Dr Richard Taylor's evidence, available online, about Baby O is devastating. Best because he doesn't claim to know more than he's read. He simply states fact and gives opinion. Shocking. And what is horrifying, like the Andrew Malkinson case, is how it illustrates how wrong the system can get it, especially when encouraged by unbalanced media or police coverage. Not that you can blame any of them when a DPP instructs police to tell people "you will be believed even if you are lying".

What kind of fool writes down the words - "I AM EVIL I DID THIS, I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough, I don't deserve to live, I am an awful person" on a green post-it note in their own handwriting, if they didn't do that and all because some whacko therapist decides you should unburden yourself and write such things to yourself even if they are patently untrue. If you are genuinely innocent then what a dangerously stupid thing to go and do if there are many deaths taking place on wards you monitor.

Everyone just ask yourself, would you be persuaded to write such thoughts down about yourself if you had not done anything? I would never do that, no matter what a therapist said. Is this even the kind of behaviour therapists normally encourage?

This all comes back to something I mentioned elsewhere a few days back, only ugly people commit crimes do they? Because if all the facts of the matter were exactly the same except the nurse wasn't a reasonable looking young white woman, but was a balding unattractive middle aged white or black male nurse, would they be getting the same attention as Letby, who some people are just looking at and judging on her looks as somebody who couldn't possibly have harmed and murdered these infants.

Why couldn't she?

I find it absolutely possible that someone driven almost mad by false allegations writes stuff like that. In fact I would find it much more peculiar if a person who was guilty did that. Not just foolishness but insanity.

So you think Letby is insane?

Isn't she supposed to have written those damning words BEFORE any accusations/allegations were made against her, not after.

It's also very suspicious that she was trying to find a lot of personal facts about the parents of these infants off the internet through facebook and other social media.

If they have convicted an innocent woman, where no crime has even been committed, then I'm afraid I think the system is going to be very reluctant to admit this easily considering the number of "victims", their very young ages and the sensitivity to the parents who will likely refuse to believe there was never a crime in the first place after all this.

Even if she is completely exonerated and declared innocent, Letby will still have a whole life sentence hanging over her. The mud in this case will stick thick and very firm indeed to her, even in innocence.

Have to say I agree with JK Rich. You are pre supposing a healthy state of mind, and evidence of an unhealthy state of mind should lead to no one presuming guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

No I have no idea whether Letby is sane, mad or whatever. I think she WAS accused, or at least suspected, long before she wrote those things but the very fact that she was in therapy and distressed by the amount of deaths would cause incredible anguish. I became convinced in 2000 I HAD done the things I was accused of and simply, like in a Hitchcock movie, chosen to erase them from my mind until I came across a clear and obvious lie and then, like a house of cards, the tower collapsed and I saw the truth. But I had to go through that to see it.

If you have watched the short video of Dr Taylor's evidence (and if you haven't you should not be adding to this thread about it) you should be wondering.

I have to say I'm more with Rich on this. I don't know enough about this case to comment much. But people seem obsessed with it. Just a very good job Letby doesn't look like Harold Shipman. I doubt anyone would be on her side.

If you have been read the very long and detailed New Yorker article that was the first to question the reliability of Lucy Letby's conviction (mainly because of the very strict reporting restrictions here in the uk) and the special reports by MD (Dr Phil Hammond) in Private Eye which have subjected the evidence used to convict Lucy Letby to a very detailed and thorough analysis over the last couple of months you might very well be questioning the validity of her conviction yourself! MD has stated that he does not 'know' whether Lucy Letby is innocent. In fact after the guilty verdict was served he accepted the verdict of the court as did many others. Subsequently he was contacted by a number of experts in their particular field,who believe that the statistics and science used to convict Letby was incomplete and flawed. While MD has stated that he does not know whether Lucy Letby is innocent or not,it is pretty obvious from his ongoing analysis of the evidence and various communications exchanged between him and various experts and people qualified in neonatal care over the last couple of months which trajectory his line of opinion is moving in! I suggest reading the New Yorker article which can be found on the internet,although you probably won't find it at the New Yorker,but it can be found! Just put 'New Yorker article Lucy Letby' into the search engine. MD's reports in Private Eye can be downloaded from their website as pdf's for free. You don't have to subscribe or be a subscriber! (So you won't have to end up cancelling your subscription!) Read those first....then after you have digested it all,decide whether you still think Lucy Letby is guilty (or not!) Great website by the way JK!

Downing Street Cat wrote:
I have to say I'm more with Rich on this. I don't know enough about this case to comment much. But people seem obsessed with it. Just a very good job Letby doesn't look like Harold Shipman. I doubt anyone would be on her side.


PRECISELY THIS!

I think she is guilty. ITV thought Harold Shipman was worth their time for World In Action. He was starting his killing spree when this was filmed and aired.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but I think it should be an informed opinion. I have no idea of her (or most others') innocence or guilt. I just know the system is broken and most people find it easier to believe whatever media tells them.