Merged Concerns over baby killer ignored? / Nurse Lucy Letby killed babies in her care

[Matthew Best]

Well go on - complete the point. And if they HADN’T investigated?

 

[angrysoba]

Answer in two parts...

Part 1. Investigations

a. No-one else caused deep concern among the doctors at the unit.
I am pretty sure that none of the doctors or other staff expressed concerns to the hospital administration about any other staff members. They only expressed concerns about Letby.

b. No-one else made Facebook searches of the grieving victims.
It would have been the easiest thing in the world for Police to have investigated the Social media posts of the other staff members. Do I know whether they did or not? No, I do not, but I cannot conceive of a scenario where Police knew about Letby's Facebook searches, and then didn't question other staff about their Social media activities, or conducted inquiries to at least find out if searching Facebook for grieving families of victims was common practice or not.

... the result of such investigations where Letby was the only person concerned about, and the only person doing these things on Social media lead to further investigations...

Facebook posts and Facebook searches are two different things.

The police could easily see public Facebook posts of anyone other than Letby, but only Letby's computer and house was searched because she had been arrested.

What you have repeatedly done is switched in and out "investigate" with "arrested and searched". I have said the latter has been done in Letby's case, because she was under suspicion, whereas it was not done to Letby's colleagues, so we don't know about their search history or whether they have medical documents in their home.

c. No-one else was found with notes of self-confession. and
d. No-one else had hundreds of related confidential medical documents in their possession.
While I don't know for sure if others were investigated to the extent Letby was, it stands to reason from a. and b. above that none of the other staff gave pause to the police to carry out searches of the places where they lived. Only Letby had acted suspiciously in those regards, and that gave Police sufficient cause to believe Letby was the only person involved, so she was scrutinized more closely.

... and all of this leads to....

Part 2. The Trial and the Defense.
If the Police HAD had investigated and found evidence of doctors or other staff members with concerns about other staff members, or found evidence of doctors and other staff members conducting Facebook searches of grieving families, then we would know about it. How? Because the Defense would also have known about it and they would most certainly have used that in court. The crown are required by law to provide that information to the defence under sections 3 and 7A of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.. This is a common law duty and a statutory requirement on the Crown to disclose all material evidence.

Similarly, if 1a. and 1b. above HAD yielded those kinds of result, leading to investigations of other staff members as outlined in 1c. and 1d., and searches had revealed other staff members were illegally in possession of confidential medical documents relating to the victims, and were found to have written confession notes, then that would also have been required by law to be handed over to the defense, used at trial, and therefore we would know about it.
‎
‎

This misses the point I was making.

It seems a lot of this stuff about Lucy Letby making Facebook searches and medical documents is that this is somehow extremely aberrant behaviour. Even if we agreed that it was unprofessional, the point I have made is that nurses apparently claim on reddit that they search the names of patients and even friend them on Facebook and elsewhere.

Is it professional or advisable? Almost certainly not, and many medical staff post to that effect in the reddit threads.

But I think you and others are just going by their intuitions about how nurses should behave in order to add to the "totality of evidence". I think it is not evidence of anything at all.

In fact, given that you were going on about LHO and saying that anyone questioning Letby's conviction are behaving like conspiracy theorists, I would say that it is YOU doing this.

Conspiracy theorists love to list all the anomalies and when pressed on one of them will jump to another piece of evidence.

Now, as far as I can see, the main contenders here are that:

a) Lucy Letby is a murderer.

OR

b) Nobody killed the babies; the cluster of deaths looked suspicious, and a narrative grew up around Lucy Letby being responsible based on circumstantial evidence.

I am completely agnostic about which it is.

 

[smartcooky]

Facebook posts and Facebook searches are two different things.

Yup, I know that, which is why I did not use them interchangeably!

The police could easily see public Facebook posts of anyone other than Letby, but only Letby's computer and house was searched because she had been arrested.

You know that you don't have to arrest someone to get a search warrant to search their computer... right?

What you have repeatedly done is switched in and out "investigate" with "arrested and searched". I have said the latter has been done in Letby's case, because she was under suspicion, whereas it was not done to Letby's colleagues, so we don't know about their search history or whether they have medical documents in their home.

You know that you don't have to arrest someone to investigate them, and that investigating someone doesn't mean they have been arrested... right?

In any case, I have used "investigate" when I meant investigate, and "arrest" when I meant arrest. It is you who seems to keep getting them confused.

This misses the point I was making.

Oh, you were making a point?

It seems a lot of this stuff about Lucy Letby making Facebook searches and medical documents is that this is somehow extremely aberrant behaviour.

Stalking the grieving parents of deceased babies that the SHE was involved in treating IS totally aberrant behaviour and downright creepy. Its the sort of behaviour that we would usually expect of a sociopath.

Keeping hundreds of personal, confidential documents directly relating to the victim babies is aberrant, bordering on obsessive. Its the sort of behaviour we expect from serial killers, i.e. collecting trophies.

Even if we agreed that it was unprofessional, the point I have made is that nurses apparently claim on reddit that they search the names of patients and even friend them on Facebook and elsewhere

Is it professional or advisable? Almost certainly not, and many medical staff post to that effect in the reddit threads.

But I think you and others are just going by their intuitions about how nurses should behave in order to add to the "totality of evidence". I think it is not evidence of anything at all.

Oh, you're using Reddit as source to support your claims?

In fact, given that you were going on about LHO and saying that anyone questioning Letby's conviction are behaving like conspiracy theorists, I would say that it is YOU doing this.

That is a complete and deliberate mischaracterization of what I said... ..but no worries, its no more or less that what I have come to expect.

For the record, this is what I ACTUALLY said...

Some are arguing "She must be innocent because the statistics are misleading", or "She must be innocent because there could be other reasons for those babies' collapses", or "She must be innocent because the notes she wrote might not mean what they say", or "She must be innocent because the hundreds of confidential documents found in her house don't mean anything", or "She must be innocent because her Facebook searches of the grieving families don't mean anything".

This is conspiracy theorist type reasoning. Its the sort of stuff we see daily in claims against LHO being the lone gunman in the JFK assassination, or the claims that the Apollo moon landings never happened. They pick on one or two things that don't look right and regard them as some kind of smoking gun evidence that will bring the whole edifice crashing down. In reality, things don't work that way. The totality of the evidence needs to be taken into account... so its the statistics PLUS the way the babies collapsed and died PLUS the post-it notes PLUS the illegal possession of confidential medical documents PLUS the Facebook searches PLUS the deep concern of the doctors at the unit, and the many other aspects of her behaviour.​

Try reading for context next time!

Now, as far as I can see, the main contenders here are that:

a) Lucy Letby is a murderer.

OR

b) Nobody killed the babies; the cluster of deaths looked suspicious, and a narrative grew up around Lucy Letby being responsible based on circumstantial evidence.

I am completely agnostic about which it is.

I am 100% sure its a).
Two juries also agreed its a)

 

[smartcooky]

Well go on - complete the point. And if they HADN’T investigated?

Go back and read the whole post and you will see that point was already addressed.

 

[angrysoba]

In fact, given that you were going on about LHO and saying that anyone questioning Letby's conviction are behaving like conspiracy theorists, I would say that it is YOU doing this.

That is a complete and deliberate mischaracterization of what I said... ..but no worries, its no more or less that what I have come to expect.

Not remotely a "complete and deliberate mischaracterization of what you said at all."

In fact, it is a bold move of yours to then quote yourself doing exactly what I said you did...

For the record, this is what I ACTUALLY said...

Some are arguing "She must be innocent because the statistics are misleading", or "She must be innocent because there could be other reasons for those babies' collapses", or "She must be innocent because the notes she wrote might not mean what they say", or "She must be innocent because the hundreds of confidential documents found in her house don't mean anything", or "She must be innocent because her Facebook searches of the grieving families don't mean anything".

This is conspiracy theorist type reasoning. Its the sort of stuff we see daily in claims against LHO being the lone gunman in the JFK assassination, or the claims that the Apollo moon landings never happened. They pick on one or two things that don't look right and regard them as some kind of smoking gun evidence that will bring the whole edifice crashing down. In reality, things don't work that way. The totality of the evidence needs to be taken into account... so its the statistics PLUS the way the babies collapsed and died PLUS the post-it notes PLUS the illegal possession of confidential medical documents PLUS the Facebook searches PLUS the deep concern of the doctors at the unit, and the many other aspects of her behaviour.​

...but no worries, its no more or less the level of bluster and self-contradiction I have come to expect.


Besides, this bit, that you have bolded as if this is your real claim and the other parts I picked up on were only supposed to be window-dressing and not taken seriously, is also a wilful and deliberate mischaracterization by you...

They pick on one or two things that don't look right and regard them as some kind of smoking gun evidence that will bring the whole edifice crashing down.

Maybe it is you who needs to learn to read from context.

It is clear that EACH aspect of the case is dubious: the statistics, the confidence with which people are diagnosing in hind-sight, the Facebook searches, the medical records on top of the fact that the conditions in the hospital were apparently pretty awful.

 

[angrysoba]

I am 100% sure its a).
Two juries also agreed its a)

That's great. You are 100% sure that she murdered the babies.

Fantastic news, because Dr Phil Hammond of the Private Eye is looking for someone like you to explain to him how the deaths can be considered murder.

I will likely be writing about the Letby trial for some time, but need to do it in a balanced way. I don’t want to make the same mistake as the trial and only hear experts from one side. However, I have exhausted my expert contacts in neonatology, pathology and other laboratory sciences, and can’t find a single one who is prepared to argue that any of the murders were proven beyond reasonable doubt. I have extensive email correspondence with one of the consultant paediatricians who worked on the unit and is convinced that Letby is guilty, but he is not an expert in any of the rare and varied methods of murder she has been convicted of using.

The experts I have consulted are united in their doubt that a a baby could be killed by injecting air into the stomach to compress the lungs. They say air goes into the stomach every time a bag and mask is used in resuscitation, and it doesn’t kill the baby. Is there an expert out there who can tell me how air in the stomach can compress the lungs to cause death, how much air you would need to inject into the nasogastric tube and how long it would take, because you would need to be undetected?

As regards air embolism, the experts I have consulted say that this can be a coincidental finding after death. Deliberate injection of air can also lead to embolism and death but any ante-mortem air embolism in these babies was far more likely caused by prolonged resuscitation, high-pressure ventilation or faulty line management in a struggling, understaffed unit. There are published papers to back up these causes.
Finally, my expert on insulin says that the definitive test to prove insulin was given was not done. And if the clinical picture of insulin overdose was so obvious at the time, with massive doses of dextrose and glucagon needed to resuscitate the babies, why wasn’t it suspected at the time so the correct test could’ve been done, rather than eight months later in a note trawl?

So I need experts to put the counter view and to argue that the causes of death within their area of expertise were more likely murder beyond reasonable doubt rather than the natural causes that the highly experienced pathologists at the time deemed the deaths to be caused by.
When making these assertions, please give your expert credentials and any sources of evidence you are using. You can DM me, I will email back the copy to you for fact checking and you do not need to be named.

Link

Apparently you can just send a DM to tell the good doctor why you are 100% sure that it was murder beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[smartcooky]

That's great. You are 100% sure that she murdered the babies.

Fantastic news, because Dr Phil Hammond of the Private Eye is looking for someone like you to explain to him how the deaths can be considered murder.



Link

Dr Phil Hammond is a specialist in sexual health and paediatric chronic fatigue, but he is NOT, repeat NOT an expert or a specialist in the paediatics of premature births. He did not work with Letby or deal with premature babies on a daily basis (unlike the doctors at the unit who did both).

He also did not testify at the trial. His opinions are at odds with those of his colleagues who DID testify at the trial and those doctors ARE experts in the paediatrics of premature births.

One of those was Dr Dewi Evans

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g3z2z886eo

The support received by convicted baby murderer Lucy Letby has been "rather surprising", according to the chief prosecution witness in her trial.
Dr Dewi Evans said some of Letby's supporters had refused to believe the evidence against her and had reported him to the General Medical Council (GMC).

Dr Evans, a retired paediatrician from Carmarthen who was the lead medical expert in the case, said he was shocked but not too surprised to hear about the complaints against him. He told Radio 4's Today programme that "back in the day" it was "not uncommon" for supporters of abusers to intimidate doctors by complaining to the GMC.

"This occurred quite a lot in the '80s and '90s, but to occur now is rather surprising," he said. Some of those that believe Letby is innocent have targeted Dr Evans online.

Dr Evans added he believed Letby got away with her crimes, aside from the "incompetence of general managers", because she "hid in plain sight". "She superficially appeared as a fairly normal person, and this is essential for anyone who commits a crime hiding in plain sight. "It happened with Harold Shipman, it happened with Jimmy Savile, it is crucial to their getting away with it that they appear normal."​

Apparently you can just send a DM to tell the good doctor why you are 100% sure that it was murder beyond reasonable doubt.

Maybe YOU should DM Dr Hammond and tell him to contact his colleague Dr Evans, who will explain it all to him!

 

[smartcooky]

Not remotely a "complete and deliberate mischaracterization of what you said at all."

In fact, it is a bold move of yours to then quote yourself doing exactly what I said you did...



...but no worries, its no more or less the level of bluster and self-contradiction I have come to expect.


Besides, this bit, that you have bolded as if this is your real claim and the other parts I picked up on were only supposed to be window-dressing and not taken seriously, is also a wilful and deliberate mischaracterization by you...

Again, ******* well learn to read for context! I'm sure you're smart enough to work it out, if you try hard enough.

It is clear that EACH aspect of the case is dubious: the statistics, the confidence with which people are diagnosing in hind-sight, the Facebook searches, the medical records on top of the fact that the conditions in the hospital were apparently pretty awful.

On the contrary, I find the evidence extremely compelling... so did the police, the prosecutors, the judge and the 24 jurors who actually HEARD and considered all of the evidence.

I find Letby's confession notes compelling and freakish
I find the fact that she had illegally possessed confidential medical records relating to the victim babies compelling - trophies for a serial baby killer
I find the Facebook stalking compelling - normal people don't do that kind of sociopathic stuff.

Perhaps you have such difficulty in accepting that that a young, fresh faced, female nurse might be such an evil person, capable of murdering babies, that you simply cannot bring yourself to believe it, and you have to find a way to handwave away anything that might make you believe.

After reading about people like Kristen Gilbert, Reta Phyllis Mays and Genene Jones, and after following this case and the trial for several years, I have absolutely no trouble accepting the facts, that Letby murdered those babies for which she was charged, and probably murdered more.

 

[angrysoba]

Dr Phil Hammond is a specialist in sexual health and paediatric chronic fatigue, but he is NOT, repeat NOT an expert or a specialist in the paediatics of premature births. He did not work with Letby or deal with premature babies on a daily basis (unlike the doctors at the unit who did both).

NEITHER DID YOU, repeat NEITHER DID YOU, nor did you, neither have you, and the same goes for the juries.

But your point is idiotic because he doesn't claim expertise. Instead he has been speaking TO the experts.

Try reading for comprehension next time.

He also did not testify at the trial. His opinions are at odds with those of his colleagues who DID testify at the trial and those doctors ARE experts in the paediatrics of premature births.

Well, here we go with an expert opinion:

I planned to ask for an independent opinion from a very senior practicing neonatologist he and I both knew, and [the consultant] agreed she would give a fair and balanced opinion. This is it ..."

"I have only seen the prosecution's summarising opening statement. I've not been privy to the details of the evidence. But what I've read troubles me deeply. The cases all have much more plausible alternative explanations that those alleged. Yet the defence appears not to have made many of these obvious points. Many of the prosecution's comments are medically illiterate and so too many of the `expert' witness comments. Why weren't these challenged? Why didn't the defence have better medical advice or -- as [Prof] Mike Hall is experienced and credible -- why didn't they use the advice they were given to better effect? On the basis of what I've seen, this conviction is wholly unsafe. It totally shakes my faith in the competence of the law."​

One of those was Dr Dewi Evans

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g3z2z886eo

The support received by convicted baby murderer Lucy Letby has been "rather surprising", according to the chief prosecution witness in her trial.
Dr Dewi Evans said some of Letby's supporters had refused to believe the evidence against her and had reported him to the General Medical Council (GMC).

Dr Evans, a retired paediatrician from Carmarthen who was the lead medical expert in the case, said he was shocked but not too surprised to hear about the complaints against him. He told Radio 4's Today programme that "back in the day" it was "not uncommon" for supporters of abusers to intimidate doctors by complaining to the GMC.

"This occurred quite a lot in the '80s and '90s, but to occur now is rather surprising," he said. Some of those that believe Letby is innocent have targeted Dr Evans online.

Dr Evans added he believed Letby got away with her crimes, aside from the "incompetence of general managers", because she "hid in plain sight". "She superficially appeared as a fairly normal person, and this is essential for anyone who commits a crime hiding in plain sight. "It happened with Harold Shipman, it happened with Jimmy Savile, it is crucial to their getting away with it that they appear normal."​

Yeah, Jimmy Saville really came across as a superficially normal person.

Maybe YOU should DM Dr Hammond and tell him to contact his colleague Dr Evans, who will explain it all to him!

We of course know that Dr Shoo Lee who wrote the paper that Evans relied on disagrees with Evans's understanding of his paper.

That said, I have done what you suggested and DM'd Hammond your suggestion, although I first stripped out the snooty and high-handed tone from your suggestion.

 

[angrysoba]

Again, ******* well learn to read for context! I'm sure your[sic] smart enought [sic] to work it out, if you try hard enough [sic]

The irony of telling me to read properly when you can't even write properly!

 

[angrysoba]

Perhaps you have such difficulty in accepting that that a young, fresh faced, female nurse might be such an evil person, capable of murdering babies, that you simply cannot bring yourself to believe it, and you have to find a way to handwave away anything that might make you believe.

Nope. I have given you my reasons. I would tell you to feel free to ignore my reaons and poison the well, anyhow, but you need no encouragement from me to keep doing what you're doing.

 

[Vixen]

NEITHER DID YOU, repeat NEITHER DID YOU, nor did you, neither have you, and the same goes for the juries.

But your point is idiotic because he doesn't claim expertise. Instead he has been speaking TO the experts.

Try reading for comprehension next time.



Well, here we go with an expert opinion:





Yeah, Jimmy Saville really came across as a superficially normal person.



We of course know that Dr Shoo Lee who wrote the paper that Evans relied on disagrees with Evans's understanding of his paper.

That said, I have done what you suggested and DM'd Hammond your suggestion, although I first stripped out the snooty and high-handed tone from your suggestion.

...says Dr Philip Hammond and Dr Shoo Lee defending Letby fromt heir armchairs. It is well known that trying a case 'on paper' is deeply inferior to a proper hearing in a court of law that weighs up the merits of the case. The merits are arguments and evidence presented from every possible side.

Ask yourself why the police and the CPS were so confident of their charges that they went for MURDER and ATTEMPTED MURDER rather than the lesser charges (and thus a much greater chance of securing a conviction from a sceptical jury, including people such as yourself) of Gross Professional Negligence Manslaughter (as a professional nurse) or even just Manslaughter or even Assault.

Remember, the criteria for a jury to come to a guilty verdict is not 'absolute certainty' - because such crimes are always carried out in great stealth and secrecy - but just 'more likely than not', after hearing ALL of the evidence BEFORE coming to a conclusion that has to be unanimous amongst twelve random people drawn from the population or, if directed by a judge, a majority decision of 9 to 11 if they cannot come to an agreement after lengthy deliberations. Imagine you are one of the two who disagree in some of the charges, do you accept that you are outweighted by the majority of your peers?

That is how Criminal Law works.

 

[smartcooky]

NEITHER DID YOU, repeat NEITHER DID YOU, nor did you, neither have you, and the same goes for the juries.

But your point is idiotic because he doesn't claim expertise. Instead he has been speaking TO the experts.

Try reading for comprehension next time.



Well, here we go with an expert opinion:





Yeah, Jimmy Saville really came across as a superficially normal person.



We of course know that Dr Shoo Lee who wrote the paper that Evans relied on disagrees with Evans's understanding of his paper.

That said, I have done what you suggested and DM'd Hammond your suggestion, although I first stripped out the snooty and high-handed tone from your suggestion.

I get it. You've got your panties in a bunch because I found a more qualified medical expert than yours. Well Boo Hoo!

There is no point in debating further with you. It will just waste time for both of us.

 

[smartcooky]

...says Dr Philip Hammond and Dr Shoo Lee defending Letby fromt heir armchairs. It is well known that trying a case 'on paper' is deeply inferior to a proper hearing in a court of law that weighs up the merits of the case. The merits are arguments and evidence presented from every possible side.

Ask yourself why the police and the CPS were so confident of their charges that they went for MURDER and ATTEMPTED MURDER rather than the lesser charges (and thus a much greater chance of securing a conviction from a sceptical jury, including people such as yourself) of Gross Professional Negligence Manslaughter (as a professional nurse) or even just Manslaughter or even Assault.

Remember, the criteria for a jury to come to a guilty verdict is not 'absolute certainty' - because such crimes are always carried out in great stealth and secrecy - but just 'more likely than not', after hearing ALL of the evidence BEFORE coming to a conclusion that has to be unanimous amongst twelve random people drawn from the population or, if directed by a judge, a majority decision of 9 to 11 if they cannot come to an agreement after lengthy deliberations. Imagine you are one of the two who disagree in some of the charges, do you accept that you are outweighted by the majority of your peers?

That is how Criminal Law works.

Just a technical note, in criminal law is BRD (Beyond Reasonable Doubt) not BOP (Balance of Probabilities.

12 jurors came to a guilty verdict BRD on some of the charges, and in the retrial, another 12 jurors came to a guilty verdict - in both cases with not holdouts that would have required direction from the judge to try to return with a majority verdict.

 

[Vixen]

Just a technical note, in criminal law is BRD (Beyond Reasonable Doubt) not BOP (Balance of Probabilities.

12 jurors came to a guilty verdict BRD on some of the charges, and in the retrial, another 12 jurors came to a guilty verdict - in both cases with not holdouts that would have required direction from the judge to try to return with a majority verdict.

It has changed in recent times from 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to 'more likely than not' (my words - I forget the term the judge used).

ETA: Here we are:

"The term has been supplanted in the UK
What used to be called "beyond reasonable doubt" has been replaced with an instruction that the jury must "be satisfied so that they are sure before they can convict." However, "No particular form of words is essential."16 Jan 2024

What status does the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt ..."

Law Stack Exchange
https://law.stackexchange.com › questions › what-status...

 

[angrysoba]

I get it. You've got your panties in a bunch because I found a more qualified medical expert than yours. Well Boo Hoo!

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/oe3wygme2kv12ftzx302u/Floyd-Chauvin-Violin.gif?rlkey=zhrqtgiy33cgyxe6bhjrj4yhx&raw=1[/qimg]

There is no point in debating further with you. It will just waste time for both of us.

Sadly this is true because your entire approach to the legal system appears to be one of juvenile point-scoring.

 

[smartcooky]

Sadly this is true because your entire approach to the legal system appears to be one of juvenile point-scoring.

Its not a matter of points-scoring. It is the fact that you and me are poles apart when it comes to facts and evidence.

You seem to find nothing at all abnormal about someone confessing to murders multiple times on post-it notes and scraps of paper.
I find it extremely disturbing... and terrifying when that person is a nurse charged with the care of children and babies.

You seem to think that a nurse on a unit where a dozen babies collapsed, and half of them died, illegally having in her possession confidential medical documents relating to those very same babies, to be just a case of business as usual... nothing to see here folks.
I find it highly abnormal - collecting items related to dead victims is a very troubling behaviour.

You seem to think that using Social Media (Facebook) to stalk the grieving families of victim babies to be perfectly normal behaviour.
I find it extremely creepy behaviour.

We are poles apart on this. You are firmly entrenched in your view that Letby's behaviour in these regards is perfectly normal.
I am steadfast in my view that this behaviour is aberrant and sociopathic, that the notes evince a guilty mind, that the stalking was her way of extending and reliving the killings, and that the medical documents are the trophies of a serial killer.

THESE are the reasons why further debate with you is pointless!

 

[angrysoba]

Its not a matter of points-scoring. It is the fact that you and me are poles apart when it comes to facts and evidence.

You seem to find nothing at all abnormal about someone confessing to murders multiple times on post-it notes and scraps of paper.
I find it extremely disturbing... and terrifying when that person is a nurse charged with the care of children and babies.

You seem to think that a nurse on a unit where a dozen babies collapsed, and half of them died, illegally having in her possession confidential medical documents relating to those very same babies, to be just a case of business as usual... nothing to see here folks.
I find it highly abnormal - collecting items related to dead victims is a very troubling behaviour.

You seem to think that using Social Media (Facebook) to stalk the grieving families of victim babies to be perfectly normal behaviour.
I find it extremely creepy behaviour.

We are poles apart on this. You are firmly entrenched in your view that Letby's behaviour in these regards is perfectly normal.
I am steadfast in my view that this behaviour is aberrant and sociopathic, that the notes evince a guilty mind, that the stalking was her way of extending and reliving the killings, and that the medical documents are the trophies of a serial killer.

THESE are the reasons why further debate with you is pointless!

I think that that behaviour is both consistent with someone who is guilty and also with someone who feels guilty.

Therefore the medical evidence is necessary for determining which is which.

 

[Planigale]

Its not a matter of points-scoring. It is the fact that you and me are poles apart when it comes to facts and evidence.

You seem to find nothing at all abnormal about someone confessing to murders multiple times on post-it notes and scraps of paper.
I find it extremely disturbing... and terrifying when that person is a nurse charged with the care of children and babies.

You seem to think that a nurse on a unit where a dozen babies collapsed, and half of them died, illegally having in her possession confidential medical documents relating to those very same babies, to be just a case of business as usual... nothing to see here folks.
I find it highly abnormal - collecting items related to dead victims is a very troubling behaviour.

You seem to think that using Social Media (Facebook) to stalk the grieving families of victim babies to be perfectly normal behaviour.
I find it extremely creepy behaviour.

We are poles apart on this. You are firmly entrenched in your view that Letby's behaviour in these regards is perfectly normal.
I am steadfast in my view that this behaviour is aberrant and sociopathic, that the notes evince a guilty mind, that the stalking was her way of extending and reliving the killings, and that the medical documents are the trophies of a serial killer.

THESE are the reasons why further debate with you is pointless!

Feelings of guilt are common in healthcare workers when a patient dies. It is not uncommon to feel that you may have killed them (sometimes doctors do (unintentionally) kill patients with the best of intentions). What seems to be taken seriously are the few times she wrote she was guilty and ignored those times she wrote she wasn't. If you are going to give weight to her doodling then equal weight needs to be given to all. False confessions are common.

Having medical records in ones possession is not uncommon for health care staff. Although 'illegal' you may take them home by accident (surprisingly easy), or because you want to review them. Again you assume that this is unusual behaviour, with no evidence that it is.

Finally you assume a motive, with no evidence that this was the motive. No psychological or psychiatric evidence was given to say that the killing of babies in itself was the intent. The limited psychological evidence I have seen suggests this was thrill seeking behaviour with deaths a consequence but not the intent. (Unlike many other health care associated multiple murder cases where 'ending suffering' or 'reducing workload' was the cause and deaths a deliberate intent.)

Whilst I am sure Letby caused some or all of the deaths, I don't think that her doodles on post it notes or having records at home are particularly pathological in the given circumstances and certainly not evidence of guilt.

 

[Planigale]

It has changed in recent times from 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to 'more likely than not' (my words - I forget the term the judge used).

ETA: Here we are:

"The term has been supplanted in the UK
What used to be called "beyond reasonable doubt" has been replaced with an instruction that the jury must "be satisfied so that they are sure before they can convict." However, "No particular form of words is essential."16 Jan 2024

What status does the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt ..."

Law Stack Exchange
https://law.stackexchange.com › questions › what-status...

To support Vixen (which I rarely do, but sometimes she is correct).

It is the legal standard of proof required to find a defendant guilty in a British criminal trial but now judges have been told to drop the phrase 'beyond reasonable doubt' over concerns that jurors do not understand it.

Instead, official guidance for the judiciary is to tell jurors that they must be 'satisfied so that they are sure' a defendant is guilty before they can convict them.

The move follows concerns that many of those called to do jury service do not understand how certain they must be to convict, thus risking miscarriages of justice. Last night, the Judicial Office said: 'Judges may adapt their language to avoid difficulties some juries have with the phrase 'reasonable doubt'.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...nable-doubt-jurors-dont-understand-means.html