I can see your way of thinking with the searches, I really can. I just find it hard to accept as straight up evidence of wrong doing just because I can think of a few reasons for it being done without malice. Ultimately I agree that why not just say then?! I think I’m in the FBI sometimes with the stalks I do
but I’d bet I’d remember them all and why I searched them. perhaps if I’d searched someone once a few year back I may not remember, but she didn’t search once did she. I hope you can see the way I think (which you don’t have to agree or think my way) but for me, I’m trying to find the innocent explanation as innocent until proven guilty and in my mind she isn’t bang to rights with it.
I think she’s said said doesn’t remember because she panicked. Didn’t want to have to sit and try explain she’s nosey and wanted to see if they posted stuff about the baby (makes you sound morbid) and she felt that answer wouldn’t go in her favour. In her head she’s knows she’s innocent so didn’t think that lie would ever bite her in the ass and this would all blow over soon. Now it’s a lie she’s having to keep up as prosecution will use it against her as much as they can. She’s lied, she’s shown herself to be capable of lying, what else is she capable of lying about… that kinda stuff. Happened with FS In the star trial.
I obvs read here and know that isn’t your view, just wanted to offer up an alternative, or show the way I can make it make sense
Morning! Thanks for your response, I will try to also explain how I feel and hope you (and everyone) will know I am just sharing my opinion and how I see things rather than saying anyone else is wrong etc. Probably going to end up a ramble, so if there are people that think my points dominate or don’t like how I post- please kindly put me on ignore now! I am also going to probably have to use examples of things I’ve heard here to make my points- not trying to sneer or imply anything by that - just trying to show what I see differently. Full fella disclaimer sorry- boring but trying to make it clear I don’t come here to upset people!
I also see your views on the Facebook thing, however I don’t have any justification for Letby’s. I do not have an innocent answer for why she’s done it. To me, following an innocent until proven guilty stance (I admire that!) doesn’t mean giving letby potential innocent explanations outside of what I know about the case. If I do that all the way along, if I create scenes of her innocence like hysterical and nervous, without knowing that to be the case- how will I factually interpret what I am currently hearing.
I also don’t view anything much in isolation, so if I only knew Wayne Cousins bought a bag of rubble (
@Tofino stealing your example) but I gave him reasons for doing so outside of what I’d heard about the case -eg he’s doing up his patio or he’s helping a friend with building work when nobody not even Wayne has said this himself (yes I know he pleaded G just using the example)- I wouldn’t interpret the evidence I am hearing properly imo. Of course because his murder of Sarah is more typical murder, I would later hear about the crime scene and go ah ok yes. But this isn’t typical murder. It is however, extremely typical for this type of crime and evidence so to me the note is wholly significant as it is really the only wham bam moment you can expect in this kind of crime - an admission is one of the only things that can convict Health care serial killers. I appreciate the note now she’s retracted those words is not a confession legally speaking. It is though, a huge piece of evidence for me.
There are many high profile cases where I haven’t though innocent until proven guilty (I have not been on the jury for any of them so that is fine!) this is because I’ve heard and seen what I needed to already- I’ve brought it up before but a lady that decapitated her neighbour recently pleaded not guilty and yes I formed an opinion already because it was obvious.
However, this crime is not a typical murder. The victims are difficult as so vulnerable, the murder scene is sterile, the physical evidence is disposed, the murder is using means that are wholly untypical for murder (except the poisoning really) but look completely normal in the setting they are committed in (nobody suspects a nurse hanging a TPN bag or using a line to kill) there will be no dna, no cctv as there is in a lot of typical murders. What we are hearing is strong strong strong evidence for this kind of crime imo - it has almost every feature. That’s what is more important to me than the red flags - a)I do see quite a few of them and b) there are many on there that we wouldn’t know yet like mental health, relationship problems etc. But I do see many features of these crimes in the case here.
I also agree that the Facebook evidence is not straight up evidence of wrong doing, this case doesn’t pin on them. However, it is how the police even come to know this about Letby that is what interests me. The Facebook activity is only found out after she’s already linked to all these events not what is used to say she is linked to them, she is there.
The hospital is having a huge rise in cpr near deaths and deaths (however you think that came about), the consultants and other staff will have begun realising Letby is on shift for many of these events- they can not prove this at this time they can only see that link and pattern as it goes on (this is how many SK in hospital get found out) they can raise concerns that are not believed (it sounds like this happened early on), eventually somebody takes steps to try and see if that truly unbelievable suspicion could be true or negligence on her part etc, they take steps to change what appears to be a pattern and see if it continues, there are still too many unexplainable events and deaths of patients not expected to die (this is key understanding, yes preemie babies are vulnerable but they rarely go into sudden cardiac arrest near death situations without warning because of equipment and high level obs, even if there are rare events that could cause sudden events they are too often happening for the statistical picture as a whole but also for one person to be there for all) and doctors see more worrying behaviour (such as her standing over babies desaturating etc.) two investigations into the hospital show that the rise is not down to hospital failures, statistically Letby is factually there and giving treatment before too many of these events to not warrant suspicions. Police involvement - other evidence found.
Everything else, Facebook searches, parent accounts, witness accounts, medical expert evidence of foul play, toxicology experts evidence, the contents of her house search are all found after knowing the bits before. And yes that is why I go on about bad luck.. sorry! Because she is implicated in being there for all of this ‘awful run’ and ‘unexplained and shocking’ deaths and then to top it off, all of the rest of this picture just happens to be there- searches, parent accounts, note, contradiction in her notes to others, text evidence etc etc! And it isn’t that I wouldn’t consider the validity of the witnesses or what they say or validity of evidence but if I am to question allllll of them and suspect alllll of them and allll that big picture - I have to consider why they would lie, how they could misremember, why they would break the law and prejudice a case, why air is there indicative of trauma, why huge amounts of insulin are there - if I can see no logical reason for any of that then I have to decide whether I think that they do all give me evidence to show her guilt or not.
To me, finding innocent reasons for little individual things that haven’t been provided to me, destroy the big picture of things I know so far, if defence provide them then i’ll consider them but I wouldn’t let potential innocent explanations I could come up with myself cloud anything that could be there already. I do not see searching people conclusive of murder, I do see repeated and linking babies to search before known link and at strange times and then not giving a reason utterly suspicious. IMO there is not a possibility that she did not know why she was searching them or why she took such an interest in them - I believe that she absolutely COULD explain and she is choosing not to. I definitely see suspicious evidence in her texts and I can totally see why others do not- they’re subjective. But I see what she has to gain by giving interesting answers, conflict of what she says in texts to police interview (worst day of her life, detail about parents grief- sudden lack of memory of it all in police interview), conflict and convenience in what she remembers and doesn’t.
Now if the defence comes up with something special, I will change my mind! I just cannot see how all of it can be explained all at once - yes I know they’re separate charges but you absolutely have to take in the pattern and likelihood in these cases just as you did with BA and Charles Cullen. If the victims were not so vulnerable to this kind of crime, there would be no difficulty at all convicting Letby IMO.
🥲
, which begs the question how NEC could be given as a cause of death when the first diagnostic tool used is the X-ray and it was totally clear. So it doesn't add up for Baby E and not only was they failed by LL once again the hospital too.
