It’s a rambling note that says she did it, but also that she didn’t do it, and other stuff besides. There is certainly nothing that is a detailed account of her crimes or methods, which would normally be required in an admissible confession.
I guess it’s consistent with a confession maybe, but it’s also consistent with Letby’s version tha…
It’s a rambling note that says she did it, but also that she didn’t do it, and other stuff besides. There is certainly nothing that is a detailed account of her crimes or methods, which would normally be required in an admissible confession.
I guess it’s consistent with a confession maybe, but it’s also consistent with Letby’s version that she was struggling with her mental health and wrote it as a steam-of-consciousness attempt to get her feelings down on paper. Depressed and traumatized people feel guilty over stuff they aren’t actually responsible for all the time.
I’m replying to a comment that claims the note alone should be enough to convince me she’s guilty, which is a level of credulousness in the prosecution that makes me doubt their ability to judge objectively.
You usually make sense, but I'm sorry, you are way off base here. This is not how false confessions typically happen. Nor does it make any sense from a psychological or psychological treatment perspective.
Not to mention that no one is saying, Convict her based on the note! It is another piece of evidence that supports the conviction.
It’s not how “false confessions” work because it’s not how “confessions” usually work! It’s not an interrogation statement, it’s a diary from someone struggling with a stressful and traumatic job. If I should pay attention to “I killed them”, why should I ignore the parts that sound like she’s blaming her perceived inadequacies rather than taking credit for deliberate acts? You can’t cherry pick.
And I am literally responding to a poster that said “I don’t know what more people need”. How else am I supposed to interpret that other than that poster’s belief that the “confession” alone is definitive?
Not cherry picking. I'm questioning the idea that, based on the psycholigist's explanation, this all makes sense that someone would write that they killed the babies on purpose.
If there's a benign explanation for this, we haven't heard it. And a psychologist that would say this is typical behaviour under the circumstances doesn't know what they're talking about.
Yes, she wrote other things, and, yes, the entire note needs to be explained.
But, based on what we know now, it is indeed damning evidence that shouldn't be handwaved away because of some whacky shrink.
It’s absolutely cherry picking. From the Wikipedia article (yeah wiki, but it’s sourced):
“Searches of Letby's and her parents' homes,[87] and Letby's handbag, revealed post-it notes handwritten by Letby.[44][73] These included fragmentary phrases such as "help", "I'm sorry that you couldn't have a chance at life", "I don't want to do this anymore",[44][88] "not good enough", "why me?", "I haven't done anything wrong", "we tried our best and it wasn't enough",[2] "I am evil, I did this", and "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them".[89] Another document that was presented said "I don't know if I killed them. Maybe I did. Maybe this is all down to me".[90]”
You’re treating “I killed them on purpose” as an honest confession and “we tried our best and it wasn’t enough” as irrelevant. But there is no valid reason to do that.
There IS a benign explanation. Letby and her psychologist gave one.
Other experts also don’t think it’s necessarily a confession:
“Faye Skelton, a lecturer and specialist in forensic psychology, has highlighted that the notes also contain phrases that deny her guilt. She told Channel 5 that "they are perfectly plausible as the output of someone who is suffering extreme mental distress. … I do not see the notes as a confession or as an admission of guilt".[92]
In September 2024, The Guardian reported that the notes were written on the advice of counsellors as part of a therapeutic process. Richard Curen, the chair of the Forensic Psychotherapy Society, was quoted saying, "Doodling, journalling is a way of taking control of your thoughts. I don't think it relates to a confession of any kind."[93][b]”
You may choose not to believe these benign explanations but you can’t assert they don’t exist, unless you have some extreme expertise and direct access to inside information that you have so far not let on.
Lolwut? More like the people who get interrogated long enough confessing even if they didn’t do it (she was under investigation at the time it was written).
You still haven’t said why you think the diary includes both “I did it” and “I didn’t do it” or a justification for your cherry picking. At best, it’s clearly unreliable as a source of truth.
I don't know why it says both. But while it's pretty clear why someone would write that they didn't do it (because they didn't or they didn't want to go to prison), it's unclear why they would write that they did (beause they did it or ....).
What I keep repeating is that the shrinks' explanations don't pass the smell test for me, they sound like recovered memory nonsense.
It's fine if you accept the explanations. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
I really don’t get where you’re going with “recovered memories”. The whole point of the recovered memories scandal is that mentally unwell people can be convinced to question their own memories and become convinced about things that simply didn’t happen. Maybe like… falsely “confessing” to a murder because cops and all your former colleagues think you did it?
The bottom line for me is, if you don’t have a plausible explanation for why she would both confess and deny in the same diary, I don’t think you can treat the diary as strong evidence of either guilt or innocence.
A “sane” guilty person under investigation would not write a confession, unless they wanted to get caught. A sane guilty person who wanted to get caught would not also deny their guilt and then continue to do so for years afterward. A “sane” guilty person who felt no remorse would be planning, gloating, etc., not going on about how bad they felt and denying what they did.
The only rational conclusion to me is that she was off her nut when she was writing the diary, questioning her own beliefs about the events. We should ignore her diary for the purpose of the trial, because the diary writer is clearly an unreliable narrator.
For the very last time, it's obvious why she would deny guilt. What's not obvious is why she would confess to murdering babies after denying it.
Do I find her confession that she murdered babies invalid because in the same note she also denies it? No.
Her confession shows she is deeply troubled or, as you say, off her nut. And if she was off her nut when writing her diary, that may well be part of the reason she was out there murdering babies.
The diary writer can't be seen as a separate person from the alleged baby murderer.
And let's please not go to whether or not she meets the definition of criminally insane
So we’re back to cherry picking. You believe the “confession” but not the denial in the same document, because apparently you’re a psychological expert and it’s literally impossible for an innocent person to write “I did it” for any reason other than that they literally did it. (But really, it’s because you think she’s guilty for other reasons and it’s confirmation bias, hardly shocking since the whole case is circumstantial).
I’m not claiming she was criminally insane and in any case, her mental state years after the events in question when she was being investigated is likely to be different than when she was supposed to be murdering babies, for obvious reasons.
It’s a rambling note that says she did it, but also that she didn’t do it, and other stuff besides. There is certainly nothing that is a detailed account of her crimes or methods, which would normally be required in an admissible confession.
I guess it’s consistent with a confession maybe, but it’s also consistent with Letby’s version that she was struggling with her mental health and wrote it as a steam-of-consciousness attempt to get her feelings down on paper. Depressed and traumatized people feel guilty over stuff they aren’t actually responsible for all the time.
I’m replying to a comment that claims the note alone should be enough to convince me she’s guilty, which is a level of credulousness in the prosecution that makes me doubt their ability to judge objectively.
You usually make sense, but I'm sorry, you are way off base here. This is not how false confessions typically happen. Nor does it make any sense from a psychological or psychological treatment perspective.
Not to mention that no one is saying, Convict her based on the note! It is another piece of evidence that supports the conviction.
It’s not how “false confessions” work because it’s not how “confessions” usually work! It’s not an interrogation statement, it’s a diary from someone struggling with a stressful and traumatic job. If I should pay attention to “I killed them”, why should I ignore the parts that sound like she’s blaming her perceived inadequacies rather than taking credit for deliberate acts? You can’t cherry pick.
And I am literally responding to a poster that said “I don’t know what more people need”. How else am I supposed to interpret that other than that poster’s belief that the “confession” alone is definitive?
Not cherry picking. I'm questioning the idea that, based on the psycholigist's explanation, this all makes sense that someone would write that they killed the babies on purpose.
If there's a benign explanation for this, we haven't heard it. And a psychologist that would say this is typical behaviour under the circumstances doesn't know what they're talking about.
Yes, she wrote other things, and, yes, the entire note needs to be explained.
But, based on what we know now, it is indeed damning evidence that shouldn't be handwaved away because of some whacky shrink.
It’s absolutely cherry picking. From the Wikipedia article (yeah wiki, but it’s sourced):
“Searches of Letby's and her parents' homes,[87] and Letby's handbag, revealed post-it notes handwritten by Letby.[44][73] These included fragmentary phrases such as "help", "I'm sorry that you couldn't have a chance at life", "I don't want to do this anymore",[44][88] "not good enough", "why me?", "I haven't done anything wrong", "we tried our best and it wasn't enough",[2] "I am evil, I did this", and "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them".[89] Another document that was presented said "I don't know if I killed them. Maybe I did. Maybe this is all down to me".[90]”
You’re treating “I killed them on purpose” as an honest confession and “we tried our best and it wasn’t enough” as irrelevant. But there is no valid reason to do that.
There IS a benign explanation. Letby and her psychologist gave one.
Other experts also don’t think it’s necessarily a confession:
“Faye Skelton, a lecturer and specialist in forensic psychology, has highlighted that the notes also contain phrases that deny her guilt. She told Channel 5 that "they are perfectly plausible as the output of someone who is suffering extreme mental distress. … I do not see the notes as a confession or as an admission of guilt".[92]
In September 2024, The Guardian reported that the notes were written on the advice of counsellors as part of a therapeutic process. Richard Curen, the chair of the Forensic Psychotherapy Society, was quoted saying, "Doodling, journalling is a way of taking control of your thoughts. I don't think it relates to a confession of any kind."[93][b]”
You may choose not to believe these benign explanations but you can’t assert they don’t exist, unless you have some extreme expertise and direct access to inside information that you have so far not let on.
Yeah, that's a recovered-memory-style explanation.
I'm sure you've heard about that. Lots of psychologists and shrinks endorsed it.
Lolwut? More like the people who get interrogated long enough confessing even if they didn’t do it (she was under investigation at the time it was written).
You still haven’t said why you think the diary includes both “I did it” and “I didn’t do it” or a justification for your cherry picking. At best, it’s clearly unreliable as a source of truth.
I don't know why it says both. But while it's pretty clear why someone would write that they didn't do it (because they didn't or they didn't want to go to prison), it's unclear why they would write that they did (beause they did it or ....).
What I keep repeating is that the shrinks' explanations don't pass the smell test for me, they sound like recovered memory nonsense.
It's fine if you accept the explanations. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
I really don’t get where you’re going with “recovered memories”. The whole point of the recovered memories scandal is that mentally unwell people can be convinced to question their own memories and become convinced about things that simply didn’t happen. Maybe like… falsely “confessing” to a murder because cops and all your former colleagues think you did it?
The bottom line for me is, if you don’t have a plausible explanation for why she would both confess and deny in the same diary, I don’t think you can treat the diary as strong evidence of either guilt or innocence.
A “sane” guilty person under investigation would not write a confession, unless they wanted to get caught. A sane guilty person who wanted to get caught would not also deny their guilt and then continue to do so for years afterward. A “sane” guilty person who felt no remorse would be planning, gloating, etc., not going on about how bad they felt and denying what they did.
The only rational conclusion to me is that she was off her nut when she was writing the diary, questioning her own beliefs about the events. We should ignore her diary for the purpose of the trial, because the diary writer is clearly an unreliable narrator.
For the very last time, it's obvious why she would deny guilt. What's not obvious is why she would confess to murdering babies after denying it.
Do I find her confession that she murdered babies invalid because in the same note she also denies it? No.
Her confession shows she is deeply troubled or, as you say, off her nut. And if she was off her nut when writing her diary, that may well be part of the reason she was out there murdering babies.
The diary writer can't be seen as a separate person from the alleged baby murderer.
And let's please not go to whether or not she meets the definition of criminally insane
So we’re back to cherry picking. You believe the “confession” but not the denial in the same document, because apparently you’re a psychological expert and it’s literally impossible for an innocent person to write “I did it” for any reason other than that they literally did it. (But really, it’s because you think she’s guilty for other reasons and it’s confirmation bias, hardly shocking since the whole case is circumstantial).
I’m not claiming she was criminally insane and in any case, her mental state years after the events in question when she was being investigated is likely to be different than when she was supposed to be murdering babies, for obvious reasons.
You’re right, we’re going to have to disagree.