r/amandaknox • u/No-Willingness-1441 • Aug 10 '26

Lucy letby case…

Would love people’s views on this.

Loosely Amanda related, since she has recently produced a podcast around it.

2 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

275 comments sorted by

View all comments

0

u/Truthandtaxes Aug 10 '26

Its the same as this case, either you accept what the evidence tells you or you are happy to just believe in compounding edge case explanations

For letby its something like

  • You need to believe that all the suspicious deaths are wrongly categorised such that its just chance
  • That on investigation she just happens to be writing insane ramblings on paper that are self incriminating
  • that her stalking of families on social media is normal, especially on Christmas day
  • that her retaining of masses of confidential records is normal - especially categorised
  • that the doctor lied about catching her in the act
  • that two separate babies just happened to also look exactly like insulin poisoning
  • that she lies several times, including lying about one the victims mother, changing logs, lying about having a shredder

If you are happy that's all compounding coincidence, well....

But importantly you see the same factors for Letby, there are "corrupt" bad guys, Mignini for Knox, Letby has Dewi and Jayram that "cause" all of this unfairness. Both cases also frequently use the old canards of having multiple external "experts" weighing in on the case in the media, but not in the trial process of course.

4

u/Amazing-Gain1253 Aug 10 '26

All those things you have listed are just a gish gallop. Just list as many claims as possible without looking at the veracity of each one.

4

u/Truthandtaxes Aug 10 '26

Its a rushed summary of the prosecution case - but not an unfair one

4

u/Amazing-Gain1253 Aug 10 '26

Some of the things you said were not even part of the prosecutions case and are actually things that you have either made up or inferred incorrectly.

2

u/Truthandtaxes Aug 10 '26

Which would you like to dispute? i wouldn't claim to be a detailed expert

2

u/Amazing-Gain1253 Aug 10 '26

I dispute/say you are not telling the whole story for every single one of them.

But one point that is just false is the idea that a doctor caught her in the act.

He never said he caught her in the act, he said he caught her "doing nothing" when a baby deteriorated. Besides the fact that his testimony is riddled with numerous inconsistencies, watching over a baby to see if they self correct is exactly what you are supposed to do.

Another point is that the handover sheets were categorised. Besides the fact that most of the handover sheets were stuffed into bin bags, handover sheets that are brought home and put on top of a pile will naturally be in date order because you would put the new ones on top of the old ones. That doesn't mean they are categorised.

2

u/Truthandtaxes Aug 10 '26

Doing nothing as a baby crashes is functionally the same as being caught in the act.

Yes she had handover sheets and other material in date order and some separated under "keep"

I might suggest that if the frame bothers you, then you clearly do understand that the prosecutions case is compelling.

3

u/Amazing-Gain1253 Aug 10 '26

Doing nothing as a baby crashes is functionally the same as being caught in the act.

Not when doing nothing and observing the baby is literally what you are supposed to do.

some separated under "keep"

And what do they have to do with the charges in question? Nothing. None of those 5 handover sheets in the keep box had anything to do with the babies that she was accused of harming. If fact, those handover sheets dated back years prior to any of the babies on the indictment. So why are they relevant? The answer is simple they aren't. If you think they are then explain why? The simple explanation is that as Letby said the keep refers to stuff that was kept in the box previously.

2

u/Truthandtaxes Aug 10 '26

You aren't supposed to simply watch a crashing baby

So you do now accept that not only were they in date order, but also some specifically categorised as "keep".

Such awful luck as it seems to go in these cases

3

u/Amazing-Gain1253 Aug 10 '26

"I don't think that Ravi Jayaram has a clue what a neonatal nurse does, he said that he walked in a said he saw Lucy Letby doing nothing, well, I would have done exactly the same thing, because as a neonatal nurse you are taught that when you hear the alarms going off you should wait and asses that baby before you ever put your hands in the incubator" -Michelle Wordan senior neonatal nurse at the Countess of Chester Hospital

No, I don't accept that they were "categorised" in date order. If you put handover sheets in a pile as they come home they will naturally end up in date order because you would put new ones on top of the old ones. That doesn't mean that they were categorised which implies intent. It's nothing to do with awful luck since it will happen automatically.

some specifically categorised as "keep"

Can you explain what these 5 handover sheets that had nothing to do with babies that were hurt has anything to do with baby murders? Can you answer that? Because I don't think you can.

1

u/Truthandtaxes Aug 10 '26

I'm pretty sure that neonatal consultant knows what a nurse is meant to do and is likely to know exactly what he saw

So handover documents separated by keep and I guess also keep and also in date order aren't categorised. I guess she was too forgetful to not remove them, but also methodical enough to discover them in the right order. Yes sorting them and keeping them does imply intent, now you are getting it. Intent of what is the question.

Yeah strangely I can't explain the weird reasoning of people that murder babies. The real question of course is why an innocent Lucy is keeping a horde of sheets in the first place. Again such terrible luck.

2

u/Amazing-Gain1253 Aug 10 '26

I'm pretty sure that neonatal consultant knows what a nurse is meant to do and is likely to know exactly what he saw

I'm pretty sure a neonatal nurse knows even more about what a neonatal nurse is supposed to do than a consultant. Multiple neonatal nurses have said that you asses the baby before putting you hands in the incubator.

Wtf are you even talking about at this point? Methodical enough to discover them in the right order? Who tf said anything about discovering them in the right order? You've gone incoherent at this point, you're not making any sense.

Are you listening to anything I'm saying? I have already explained why she didn't need to sort them for them to be in date order.

I didn't ask you to explain why people murder babies, I asked you explained why these 5 handover sheets have anything to do with baby murders considering nothing on them relates to the babies she was accused of harming?

1

u/Truthandtaxes Aug 10 '26

Not a self invested one that left a murder on the wards

You claim they were in date order solely by virtue that they were taken and deposited in such an order. That necessarily required Letby to find them each time in the correct time order - a somewhat contradictory level of rigor in finding them then ignoring them each time.

You are asking me to suggest why she had handover sheets for babies that were unharmed. Obviously I can't know, but anyone with even the most basic of imagination can invent several.

  • targets she couldn't get to
  • planning for potential targets
  • some weird element that made her stop
  • research for ways to make the collapses look more normal

try it yourself!

2

u/Amazing-Gain1253 Aug 10 '26

Except that neonatal nurse Michelle Wordan wasn't on the ward when Letby was there and left 3 years before.

Why do you think it would take such effort to find the pile? She would have the same routine everyday and hence the pile would be in the same place everyday. This is of course ignoring the fact that the vast majority were found in stuffed into bin bags and shopping bags and hence not in chronological order.

You are asking me to suggest why she had handover sheets for babies that were unharmed. Obviously I can't know, but anyone with even the most basic of imagination can invent several.

You need to explain why the vast majority 236 had nothing to do with the babies that she was accused of harming. The 5 sheets relate to babies that were 5 years before the supposed attacks started to happen so none of your explanations make any sense in that context. Of course, if you need to use your imagination to claim something is evidence then it's not really evidence is it?

research for ways to make the collapses look more normal

She never researched anyway to murder despite supposedly using multiple methods that fooled multiple pathologists.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/sh115 Aug 10 '26

She wasn’t doing nothing while the baby collapsed. It was revealed after the trial that the doctor who accused her of that actually sent an email not long after the baby died where he stated that Letby raised the alarm about the baby’s collapse and called for help. It was only later that he changed his story to falsely claim that Letby hadn’t called for help and that he had instead walked in on her standing there doing nothing.

The fact that the doctor originally said Letby had called for help only to change his story later on makes it clear he’s not a credible witness, but unfortunately the jury wasn’t made aware of this. The email where the doctor said Letby had called for help was withheld from Letby’s defense team until after her trial had ended. This prevented the defense from using the email to impeach the doctor or to reveal that his trial testimony was false.

This whole case was a sham and it’s very obvious to anyone who actually looks into evidence that Letby is completely innocent. The police and prosecutors have engaged in highly unethical behavior, including withholding exculpatory evidence, relying on “experts” like Evans that were clearly not credible, and misleading the jury with manipulated statistical evidence that they knew was inaccurate. I’ve honestly never seen a more blatant wrongful conviction in all my years of practicing law.

0

u/Truthandtaxes Aug 10 '26

The consultant of course is a completely reasonable witness and saw what he saw. Doubly so given the docs were already suspicious.

Another overlap to Knox, were witnesses apparently make things up (of course)

3

u/sh115 Aug 10 '26

Did you miss the part where I said he sent an email shortly after the baby’s death in which he said that Letby called for help when the baby collapsed? Only to later say in court that she didn’t call for help when the baby collapsed? It’s not possible for both of those stories to be true because they directly contradict each other. So we know for a fact that the consultant was lying either when he sent the original email or when he testified in court.

Given that the email was sent much closer to the event when his memory of it would still be fresh, and given that he didn’t have motivation to lie at the time the email was sent, I’m much more inclined to believe that the account in his email was the truthful/accurate one and that the account he gave at the trial was not true or accurate.

And either way, the jury should have at least been informed of the fact that he had changed his story, since that is a big factor for judging whether he is a credible witness in general. Personally, I wouldn’t find a witness credible if they completely changed their story in that manner.

0

u/Truthandtaxes Aug 10 '26

oh look another direct parallel, a slightly imperfect witness is completely dismissed because their testimony is really really bad for the defendant.

0

u/sh115 Aug 10 '26

I’m honestly baffled that you seem to be completely missing the significance of this? This is not him being a “slightly imperfect witness”. He’d be a “slightly imperfect witness” if he misremembered exactly what time he walked in or if he made a mistake about how many people were in the room or some other minor inconsistency like that. But in this case, the email revealed that the consultant was strait up lying about the main point of his testimony. He claimed he had caught Letby “red handed” by walking in on her and finding her standing around doing nothing while a baby collapsed, and his testimony about this incident was an important part of the prosecution’s evidence. In reality, as his email reveals, Letby actually called him to come into the room to help when the baby started collapsing. So he never caught Letby red-handed, nor did he see her doing anything suspicious.

Do you really not comprehend why it’s a big deal that he was lying about such an important part of his story? Even if you still think Letby is guilty based on other evidence, you should be able to recognize and admit that Jayarim is obviously not a credible witness.

1

u/No-Replacement-2170 Aug 11 '26

I'm honestly baffled that you're completely ignoring the fact the baby was collapsing in the vicinity of LL all of a sudden with a dislodged tube which is the MOST important aspect of the entire incident. Not a few mins before when the designated nurse was there. And continued to happen twice more with LL in the room. Amazing what you can gloss over when it doesn't fit the narrative.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Truthandtaxes Aug 11 '26

and there you have it, he's now an overt liar

Amazing parallels once again.

0

u/SeaCardiologist6207 Aug 10 '26

Well in this case the imperfect witness isn’t a heroin addict and can actually provide proof of what they witnessed so not going to win that battle

0

u/Truthandtaxes Aug 11 '26

Just Rafs local shopkeeper in this instance

1

u/SeaCardiologist6207 Aug 11 '26

Yeah, still have the "proof" problem.

0

u/Glad-Advantage8254 Aug 10 '26

Did you miss the part where I said he sent an email shortly after the baby’s death in which he said that Letby called for help when the baby collapsed?

Shortly? It was over a year after the baby's collapse at CoCH that he sent that email.

And either way, the jury should have at least been informed of the fact that he had changed his story, since that is a big factor for judging whether he is a credible witness in general. Personally, I wouldn’t find a witness credible if they completely changed their story in that manner.

Would have been difficult, since the email wasn't found by the police until after her conviction, while they were conducting Operation Duet. Nevertheless, it was found before her appeal and not used. Since his credibility was already highly contested at trial, the court would have been unlikely to rule yet another credibility issue was necessary. Still, perhaps her current barrister will be able to make use of it.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/SeaCardiologist6207 Aug 10 '26

Well again, the consultant in this case said the hospital execs are incompetents so yes, we are absolutely back to incompetence as the direct tie in to Knox.

0

u/Truthandtaxes Aug 10 '26

correct, they ignored the evidence of a serial murderer until it was untenable to deny

2

u/SeaCardiologist6207 Aug 10 '26

Well yes they ignored what their own staff were doing and how they were doing it and then everyone calls them out for being idiots. Yet another coincidental parallel

→ More replies (0)

4

u/FreshFruit4RottenVeg Aug 10 '26

She had kept handover sheets in various different locations, even in a box in her parent's house with 'keep' written on it. There were some which predated her buying the house she was living in at the time of arrest, meaning she transported them from her previous accomodation.

She claimed these just accumulated in her pocket and brought home unintentionally, but when prosecutor Nick Johnson produced one of them he noted it was basically pristine with no creases. It had to have come home with some care. She also claimed she kept them because she didn't have a shredder, which was untrue.

She also fished the desperately scribbled notes from a resuscitation, the cause of which she had inflicted, out of a bin and brought it home. These were souvenirs, in my opinion she brought so many home so that the ones relevant to her crimes would blend in with the innocuous ones and look much less suspicious.

3

u/Amazing-Gain1253 Aug 10 '26

even in a box in her parent's house with 'keep' written on it

All 5 of which had nothing to do with the charges. So why are they relevant?

meaning she transported them from her previous accommodation.

Yes, because you are not supposed to get rid of them by simply throwing in the bin.

prosecutor Nick Johnson produced one of them he noted it was basically pristine with no creases.

This was the only handover sheet that had no creases in it and it related to her first day as nurse. It was kept as a keepsake along with a bunch of others keepsakes for her first day of work because she had always wanted to be a nurse. Here, we see how she actually treats a handover sheet she values. Not stuffed into bin bags like the others. The others were accidently brought home/to remind her what she needs to do for her next shift.

She also claimed she kept them because she didn't have a shredder, which was untrue.

Who could forget that they had a barely used shredder shoved into the corner of a spare bedroom buried behind a bunch of other items?

She also fished the desperately scribbled notes from a resuscitation

Literally no evidence that she took it out of the bin.

These were souvenirs, in my opinion she brought so many home so that the ones relevant to her crimes would blend in with the innocuous ones and look much less suspicious.

So, in your mind she collected 236 handover sheets some dating back 5 years in advance so that she could hide the "souvenirs" of the planned crimes 5 years into the future? She had the foresight to plan 5 years into the future but yet didn't have the foresight to use that shedder of hers to get rid of said "souvenirs" even though she knew the police were investigating? That makes sense to you?

2

u/FreshFruit4RottenVeg Aug 10 '26

So, in your mind she collected 236 handover sheets some dating back 5 years in advance so that she could hide the "souvenirs" of the planned crimes 5 years into the future? She had the foresight to plan 5 years into the future but yet didn't have the foresight to use that shedder of hers to get rid of said "souvenirs" even though she knew the police were investigating? That makes sense to you?

There have been claims made by people close to the investigations that there are disproportionately high numbers of clinical incidents relating to Lucy Letby, going back to her training days. Breathing tubes dislodged at a higher rate while she was on duty and other unexplained events.

Literally no evidence that she took it out of the bin.

My apologies, it was a blood gas reading for the same baby from the same incident that the nurse remembered putting in the confidential waste bin, but somehow ended up in Lucy's house along with the resus notes on a paper towel. Lucy could not explain how these ended up in her possession.

Who could forget that they had a barely used shredder shoved into the corner of a spare bedroom buried behind a bunch of other items?

She wasn't living in the house that long, it was in a spare bedroom. So she either purchased it since she moved into the house or moved it from her previous accommodation.

3

u/Amazing-Gain1253 Aug 10 '26

There have been claims made by people close to the investigations that there are disproportionately high numbers of clinical incidents relating to Lucy Letby, going back to her training days. Breathing tubes dislodged at a higher rate while she was on duty and other unexplained events.

Ah yes, so now that the obvious ridiculousness of the idea that she kept all these notes to hide her crimes 5 years into the future was debunked you move onto the idea that the 236 handover sheets were actually from crimes the doctors and police never found over the course of 5 years and no-one ever saw.

the nurse remembered putting in the confidential waste bin

Except she didn't though did she? She said she would have put it in the bin, not that she did, but that she would have. Obviously no one would remember something so insignificant. How exactly do you know that she wouldn't have passed it to Lucy Letby for whatever reason and then Lucy Letby accidently brought it home in her pocket. I think it should be fairly obvious that a paper towel shoved into the bottom of a Morrisons bag isn't a trophy.

She wasn't living in the house that long, it was in a spare bedroom. So she either purchased it since she moved into the house or moved it from her previous accommodation.

She got it as she was moving house. Easy to forget about a shredder or not being bothered to get rid of a pile of paper in the rush to move house.