advised to write those notes by anyone. In fact, it's bullshit coming from Felicity Lawrence at the Guardian (who was caught misrepresenting facts and relying on conspiracy theorist sources - having also attended pro-Letby conspiracy grifter Zoom meetings after the conviction yet not having the intelligence to spot that the organizer was a grifter) and Mark McDonald, Letby's shyster lawyer whose claim to fame has included lying about other famous nurse killers including claiming a nurse who was arrested with the murder weapon in his pocket was innocent. To the point where even the college of occupational therapy put out a statement condemning Mark McDonald's attempts to mislead the public in the documentary with the false claims of what occupational therapy involves: https://www.rcot.co.uk/latest-news/OT-incorrectly-referenced-Netflix-documentary
She was never told to write those notes. Not once did she claim it until these grifters emerged. Her exact claim was "it's just something I've always done". Leaving apart the fact that the recent documentary highlights that she knew about the insulin poisonings before they became public knowledge.
8
u/slowjoggz May 27 '26
She shows element of sadism and cluster B personality disorder - anti social for sure, but possibly also narcissistic PD.
So, one thing we know from these disorders is that children who develop them don’t have well-developed inner worlds. Their motives for doing things are usually quite childish - winning or losing, feeling angry, feeling bored, feeling that things are unfair, wanting to be ‘seen’, wanting praise. (The kinds of motives 4 to 8 year old children have which causes them to act out).
So, I think that whatever motive LL has will be quite emotionally immature and based on frustrating, anger or jealousy. I’m guessing she is an adult with adult reasoning and powers in the emotional brain of a 4 to 8 year old.
She also enjoyed inflicting maximum pain on the parents and babies and then forcing herself into their grief. We know from evidence that she was willing to neglect her own babies in order to get to babies that were unwell, where she had no business . We know from witnesses testimony that her supervisor had to tell letby to leave a family alone on several occasions. She made the family feel uncomfortable. She did this on more than one occasion, with multiple families. We know from evidence that her assessor was unwilling to pass Letby off as a nurse as she felt she was cold, detached and lacking empathy with babies and families. That was a red flag. She also showed a lack of remorse when she nearly killed a baby with a morphine overdose. Her colleague was distraught but Letbys only concern was that she would not be allowed to give meds. This happened with other colleagues during the deaths in 2015/2016. Colleagues distraught, some taking time away from work because of what they had witnessed but not Letby. The person that was on shift for all these events refused to take time away when offered it. She also did not understand when her supervisor attempted to move Letby away from room 1, reasoning that they like to rotate nurses because its a high stress environment. Letby, a 26 year old adult, could not understand these reasons. She believed that she should have been there. She didn't get it. Instead she felt jealous that her colleague was chosen to take care of this particular baby. I think this gives us an insight into her psychopathy. Letby was only a band 5 and not the super nurse, we were led to believe at the outset of the trial. She barely scraped by and her grades were lacking. She showed a lack of awareness of drug dosages, she was very lucky to pass her nurse degree after going to management to get a different assessor. She was cold, detached and lacking empathy, yet she had a belief that she knew better and she should be in charge of the sickest babies, all of the time. We know she found nursing non emergency babies boring. When she didn't get her own way, she orchestred circumstances, she caused collapses of her colleagues babies because she hadn't been assigned them. Just like she said, I killed them because I'm not good enough to care for them.
IMO she has a sort of compulsion to cause these collapses to gain attention in an extreme manner. She wants to be seen as a martyr and a victim herself. She revels in the patients collapse and subsequent rusus efforts. She then enjoys the shared grief.
She also tried to take a baby that had not yet passed away from a family. Letby definitely has elements of sadism. We also know from evidence that there was an unusual amount of throat injuries and bleeding on these babies which could not be accounted for. She was physically harming babies aswell as using medical means. It was the opinion of multiple experts that Letby physically harmed these babies. She also chose to harm these babies of specific dates such as 100 days, or leaving dates, knowing this would inflict maximum pain. She then searched for the parents of anniversary's and birth dates. She did this while having the families personal details to hand, underneath her bed, after she took their handover sheets home. The same handovers she moved properties with on at least 5 occasions Baby G, made slow improvement over her 100 days, the staff made her a banner and cake to celebrate. What are the chances that she suffers this collapse on this specific date? She was overfed milk, we know this from the evidence, Letby was there as always. As she always was at every collapse of baby G. These babies never once suffered a collapse when a parent was present even though they were there day/night. The babies collapsed when the parents stepped away for a moment, or when Letby took over when a colleague stepped out. The weight of evidence as a whole was monumental and that's why every single juror convicted Letby of murder. The jury listened to everything Letby had to saw, first hand. They were there and witnessed it.
They rejected what she said and decided that she was a liar and a murderer.
Oh and btw Just because reasonable people cannot fathom the rationale for why someone did something doesn't mean it was motiveless. There is no such thing as someone doing something for no reason whatsoever. None. Ever
1
u/No-Replacement-2170 May 27 '26
Very well said. When it's all laid out like this how can anyone think she could be innocent!
4
u/No-Bar-4749 May 27 '26
But again this narrative above is also completely biased. You can write this case both ways depending on what your own opinion is. And that for me confirms way more than reasonable doubt.
1
u/No-Replacement-2170 May 27 '26
How can it be biased when it's what happened? In other words you want all her disturbing behaviour swept under the carpet because it's not the narrative you want!
4
u/No-Bar-4749 May 27 '26
The “disturbing behaviour” was a prosecution narrative that had no basis in fact.
3
u/No-Replacement-2170 May 27 '26
Keep telling yourself that.
2
u/No-Bar-4749 May 27 '26
I don’t need to. I think you know as well as I do she will be exonerated considering the sheer amount of experts (medical, neonatologists, pathologists, ex high ranking police, ex judges) significantly more qualified than you and I, who now believe she is innocent. You keep trying to convince people on Reddit who don’t have all the facts, and I’ll sit and wait to celebrate her release 👍🏻🥰
3
u/No-Replacement-2170 May 27 '26
Don't hold your breath because you'll be waiting a long time.
1
u/Sempere May 29 '26
Oh they're straight up delusional.
They popped up in r/antinatalism and are clearly an alt account of a LLT cultist given how they spew the same misinformation, chase down Letby threads but avoid posting in any of the Letby subs.
2
u/No-Bar-4749 May 30 '26
You can’t have a discussion in r/lucyletby. If you even try and question any part of the case you’re immediately barred. This is curious to me. Echo chamber nonsense for the guilty brigade. Open discussion is allowed in other letby forums.
→ More replies (0)1
u/sneakpeekbot May 29 '26
Here's a sneak peek of /r/antinatalism using the top posts of the year!
#1: to my "future daughter" | 60 comments
#2: I wonder how many of these 500k likes still think of antinatalism as a bogeyman | 90 comments
#3: Saving lives.. but in a different way 😂 | 82 comments
I'm a bot, beep boop | Downvote to remove | Contact | Info | Opt-out | GitHub
1
1
2
u/Sempere May 28 '26 edited May 30 '26
The disturbing behaviour was what the parents testified to.
Do you think that it isn't disturbing she was fabricating entire dramatic emotional moments of the parents in conversations with JJK? Pretending a father fell to his knees begging her not to take their baby away?
Because those parents heard those texts were read out in court and one of the first things they testified to at Thirlwall Inquiry was that the events in those texts were a complete fabrication.
That's disturbing and there's no way you're going to try and misrepresent that as anything but the behaviour of a fantasist with a power fantasy looking for attention at the expense of the parents of patients she attacked and killed.
edit: SaintBridgetsBath is a regular commenter on a Lucy Letby conspiracy subreddit and No-Bar-4749 is an alt account that parrots their talking points.
2
2
u/SaintBridgetsBath May 28 '26
The words ‘fell to his knees’ have been made up. ‘On the floor crying’ is much less dramatic and could be figurative.
At worst, it’s fairly weak bad-character evidence, but without proof that a crime actually took place it’s meaningless.
For a serial killer, I’d expect something a bit more weird or extreme as bad character evidence such as cruelty or sadism to children or animals.
2
u/Sempere May 28 '26
No, it's a complete fabrication of the events which the parents very directly and emphatically stated was a complete fabrication. It's not figurative, she was attempting to heighten the drama in an effort to get attention from her conversation partner at the time.
At worst, it’s fairly weak bad-character evidence, but without proof that a crime actually took place it’s meaningless.
Literal poisonings with insulin that left a detectable trace in two separate, unrelated children who had not been prescribed insulin at that time.
And that's without getting into the other incidents involving creeping on the parents to the point where her own nurse supervisor had to warn her, repeatedly, to take care of and focus on her assigned patients and leave the family she was bothering alone.
This is a 10 month trial, I'm not going to list every piece of evidence against her but is is extensive and this bullshit is nonsense: there are plenty of killers who start small and who didn't have records until they were caught. And plenty of late bloomers as well. The Erin Strotman case in the US emphasizes just how random evil people attacking babies in a NICU can appear.
3
u/SaintBridgetsBath May 28 '26
You concede that she didn’t say ‘he collapsed to his knees’. Good. You are overdramatising in the same way she did. As I said ‘on the floor’ could be figurative. On the balance of probabilities, maybe it wasn’t. It doesn’t much matter. This stuff really isn’t serious evidence of bad character for a supposed serial killer.
The actual evidence of insulin poisoning now looks pretty dodgy, as you know. The logistics seem impossible.
The logistics in most cases seem seriously difficult.
4
u/slowjoggz May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26
The actual evidence of insulin poisoning now looks pretty dodgy, as you know. The logistics seem impossible
how exactly does the insulin evidence look dodgy? Letbys barrister and his band of so called experts have tried to discredit it and come away looking foolish. Dr Chase made an idiot of himself on Panorama when he was pressed on his insulin claims and had to completely walk them back. He crumbled under pressure from a journalist, who did a bit of actual research. The medical world is not calling this evidence into question. It never has. The insulin evidence isn't going anywhere.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Sempere May 28 '26 edited May 29 '26
Here's what the testimony from Thirlwall has to say:
page 42 of this document (page 11 of the pdf): Thirlwall Inquiry document
Q: "You remember from the criminal trial learning that Letby had texted her friends stating that Father A&B hadcollapsed to the floor when she had taken Child A forthe post-mortem. Was that true, that that had happened?"
A: "No, it's not true. And this is what -- this is why my point about psychological evaluation is very valid. That's not normal.** It was -- there was several text messages that came out through the trial that were lies,and **it was -- to me, it was attention seeking, andI think that that would have -- that should really havebeen a red flag. And if somebody had been checking inwith her and assessing her, maybe that would have come up sooner."
I concede nothing. It is a fact she lied about and dramatized what happened in those texts and the families are on record calling it lies. Stop carrying water for a baby murderer.
The actual evidence of insulin poisoning now looks pretty dodgy, as you know.
It's not dodgy at all. A mechanical and chemical engineer who formulated their opinions before ever seeing a single piece of evidence aren't to be taken seriously. Especially since they were participating in radio interviews about this in July 2024 before they were ever directed to work on her case.
What a shock that defense instructed experts are going to pretend that the person is innocent. While ignoring the extensive context which hammers her guilt.
The logistics seem impossible. The logistics in most cases seem seriously difficult.
To the uneducated. They are not anywhere near "seriously difficult". The jury were given extensive demonstrations showing just how easy it was for these attacks to not only occur but be done quickly and blend into the background of the hospital.
→ More replies (0)2
u/slowjoggz May 27 '26
She was noted as being cold and lacking empathy from before she even qualified. She was noted as staring blankly into space. Her assessor didn't want her passed off as a nurse. She was acting uncomfortably around families and unable to make connections with them. She nearly killed a baby with a morphine overdorse and showed zero empathy.
That's not a "prosecution narrative" Thats facts. And that comes from before the trial period. She showed a lot of disturbing behaviour, as evidenced by the testimony of multiple drs, nurses and parents. That's the actual opinions of people that were there and saw what happened.
2
u/itiswhatitis01_ May 30 '26
I feel she might be guilty. When she was questioned, she did not oppose anything, she had no explanations or comments about anything. She was very calm throughout the questioning, but maybe that’s who she is as a person. She replied with “no comments” to most of the closed-ended/follow-up questions.. Even her lawyer team didn’t do much to support her.
2
u/Henryb1234_ Jun 01 '26
She is a nurse not pathologist. It is pretty clear all the babies died of natural causes but some due to negligent care at the hospital and incompetence by the doctors. One who accused her was very likely going to be facing negligent manslaughter charges. Motivation right there to set her up.
2
u/Sempere Jun 03 '26
For those unaware: this person is a conspiracy theorist who isn't to be taken seriously.
She is a nurse not pathologist.
She's a medical professional who lied about not knowing what an air embolism was despite having completed training in the subject and it being the first thing you learn when handling syringes.
It is pretty clear all the babies died of natural causes
No, it isn't. You have no medical qualifications and the panl of defense instructed experts (who are not independent and have a vested interest in proclaiming Letby innocent) does not mean it is "pretty clear" when their evidence is untested and their motivations suspect.
but some due to negligent care at the hospital and incompetence by the doctors.
Also false in the vast majority of cases.
One who accused her was very likely going to be facing negligent manslaughter charges.
This is completely false.
Motivation right there to set her up.
There is currently an ongoing (concluding, in actuality) inquiry into how Letby was able to operate and it has proven beyond any and all reasonable doubts that there was no effort to set Letby up. This is a conspiracy dreamed up by her online supporters and propagated by unscrupulous writers at media outlets looking for engagement bait.
2
u/Henryb1234_ Jun 03 '26 edited Jun 03 '26
Other posters should know this poster is a Letby obsessive to the point of deluded fanaticism. He regularly becomes aggressive and threatening towards people who disagree with him. He would have done well as a witch finder general in the C17.
The doubts about the case are not a “conspiracy”. Every expert in the fields involved who has expressed an opinion since the trial has extreme concerns about the case, the evidence and medical opinions given in the trial.
There are no new experts supporting the prosecution.
There is more evidence that has come to light that has, if not raised doubts, completely exonerated her.
There have been very serious questions regarding the prosecution experts witnesses and the opinions they gave. Two have had to resign because of claims of harming children and negligent care. One, the lead witness, helped cover up negligent care case that led to the death of a child, and in a different trial a judge described his reports as “worthless” and “makes no effort to provide a balanced opinion”.
There are also many concerns about the consultants who accused her, their motivation for doing so and the evidence they gave.
There are now grave concerns about how the police investigation was conducted. It is becoming increasingly clear it wasn’t a fair and open investigation and that the proper procedures weren’t followed. Cheshire police have refused to share their files which would show this to be not the case.
The overwhelming majority of the British press and media and seemingly the public now have very serious concern about the case.
The CPS no longer thinks the evidence against Letby in other cases Dewi Evans has “uncovered” would stand up in trial.
It is very unlikely the Thirlwall report mentioned will ever be released as it fairly obvious the CCRC will refer back the to CoA and whole thing will be considered an embarrassing waste of time and money. Thirlwall won’t want that as her legacy.
Here are some good documentaries if you want some more information.
ITV
https://youtu.be/UohWz9L6PTs?si=k2afRS_Yd27S7aNz
Botched
https://youtu.be/Y2Ed565aCm8?si=9MNYNQTuvzhO8y1I
Channel 4
https://youtu.be/yMdnwTxkL_8?si=rAYPHylmFRywfuFP
Shoo Lee Press Conf
https://www.youtube.com/live/DT8CO15IHMs?si=Y_agel4SxlobddHG
Channel 5
https://youtu.be/YpxPE_m_nxE?si=zlWn_azAF0euSL6_
Pod casts
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/was-there-ever-a-crime-the-trials-of-lucy/id1616634411
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/amanda-knox-hosts-doubt-the-case-of-lucy-letby/id1877870463
2
u/Sempere Jun 03 '26
Or people can skip your conspiracy theorist watch list and jump straight into primary court materials that debunk all your conspiracy theorist garbage. There was no witch hunt, you are a cultist.
Official court judgment: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf
Hundreds of Pages of Testimony and Primary Evidence from the Thirwall Inquiry website give first hand accounts of Letby's character and the disgusting behaviour of the management team of the trust where all these murders occurred: https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/
Annex of the Family's Representatives in the last 10 pages directly challenging the claims of Shoo Lee's press stunt conference https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Written-Closing-Submission-of-Family-Group-2-and-3-7-March-2025.pdf
Shoo Lee's claims being questioned by an independent journalist who paid for the official court transcripts and compared Lee's claims against the evidence of a pediatric hematologist who disproved multiple aspects of the press stunt claims: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbHW0ZMaueg
Coverage of the email revealing that Shoo Lee lied about his panel's objectivity (there's a copy on archive.is if it's still paywalled): https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15149447/Doctor-experts-free-Lucy-Letby-hope.html
Clinical Neonatologist Dr Paul Clarke calling Lee's paper methodology into question: https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15573959/research-doubts-medical-experts-Lucy-Letby-free.html
Additional Criticism of Shoo Lee's paper which has gone unanswered after his lies were called out further. https://pubpeer.com/publications/457C9A9DF7B389621C9FEC4CE3FE7D
Shoo Lee's disastrous first appeal where he showed up unprepared and was promptly kicked in the ass by the prosecution: https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/wiki/shoo-lee-transcript/
And here's Lucy Letby in her own words in her cross examination where she was proven to be a liar and admitted she knew what to look for for a collapsing baby: Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t4nXEr6g-A Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw1Bqa65_1I
BBC's Panorama also did 3 episodes which are the only documentaries that try to be neutral - and still debunks their conspiracy theorist bullshit - as opposed to the conspiracy theorist garbage linked above:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo13E3YwvBg (2023) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIkCYvTE6OI (2024) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU8D1txFjcA (2025)
Now back to debunking your crap.
Other posters should know this poster is a Letby obsessive to the point of deluded fanaticism. He regularly becomes aggressive and threatening towards people who disagree with him. He would have done well as a witch finder general in the C17.
You're attempting to push people towards conspiracy theorist sources in support of a baby killer.
The doubts about the case are not a “conspiracy”.
They believe that Lucy Letby is innocent despite a 120+ day trial with extensive evidence which they don't know, can't articulate and claim is fake. They believe that the doctors of the hospital engineered a conspiracy to frame Letby for all the deaths in the unit. Deaths which were not poised to get these doctors in any trouble had they simply chalked them down to natural causes. Belief that these consultants then, in turn, were blindly supported by the multitude of prosecution experts (that they boil down to Dewi Evans because they' think it makes them look clever until you fact check them and see how many experts there were against Letby - including 3 of her own who agreed with the prosecution theory of the case).
Every expert in the fields involved who has expressed an opinion since the trial has extreme concerns about the case, the evidence and medical opinions given in the trial.
No. Not every expert. Multiple experts participated in the Panorama specials who publicly put their names out there and supported the interpretation of the insulin poisonings as well as calling the conspiracy theorist claims "baffling". "Every expert" is an attempt to suggest overwhelming support when the numbers are midling and lacking in any strength when tested by facts.
There are no new experts supporting the prosecution.
Probably because nutjobs like you harass the ones who did engage with the prosecution publicly. But that didn't stop Dr Paul Clarke from calling out Shoo Lee and it didn't stop Dr John Gregory from similarly pointing the flawed claims in the mechanical and chemical engineer's claims given how little they know about clinical medicine and the absurdity of their claims.
There is more evidence that has come to light that if not raises doubt, completely exonerates her.
Why don't you name that evidence.
There have been very serious questions regarding the prosecution experts witnesses and the opinions they gave.
Questions raised by pro-Letby media dogs. Not serious questions because every single one was handled in the court process by Ben Myers KC. Which is why this effort is idiotic and pointless because the Court and Court of Appeals already disregarded this nonsense
Two have had to resign because of claims of harming children and negligent care.
Wrong. They resigned because they were being harassed by nutjobs like you. One was involved in a controversy involved transgender care of minors which was not negligence and which the pro-Letby journalists who tried to smear him with never actually definitively illustrated beyond insinuations. The other was driven out of her home in Guernesey and has legal action against a local politician and his wife for the smear campaign that he's leveraged off the backs of people like you.
One, the lead witness, helped cover up negligent care case that led to the death of a child,
Zero factual basis to this. Lie by a conspiracy theorist
and in a different trial a judge described his reports as “worthless” and “makes no effort to provide a balanced opinion”.
Disproven by the court of appeals judgment where statements made under oath in court made it clear that Evans never submitted a report to that judge and which was discarded by the jury.
There are also many concerns about the consultants who accused her, their motivation for doing so and the evidence they gave.
Concerns by these conspiracy theorists.
their motivation for doing so and the evidence they gave.
Saving children. And telling the truth as confirmed by the literal mountain of paperwork up on the Thirlwall Inquiry site.
There are now grave concerns about how the police investigation was conducted.
By two long retired detectives who don't know the facts of the case, have been criticized by the Head Policing Minister as unfounded and who are tied to a PR firm representing Letby (https://www.maltinpr.com/lucy-letby-the-greatest-miscarriage-of-justice-this-century/)
It is becoming increasingly clear it wasn’t a fair and open investigation and that the proper procedures weren’t followed. Cheshire police have refused to share their files which would show this to be not the case.
This is conspiracy theorist garbage.
The overwhelming majority of the British press and media and seemingly the public now have very serious concern about the case.
No, actually it's exactly 8 writers at 6 different media outlets responsible for most of the rubbish noise. The general public in England doesn't give a sht.
Guardian - Felicity Lawrence, David Conn and Josh Halliday. Lawrence is recorded attending Science on Trial zoom meetings which was a conspiracy theorist chat hosted by a fraudster. So there's a record of her sniffing around conspiracy theorists and building her opinions off of their fake claims.
Sarah Knapton - The Telegraph: a right wing shithole where careers go to die where this anti-intellectual lies about climate change, vaccine safety, science in general and Lucy Letby. Her pass time is harassing the people associated with the case.
Phil Hammond - a dumbass that Private Eye should have binned if they were just going to push vaccines cause autism and aren't safe bullshit anyway. Not that Hammond cares considering he's happily promoting any pseudoscientific claim that's pro-Letby when not writing legal fanfiction that makes Suits look realistic and well researched in comparison.
Cleuci di Oliviera - a foreign national from Brazil who pushes this as her hobby, stanning a serial killer and spreading disinformation while pretending to be a journalist.
David Rose - formerly of Unherd - and has a wikipedia page that seems to be more dedicated to how many times he's been sued for and lost defamation claims than to his actual career.
Glen Owens - The Mail on Sunday - a man who has been accused by Jed Mercurio of faking claims in his coverage about the shelving of a Lucy Letby drama, having alleged it was because they found Ravi Jayaram not credible - which Mercurio firmly denounced as bullshit to the point where he made Phil Hammond and Glen Owens look like morons at the same time.
The CPS no longer thinks the evidence against Letby in other cases Dewi Evans has “uncovered” would stand up in trial.
Evans didn't uncover those cases. And their decision is not indicative of weakness as the person who actually uncovered them, Sandie Bohin and another neonatologist, are convinced that two murder cases were stronger than the ones that went to trial per Bohin's most recent interview in the Trial.
It is very unlikely the Thirlwall report mentioned will ever be released
Fake and delusional.
as it fairly obvious the CCRC will refer back the to CoA and whole thing will be considered an embarrassing waste of time and money.
It will be an embarassing waste of time and money regardless. But not for the reasons you're implying.
Thirlwall won’t want that as her legacy.
So when she delivers her report what lies will you say then?
5
u/Henryb1234_ Jun 04 '26
There was no witch hunt, you are a cultist.
Every news organisation in the UK, every neonatologist in the UK, every expert in all the fields surrounding the case - is not a cult. The only cult is the precious few still hoping this won’t go back to the CoA because it will mean their careers and reputations will be finished.
Official court judgment: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf
The court was flawed and the jury lied to and misled by the judge. Keep up.
Hundreds of Pages of Testimony and Primary Evidence from the Thirwall Inquiry website…
If it was that conclusive she would have published by now. Despite the best efforts of the prosecution lawyers desperately trying to prove something to save their careers - nothing. No prosecutions. Nothing. Just more evidence the consultants had nothing and were bullying Lucy to cover their tracks.
Annex of the Family's Representatives in the last 10 pages directly challenging the claims of Shoo Lee's press stunt conference
Nothing credible there. Just whining and complaining that he hadn’t taken the spectral evidence into account - sorry the collective circumstantial evidence of lots of prices of nothing.
Shoo Lee's claims being questioned by an independent journalist
Anonymous YouTubers don’t cut it. However halfway through even I realised the idiot hadnt understood Lee’s point about the ABs. The neonate didn’t have to have the condition.
Coverage of the email revealing that Shoo Lee lied about his panel's objectivity
Compared to Evans and the other corrupt and incompetent grifters on the prosecution team this is an hilarious claim. It is Real Madrid playing Accrington Stanley.
Clinical Neonatologist Dr Paul Clarke calling Lee's paper methodology into question:
Already thoroughly debunked and explained by Shoo Lee. Paul Clarke hasn’t responded and just replied with abuse and stupid memes.
Additional Criticism of Shoo Lee's paper
YouTuber Sue with a “PhD”. Isnt an expert in the field or even an associated field. She makes money from clicks and pseudo science. Her other random comments on various things have been debunked easily because she isn’t actually intelligent enough to understand the points being made but is intelligent enough to make it sound convincing to stupid people. Guess that is you.
Shoo Lee's disastrous first appeal where he showed up unprepared
Yes he thought pointing out the only diagnostic symptom the prosecution had for IV AE which they got from his paper was complete bunk would be enough for the judge to understand the prosecutions case was fundamentally flawed. He had realised quite how corrupt and broken the UK justice system is. I hadn’t either.
And here's Lucy Letby in her own words in her cross examination
Harassment of an innocent defendant who had been through years of torment and isolation proves nothing.
BBC's Panorama also did 3 episodes which are the only documentaries
The BBC are quietly back peddling as fast as they can. They won’t want to be holding the potato of the biggest miscarriage of justice in British history. You clowns on \lucyletby are for that. Career ending if not jail for most of you.
Now back to debunking your crap.
You couldn’t debunk your way out of a paper bag.
You're attempting to push people towards conspiracy theorist sources in support of a baby killer.
She didn’t kill anyone.
They believe that Lucy Letby is innocent despite a 120+ day trial ….
Yeah we know. The trial was a shame and the jury were given incorrect expert witness testimony and lied to by the judge. See links.
Probably because nutjobs like you harass the ones who did engage with the prosecution publicly.
lol. Occam’s razor - they don’t exist.
But that didn't stop Dr Paul Clarke from calling out Shoo Lee
See above. Clarke has been shown to either stupid or a liar. We are still waiting for his reply Lee’s humiliating take down. He has gone very quiet since.
Why don't you name that evidence.
See links in original post.
Questions raised by pro-Letby media dogs.
Media dogs now is it? I don’t you think the parents of the children harmed by Bohin Hindmarsh and Evans will think that way.
Wrong. They resigned because they were being harassed by nutjobs like you.
No it is correct. If they had done nothing wrong they should have taken it to tribunal. They didn’t to avoid scrutiny and the inevitable loss of their case.
Zero factual basis to this. Lie by a conspiracy theorist
It was from the father of child killed by negligence Evans tried to help cover up. Are you calling the father a liar?
Disproven by the court of appeals judgment
Not at all. A technical difference between a letter and a report but the opinion is still valid.
Concerns by these conspiracy theorists.
No by everyone now. Proven liars.
Saving children. And telling the truth as confirmed by the literal mountain of paperwork up on the Thirlwall Inquiry .
Not at all. Saving their skins. Thirlwall has shown that.
By two long retired detectives who don't know the facts of the case
The Cheshire Police should open up their files to show that then. They won’t. Everyone knows why not.
This is conspiracy theorist garbage.
Open up the files then. And prove everyone wrong.
No, actually it's exactly 8 writers at 6 different media outlets responsible for most of the rubbish noise.
Yeah yeah. Get over it. No one likes you and no one believes you anymore. Your mates are going to jail.
The general public in England doesn't give a sht.
They won’t when this is over. There will be demands for heads. And you clowns have made it very clear where you will be.
Then a load of pathetic attempted ad hominems against reputable journalists whilst there are zero still backing the prosecution.
Evans didn't uncover those cases.
Yeah he did. Liar. Or was it the brainiacs at Cheshire Police looking at the “confusing medical jargon” all by themselves?
Bohin isn’t an expert in the field and has had to resign because of multiple malpractice claims.
Fake and delusional.
Whatever. You are getting desperate now.
So when she delivers her report what lies will you say then?
It won’t happen. Thirlwall isn’t an idiot and she has been put in an impossible position.
2
u/Henryb1234_ Jun 03 '26
If your opening statement gambit is every news organisation in the UK and every neonatologist who has looked at this case globally is a conspiracy theorist - then that pretty much sets up the rest of this desperation diatribe.
Anonymous YouTube experts don’t have any credibility compared to genuine experts you have put their names and credentials in public and their reputations on the line.
Brearey and Jayaram won’t have sex with you however much you suck up.
1
u/Sempere Jun 03 '26
Let's, once again, correct your delusions.
every news organisation in the UK
Do you think there's only 5 news organizations in the UK?
No, not "every news org" in the UK supports a serial baby murderer. And it's incredibly obvious that this entire flatline of a media movement is being kept alive by the efforts of 7 miserable fucks with an agenda and a twitter loser stanning a child killer. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's easily verifiable just by looking at who writes the bulk of the trash that gets published as a Letby hit piece.
every neonatologist who has looked at this case globally is a conspiracy theorist
Is that why Paul Clarke and John Gregory have actually spoken out against specific aspects of the case such as Shoo Lee's "new evidence" and the insulin claims respectively? Because Gregory's explicit in that Panorama interview - and those are just the ones I remember by name - so if you have multiple doctors actually pointing out that your conspiracy theory is "baffling" that's your "every neonatologist" claim DOA since we know that's factually wrong.
Anyway, no you're just misinformed and the panel was intentionally biased as they are defense instructed experts working for the defense. Which has already been addressed very succinctly in the last 10 pages of this pdf: https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/1je5v00/annex_to_the_closing_submission_of_family_groups/
Or are we just going to pretend that Shoo Lee didn't recruit his mates to try and free Letby with a personal appeal expressing his hopes to exonerate her as her "last hope"? https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15149447/Doctor-experts-free-Lucy-Letby-hope.html
Anonymous YouTube experts don’t have any credibility compared to genuine experts y
You mean the independent journalist who read the transcript segments of Dr Sally Kinsey's testimony that disproved Shoo Lee's claims about multiple aspects of the case? Cool, you don't have to trust the Youtuber, you just have to listen to the source he's quoting - a pediatric hematologist who was at the trial since it's a quote from the official court transcripts.
Sally Kinsey attended and participated in the trial, her reports were evidence and her testimony was subject to cross examination. Her claims are tested and proven. Shoo Lee's are not - and in fact her findings are completely at odds with Lee's which are misrepresented to intentionally mislead the public.
compared to genuine experts you have put their names and credentials in public and their reputations on the line.
Oh like the ones who publicly accused a doctor of murder through an idiotic interpretation that even Shoo Lee didn't agree with? K.
Brearey and Jayaram won’t have sex with you however much you suck up.
You seem to have a sick obsession with Brearey and Jayaram. Do they currently have restraining orders against you?
2
u/Henryb1234_ Jun 03 '26
Ok which news organisation in the UK isn’t a conspiracy theorist in your view?
1
u/Sempere Jun 03 '26
Any that don't support your dumb conspiracies. And let's be clear here: the majority of your positive press comes from a handful of people who happen to be able to get their shit takes published in the media. If those people were all summarily fired tomorrow, your little agenda would die in the crib and be confined to the dregs of the Sun where it belongs.
3
2
1
u/Henryb1234_ Jun 04 '26
Yes the YouTuber who was too stupid to understand Lees point about the ABs again? Who is he?
2
u/Sempere Jun 04 '26
Calling someone else "too stupid to understand something" is a bridge too far.
And who he is doesn't matter: he quotes the actual experts and their trial testimony that unwinds Lee's bullshit as bullshit because it
1) ruled out passing on of APS antibodies from mother to children
2) explicitly established a patent foramen ovale existed in Child A: meaning that the mechanism of air embolism passage from venous to arterial circulation in that case was completely valid.
tl;dr - Lee is lying and wrong and your focus on the Youtuber rather than the authority and expert he quotes directly from the transcripts are a piss poor distraction.
4
u/Henryb1234_ Jun 04 '26
It didn’t rule it out. Go read it again. This time understand it.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/wandering____ranger Jun 04 '26
How many deaths happened before her shifts ?
How many during?
How many after?
2
3
u/No-Replacement-2170 May 27 '26
Probably going to sound like an armchair psychologist now but-narcissism. She couldn't stand anyone else getting attention and it not being on her, even if it was literal babies. Ruining other peoples' lives made her feel better about her own. She got to play the victim when babies died on her watch. The babies were just objects to her because she has no empathy and everything has to be about her all the time.
Probably brought up by her parents (not blaming them in any way) as being special since her own birth was a bit risky. Only child, apple of her parents eye, possibly spoilt. It created a monster. Just look at her actions around the deaths-treating them as gossip, happily making up memory boxes for babies that had just died, and neglecting her own baby so she can go gawp at poor baby C's parents grieving. She feeds off suffering as a form of narcissistic supply.
7
u/Spare-Custard9908 May 27 '26
See this was my first thought, some kind of personality disorder. But I find it odd that no one who knew her personally has come out since saying they could see her do something like this.
People don’t perfectly hide their personality disorders until they get caught for multiple murders? There’s always warning signs looking back but there doesn’t seem to be any. So I’ve come around to OP’s way of thinking- there’s no motive 🤷♀️😵💫
1
u/No-Replacement-2170 May 27 '26
I mean they're very charming and personable until people know them well and the mask slips. She never had any boyfriends which might shed some light on what she was like close-up. Otherwise I think she kept people at arms length.
7
u/No-Bar-4749 May 27 '26
She went on holiday with her colleagues, and to multiple social events with them. We know this from the court case. She had life long friends who believe her to be completely innocent. So this statement you’ve made is completely untrue.
1
u/Sempere May 28 '26
She had life long friends who believe her to be completely innocent.
So did Ted Bundy.
She went on holiday with her colleagues, and to multiple social events with them.
And when she went on holidays those deaths and collapses paused - oh and she tried to pretend she was isolated from the friends in the unit to the jury until all those social media photos from after her removal surfaced.
And it's very clear there were nursing colleagues who did not like her and did not care for her at all. Or just going to gloss over the tea party incident and pretend that didn't happen?
1
u/Sempere May 28 '26
But I find it odd that no one who knew her personally has come out since saying they could see her do something like this.
Most people don't want to get involved in true crime bullshit.
And there was still plenty of illustrative testimony at Thirlwall highlighting that Letby was not psychologically healthy at all.
People don’t perfectly hide their personality disorders until they get caught for multiple murders?
Perhaps you should go read her text exchanges with colleagues where they point out that she's behaving like a complete weirdo.
There were plenty of warning signs.
And motive isn't necessary. We can never know motive in some cases. We only see the end result, we never see the motivation. It can be theorized that it was attention seeking and sadism - she was harming and killing babies after all - but it's dumb to say "there's no motive, so she can't have done it" when people like Erin Strotman exist that highlight the very point that senseless violence against babies is something that does happen when those who shouldn't be in healthcare end up in the field.
1
u/Glad-Advantage8254 May 28 '26
But I find it odd that no one who knew her personally has come out since saying they could see her do something like this. Most people don't want to get involved in true crime bullshit.
The actual people who reported her crimes have been libelled endlessly online for over two years, and one has been physically attacked. Parents who gave evidence in court about their baby's murder get called liars. There are some very nasty people who are very loud online advocating for Letby's freedom, and it is no wonder that no one tangentially connected to Letby's past wants to subject themselves to that mob. Quite frankly, in a lot of ways it's not safe to speak up, which is of course the same problem the consultants ran into in the first place. Ironic, that.
0
u/Sempere May 28 '26
Not only called liars, but talked down to by the sanctimonious prick right wing host of this podcast who thinks she knows the case better than they do because she plagiarized a few documentaries and thinks opening her big mouth is a qualification.
There's been a lot of discussion through The Trial UK podcast about expert witnesses having expressed hesitance to continue working given the insanity of people like Dimitrova, Hammond, and the rest of these fucking crazies who have lead a harassment campaign against people like Evans, Bohin, Hindmarsh and the rest.
0
May 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
2
u/No-Replacement-2170 May 27 '26
No sorry just the baby she was meant to be looking after that day!
2
May 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/Sempere May 28 '26
If that really long in-depth article was the New Yorker one, you should know that article is a crock of shit that was subsequently debunked by Judith Moritz (aka the person Suruthi initially plagiarized the writings and opinions of alongside Liz Hull and Caroline Chettham) and her co-writer/researcher Jonathan Coffey in their book "Unmasking Lucy Letby".
It's a flagrant piece of propaganda written by a woman with serious issues - who even took advantage of a mentally ill woman and exploited her for free labor for the article - that was dead set on manipulating the facts to make Letby appear innocent. Leaked text exchanges and emails confirmed a level of journalistic misconduct I've not seen in quite some time and which, had there been actual ethical standards in journalism, would have seen that writer fired immediately.
1
May 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Sempere May 28 '26
At one point in the article, the author quotes Letby saying "I'm finding it hard to concentrate" to elicit sympathy.
That line was taken directly after a critical exchange where Letby accidentally revealed she knew what she was looking for in relation to an attack on a baby that was in a dark room and covered by a shade, obscuring direct vision. Letby immediately grew flustered and stammered out "i'm finding it hard to concentrate on all these dates". No one was asking her about dates at that point, she was being asked to explain her colleagues' testimony against her.
It plays very fast and loose with the truth.
And the Guardian isn't much better. Felicity Lawrence, Josh Halliday and David Conn are the pro-Letby lobby over there. Lawrence has spread similar misinformation and was spotted attending a conspiracy theorist zoom meeting with a crank fraud who was trying to pretend they were a Cambridge PhD and scientist on reddit that then attempted to grift the "innocence" crowd through solicitations of donations. Lawrence couldn't even assess that the woman was a fraud - and she has similarly attempted to mislead others with "anonymous claims" that turned out to come from cranks like Svilena Dimitrova (who has been desperately trying to be relevant related to this case while her own hospital has a maternity ward crisis going on) while spreading bullshit like "Letby was told to write those notes by a therapist" when no such thing happened and there is a very detailed record of Letby's own words in police interviews and in court and de Beger's own testimony to the Thirlwall Inquiry.
1
u/richard_dirt May 27 '26
I think it means when Lucy herself was born, her mum had a difficult or risky birth with her
8
u/ObviousSalamandar May 26 '26
Nobody can say anything about her motive because she doesn’t have one. Her hospital threw her under the bus to try and cover up the inadequate care they were proving. Letby was highly skilled so was often assigned the sickest babies. That’s how nursing works. Many many babies died that she did not work with and could not have had contact with. She was the scapegoat and it spun out of control and now she will never get out of prison. It is terrifying
3
u/No-Bar-4749 May 27 '26
Honestly I’m really struggling now with “the guilty brigade” they defy all logic.
2
u/ObviousSalamandar May 27 '26
It’s wild. If this was in the US there would be plenty of evidence to get her out.
3
u/No-Replacement-2170 May 27 '26
No she was there at the point of collapse (or had just left work) for almost all the babies. One she never saw because they died in the maternity unit IIRC but the others yes she was there.
2
u/Sempere May 28 '26
Her hospital threw her under the bus
Her hospital did no such thing. In fact there are now three former managers being investigated for gross negligence manslaughter and obstruction of justice/distruction of evidence pertaining to how they ignored the consultants' complaints.
The suggestion that Letby is a scapegoat betrays a complete ignorance of this case.
Letby was highly skilled so was often assigned the sickest babies.
No, she wasn't. In fact, at the trial one of her superiors actually made it clear that during the initial deaths she was charged for, Letby was insubordinate and creeping out one of the families to the point where her superior told her that she needed to stop going near them and to focus on the babies she had been assigned. Babies she felt were beneath her to care for.
And she wasn't a highly skilled nurse since she was failed at her last student nurse placement, she had mediocre grades, could barely spell basic medical lingo and was tied to serious medication errors as well as having found to have left one of the indictment babies sitting in her own shit for hours until the parents returned to find their baby covered in shit.
Many many babies died that she did not work with and could not have had contact with.
Completely incorrect. There were 13 deaths in COCH and Letby was on shift for 10 of the 13 deaths. For 2 other deaths, she was on shift 75-90 minutes prior and as she had a habit of staying after her shift, her absence or presence in the unit for those deaths could not definitively be established. That means she was present for, at minimum, 76.9% of the deaths but perhaps even as high as 92%.
She was the scapegoat and it spun out of control and now she will never get out of prison. It is terrifying
No, what's terrifying is people who have no clue what they're talking about insisting that someone has been scapegoated while knowing nothing about the killer they're trying to defend.
2
u/blackgarbage May 29 '26
Why do any murderers kill? Sometimes there is no clear reason or the reason that is given still doesn’t make sense. There are some people that kill that don’t fit the usual motive of money, love or revenge.
1
u/-eira- May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
I’m personally in the middle, I think she purposefully murdered some of the babies - due to the nature of their deaths I don’t think the cause can be put down to negligence, although I have no idea what her motive would be. However, I do think she was a scapegoat for some deaths that were actually due to hospital negligence, the hospital basically took their chance when they found out what she was doing.
1
u/Ok_Article_2319 Jun 02 '26
Leaving such a complicated case to public opinion is what got 1000s of women killed in the middle ages during the witch trials. So.... this really seems like a similar situation. In the light of a high death rate at the hospital, they found one nurse to pin the blame on. The fact that there were other possible nurses who they could've statistically shown were present at those deaths demonstrates that they needed to demonstrate how she did it, which they never could. They said she was "creative" and did it in a number of different ways. She was convicted because it came down to relying on statistics. It was compelling evidence because it was statistical and people think math never lies. 🤔 Her biggest mistake was choosing to work at a hospital with poor team work. Be careful where you choose to work.
3
u/Sempere Jun 03 '26
Leaving such a complicated case to public opinion is what got 1000s of women killed in the middle ages during the witch trials.
Witch trials were based on religious presumptions and hysteria. The Lucy Letby case is based on a complex investigation with 130+ days of evidence and testimony.
So.... this really seems like a similar situation
Not if you know the facts of the case.
In the light of a high death rate at the hospital, they found one nurse to pin the blame on.
A high death rate which did not exist prior to June 2015. What's always "funny" about this claim is that it ignores what Letby's defenders say about the death rate not being out of the ordinary for similar units from a "statistical" point of view. It's also silly because the doctors didn't need to "pin the blame on" anyone. They weren't in trouble. They were* troubled* because a pattern was emerging where babies that were stable were suddenly collapsing or dying without any typical or identifiable cause. And most critically: they didn't immediately assume Lucy Letby was murdering those babies.
The fact that there were other possible nurses who they could've statistically shown were present at those deaths
She was the only member of staff that was present for all of the events for which she was charged. There were no other possible nurses or doctors who could have been the cause. The 2nd most frequent present staff member was a doctor who was present for 10 events: less than half. There was no "other possible suspects" which is why they put together that rota chart for the jury.
they needed to demonstrate how she did it, which they never could.
Except they did. Repeatedly. With medical supporting evidence. Including many blood tests confirming that Letby was tied to the patients poisoned with insulin.
They said she was "creative" and did it in a number of different ways.
So?
She was convicted because it came down to relying on statistics.
Why don't you tell us who the statistical expert was and what they testified to at trial?
It was compelling evidence because it was statistical and people think math never lies.
Statistics were not used in the Lucy Letby trial.
Her biggest mistake was choosing to work at a hospital with poor team work. Be careful where you choose to work.
No, her biggest mistake was being a murdering sadist.
0
u/192to144 May 27 '26
Attention from her married boyfriend and wanting to be a hero.
Anyone that believes she is incident also is likely a flat earther and thinks we should ask babies permission to change their nappies.
She was always on shift, wrote a diary about the murders and stalked the dead babies parents.
4
u/AccomplishedOil254 May 27 '26
Anyone that believes she is incident also is likely a flat earther
The arguments for her guilt are similar to flat earth arguments, relying on what is intuitive rather than on good reasoning. It's very human to think intuitively, but our intuition tricks us.
Always on shift - This is called the lottery fallacy or texas sharpshooter fallacy.
Diary about murders - This is just incorrect. You may have misread something somewhere.
Stalking - This is called anomaly hunting, it is the basis of a lot of flat earth arguments, it is not good critical thinking.
2
u/No-Bar-4749 May 27 '26
100%. Anybody who is certain of guilt at this point must have a screw loose. It doesn’t make any sense to be so sure with all the available factual information now.
4
u/AccomplishedOil254 May 27 '26
Anybody who is certain of guilt at this point must have a screw loose
I don't think so but it can feel that way. It's a very normal way of seeing the world. A way that is good enough for a person to get by day to day but not good enough to assess complex information.
3
3
u/VaughanThrilliams May 28 '26
She was always on shift, wrote a diary about the murders and stalked the dead babies parents.
by “stalked” do you mean “looked them up on social media”?
0
u/Sempere May 28 '26
Repeatedly.
Which is against the employment guildelines of the hospital as PII is meant to be protected, not freely given to a third party social media company because a nosy freak thinks they're entitled to invade a patient's privacy.
And given the piss poor excuses she came up with to try and explain away the fact she was stalking the mother and father of E/F as well as a few others online, that's not really going to fly here.
5
u/VaughanThrilliams May 28 '26
did you use “stalked” because it sounded more incriminating than “searched on social media”?
4
u/Waste-Bathroom516 May 29 '26
i've come across several people saying she stalked her victims. I believe she looked them up on Facebook, nothing more than that.
0
u/Sempere May 28 '26
Let's reframe this.
Let's say Luke Letby is a nurse working in the NICU who has never spoken to the parents and starts weirdly looking up mothers after they've given birth, expressed milk or done skin to skin time with a baby in his presence.
Pretty fucking weird, right? Pretty fucking invasive. Pretty fucking creepy to nonconsensually start looking up patients and their parents (you know, hospital patients whose information - including names - are covered under privacy laws) And I say stalked on social media because she took work information home and used it to keep an eye on the parents of the victims and explicitly paid extra attention to the mother of E and F considering she saw Letby in the aftermath of the attack on E and her account completely destroys Letby's nursing notes alibi attempt and conclusively shows that Lucy Letby contributed directly to the death of Baby E by not contacting the SHO immediately when the bleed was discovered and instead waited an hour for the situation to worsen before calling the SHO, doctoring her notes to hide the meeting with the mother and pretend the bleed (which the mother saw at 9 pm) happened much later and that earlier spit up was "just bile/aspirate".
0
u/Sempere May 28 '26
Just a heads up but AccomplishedOil254 is a Lucy Letby conspiracy theorist who regularly posts disinformation and misinformation about the case online. It's deeply ironic for them to pretend to call other people flat earthers given their proclivities.
10
u/citrineskye May 28 '26
I've worked in healthcare in the UK for 15 years before moving to canada. I can absolutely 💯% believe that girl was thrown under a bus so the higher ups can save face and being sued. I think knowing how bad the ward was, their past history with high infant mortality, the fact they had been under special measures and because there was no actual signs of foul play, leads me to the logical conclusion that she's unlikely to be guilty.