4 ms·
> There are obvious parallels with the Lethby case. Statements in de Berk’s diary about ‘a very great secret’ and a ‘compulsion’ on a day that a patient had die
by brvsft 3y ago
> There are obvious parallels with the Lethby case. Statements in de Berk’s diary about ‘a very great secret’ and a ‘compulsion’ on a day that a patient had died were given a sinister interpretation.
They didn't include any examples of the parallel. This goes over some of the notes:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/13/lucy-letby-police-found-note-saying-i-killed-them-on-purpose-court-hears https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/13/lucy-letby-p...
> On another, she wrote “I am a horrible evil person” and on another in capital letters: “I AM EVIL I DID THIS,” the jury was told.
> She also wrote on the note: “There are no words”, “I can’t breathe”, “kill myself”, “I haven’t done anything wrong”, “how can I get through it?” and “I am an awful person”. She had also written “No Hope” and “Panic Fear” and then circled in capital letters “HATE”.
Personally, I don't think any of this is strong evidence, since she contradicts herself a bit. But the notes more directly address the murders because she wrote them in response to the accusations. It isn't as vague as a diary entry mentioning a secret.
And as far as I know, they had more evidence in the form of testimony from experts suggesting the babies were killed by injecting them with air, but I'm sure there are reasons to be skeptical of that.
Mainly, I don't know how strongly any statistical "evidence" was presented in court, how much the jury depended on it in their guilty verdict, and how the UK court system works, so I don't have a strong opinion. But I also don't believe a not-guilty person would think to write anything like what she wrote in those notes.
One last thing I'm curious about and have never heard definitive information on is whether babies stopped dying when they took Letby out of the NICU or whatever they call it. I suppose that might still be accounted for in this statistical coincidence element the RSS and other statisticians are discussing.
- specialist 3y ago[deletia, cuz I misread the article.]
- kitd 3y agoNo it wasn't. See my sibling comment in this thread. At worst, it alerted authorities to there potentially being foul play. Her actual conviction was based on other factors.
- specialist 3y agoThanks for clarification. That's very reassuring.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kitd 3y agoOn the afternoon of the conviction, there was an expert criminal psychiatrist on BBC radio who had been following the trial closely. Apparently those notes, though they made all the headlines, played little part in her conviction, and are typical for someone suffering stress &| depression. The thing that did for her apparently were messages she had sent some of the parents, the times of which contradicted her testimony she had given the police and put her clearly in the frame when she had given them an alibi. So I'm not sure the clusters of "unlikely" cases played much role either, other than alerting authorities to there potentially being foul play.
- crote 3y agoThat's a very good reason to warn the public about it, is it not? People generally do not read court transcripts, they read media headlines. It's basically a guarantee that some people are already convinced their statistically unlucky coworkers are also serial killers. It can easily lead to witch hunts.
- kitd 3y agoYou're right, but I think the article is about the RSS warning the official inquiry rather than the public. One would expect them to have a higher threshold of quality of evidence than the typical tabloids or Twitter feeds.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]