Lucy Letby Case #7

[tennis ball michael]

I have finally caught up on the thread.
Some of my thoughts:

1. The tv show- some who was deliberately harming babies might be checking to see if another, more senior colleague (may have made that it up) if it referenced the cause of death for one of the babies you hurt to see if anyone else had picked up in the similarities.

2. Someone who could have deliberately harmed babies may not have done so in cold blood. Maybe they saw something in these vulnerable young babies that they just could not tolerate (or especially tolerate having these feelings themselves) and, for whatever reason, had to act out to stop it as it was unbearable. I bet they wouldnt really recognise them self as someone who could have harmed a baby and would probably be in deep denial about such things. They would probably (just a hypothesis) identify with being a kind and well qualified nurse who saved babies, not harmed them and be really invested in being that sort of person. That cognitive dissonance has got to drive you mad and be really really hard to manage. If someone how would do this was found guilty, I imagine there’s be a part of them that would be relieved, once they’d worked through their denial. Splitting off parts of yourself is really hard to keep up. It always leaches out some way or another.

 

[LittleMy]

Did she actually flat-out deny the FB searches or just say she couldn’t remember?

 

[pommobear]

Would you care about being embarrassed if you were being accused of murder though? I appreciate people think if she lied it's innocent but I personally don't.

I suspect she thought it made her look guilty - I mean it clearly does to many people judging by some of the responses on this thread! IMO it almost makes it less likely that she is guilty - if you were enough of a psychopath to murder innocent newborn babies then I can't see how you wouldn't have the nous to lie smoothly and simply say you were just checking the families were OK.

 

[tennis ball michael]

I bet there are some really powerful feelings going round in a neonatal ward- and that just from the babies.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

Was it Ted Bundy who repped himself in court and cross examined his victims?

Yup!! Poster boy for why pleading not guilty doesn't mean your not guilty!
Interestingly the "evidence" (that bite marks are the same as finger prints) that was going to send him to prison was total pseudo science and wouldn't stand up in court now!

 

[struggs123]

I don't mean this to sound rude or judgemental or whatever so apologies if it does, but unless you've worked in this environment I think it's hard to state really what's usual or unusual, what's 'weird' and what's not in terms of social media, messaging colleagues etc. It's also not an affront to bereaved parents to point out that recollections can vary for a variety of reasons and its not a slight on them or their character, for example. I've been present at many incidents where a parent will recall it differently than actually happened, not saying its the case here but unless people have experience of it it's a bit unfair to critics posters for questioning it.

 

[gmf21]

See I read your points and I get why you think how you do honestly but it feels to me like they've piled as many charges on her as possible in the hope the jury feel if there's this many charges and allegations she must of done it.

Can anyone with legal knowledge explain if the CPS can cherry pick charges or if they had to proceed with them all?

It worries me that if she’s guilty, some of the “better” evidence will be undermined by cases where the evidence is weaker and she will get away with them all, or vice versa that the sheer amount of charges will see an unsafe conviction because the jury will think there’s no smoke without fire.

There’s also the possibility that she’s guilty of some but not others isn’t there?

There’s no good outcome here - the “best” would seem to be if she’s guilty and changes her plea so that the families don’t have to go through six months of this, but even then so many people have had their loss compounded by the stress of a trial and the protracted proceedings.

 

[LittleMy]

Remarkable similarities
However BA was more about her need to be seen to savings babies. She would injure them them walk away and then 'find' them collapsed and 'rescue' them. Except many didn't survive

She even compromised her own health for attention at times.

 

[pommobear]

Yup!! Poster boy for why pleading not guilty doesn't mean your not guilty!
Interestingly the "evidence" (that bite marks are the same as finger prints) that was going to send him to prison was total pseudo science and wouldn't stand up in court now!

I don't think anyone has argued that pleading not guilty means you aren't guilty. I was merely pointing out that if the defence felt the evidence against her was overwhelming they would have advised her to plead guilty or gone for a diminished responsibility defence. The fact they didn't do that suggests to me that the evidence is woolly. But that doesn't mean she didn't do it.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

I'm really uncomfortable with all these professionals who are happy to admit they look up patients/their families on social media. I know you shouldnt share anything you dont want the world to know blah blah, but the thought that someone who's just seen someone in a very intimate situation then pops off to FB to check them out is very tacky. IMO

It comes across as very unprofessional to me and well just plain weird. If I found out the surgeon who removed my wisdom teeth started looking me up on social media afterwards I'd think he was a total freak tbh.

 

[LittleMy]

It comes across as very unprofessional to me and well just plain weird. If I found out the surgeon who removed my wisdom teeth started looking me up on social media afterwards I'd think he was a total freak tbh.

Yeah, if you found out definitely. People probably search you all the time and you don’t realise it.

 

[avabella]

Did she actually flat-out deny the FB searches or just say she couldn’t remember?

The part the prosecution has released of the interview says she couldn't remember, but accepted if the search was logged on her phone/computer then she must have.

I posted a good few pages back that it would be useful to have the full context of the interview. If she was asked about a very specific date and time then it would be reasonable of her to say she couldn't remember, as let's be honest, who could?

 

[MrsDimSum]

Did she actually flat-out deny the FB searches or just say she couldn’t remember?

Couldn’t remember

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

It wasn’t just ‘on shift’. She was on her own with them just minutes before they unexpectedly collapsed. Was the police officer on his own with those four people just before they died? If not I don’t think they are comparable.

I hate the false equivalences. They don't help and are just disingenuous.

 

[avabella]

Yeah, if you found out definitely. People probably search you all the time and you don’t realise it.

You've set that paranoia in good and proper!

 

[bluevanilla27]

It comes across as very unprofessional to me and well just plain weird. If I found out the surgeon who removed my wisdom teeth started looking me up on social media afterwards I'd think he was a total freak tbh.

That’s different, she looked after their poorly babies that she was caring for. Not pulled out a tooth, completely different job and emotions

 

[Former_Antelopee]

It comes across as very unprofessional to me and well just plain weird. If I found out the surgeon who removed my wisdom teeth started looking me up on social media afterwards I'd think he was a total freak tbh.

Tbh I think it’s a bit different, these cases the nurses probably had been caring for for a while and also in a situation where it could be life or death. So searching up on Facebook to see how they are doing after being that involved in their care isn’t as weird as if someone just removed your wisdom teeth and off you went.

 

[Tofino]

I sound like a broken record I know, but people seriously need to remember that a verdict of "not guilty" MUST be delivered if the evidence does not clearly show beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed by the defendant. Plenty of jurors who have delivered a not guilty verdict won't have been 100% sure that the defendant didn't do it, but you can't find someone guilty on that basis, it has to be not guilty. We all might have our own gut instincts and feelings but that's not what you base a verdict on.

I feel like many people have in this case made up their mind she was guilty before the trial even started and are now discounting any viewpoints which cast credible and reasonable doubt on that.

For me I don't see how you could possibly be convinced one way or the other at this point because we have heard almost none of the evidence.

and it’s been said more than once before that we are not on the jury and we are allowed to form a view based on what’s been heard so far. That’s the whole point of these threads so people can discuss it. Not a single person here is hearing all the evidence as we are not in court. None of us could make a decision either way. But we are not responsible for that anyway so it doesn’t matter.

Likewise could be said for those saying innocent, we have barely touched the surface so far. But people can lean towards innocent if they feel what they have heard is not strong enough. The beauty is we are human and have different perspectives and opinion. What someone thinks is reasonable another might not.

tbh it would be a pretty boring thread if we all agreed we must stick to innocent until proven guilty. May as well all go away and come back in six months.

 

[pommobear]

That’s different, she looked after their poorly babies that she was caring for. Not pulled out a tooth, completely different job and emotions

Yes but whatever the ethics of it, it does not prove she killed them.

and it’s been said more than once before that we are not on the jury and we are allowed to form a view based on what’s been heard so far. That’s the whole point of these threads so people can discuss it. Not a single person here is hearing all the evidence as we are not in court. None of us could make a decision either way. But we are not responsible for that anyway so it doesn’t matter.

Likewise could be said for those saying innocent, we have barely touched the surface so far. But people can lean towards innocent if they feel what they have heard is not strong enough. The beauty is we are human and have different perspectives and opinion. What someone thinks is reasonable another might not.

tbh it would be a pretty boring thread if we all agreed we must stick to innocent until proven guilty. May as well all go away and come back in six months.

I was largely referring to posters like the one who said she should be murdered in her cell.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

Just having a think about the whole denying the Facebook searches.
Does it mean that she’s agreed she had searched them since these are the agreed facts??
Gone back on her police interview? If so I don’t find that suspicious as I’m sure a police interview would scare you especially with what she’s being accused with. Later when she’s seen the evidence or just not being under interview pressure she could’ve remembered?

Probably more a case that despite her denying it it would have been obvious from her search history.