Lucy Letby Case: Why the 'Angel of Death' Still Haunts the Nation | This Morning

It was the crime that shook the nation when back in 2023, nurse Lucy Letby was found guilty of murdering seven babies in her neonatal care unit and attempting to murder seven more. But two years later and the case is still making headlines. As more shocking revelations emerge - including calls for a retrial and questions over two new baby deaths, Professor David Wilson is here with the latest, and to explain why there’s still so much fascination with the so-called “angel of death.”
Broadcast on 21/01/2025
Subscribe to This Morning for more exclusive videos: bit.ly/1JM41yF
FOLLOW US:
/ thismorning
/ thismorning
/ thismorning
MORE ABOUT THIS MORNING:
Welcome to the official This Morning Channel! Join us every weekday from 10am on ITV1, ITVX and STV as we discuss the latest news stories, meet the people behind the stories that matter, chat to the biggest names in Hollywood, get the latest fashion & beauty trends, and cook up a storm in our kitchen with your favourite chefs!
#ThisMorning

[@fredneedle123]

Imagine a baby is sick, in hospital and needs treatment. What are the chances there will be a nurse around when things go wrong? I've seen nothing to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone is guilty of anything. Beyond reasonable doubt isn't the same as well there was this nurse there. No sheet Sherlock. Utterly unsafe conviction in my opinion.

[@KingBee24]

My mate is a fireman. He's regularly around when there's fires ... highly suspicious.

[@dannyquinn9128]

Were you on the Jury?

[@judewhitbread2394]

@fredneedle123 Joker. 246 witnesses, 5000 pages of evidence, 10 month trial, another trial, 3 appeals and an inquiry say guilty 15 times. I love to see people like you on YT as it's yet more confirmation she's never getting out.

[@KingBee24]

@@dannyquinn9128 "You weren't on the jury" is a logical fallacy. This case was documented in excruciating detail. Anything of significance would have been all over the media ... and it's the information that's come out since the trial that has formed the basis of the counter argument.

[@ruthbashford3176]

@@KingBee24 Yes he might have started them! That makes about as much sense as the accusations against Lucy

[@richardmullins44]

it's all lies, that is obvious.

[@turnitback]

This man is supposed to be an "expert". He is certainly an expert in speculation, verbosity and hand gestures. That's where his expertise ends.

[@sinchasin3611]

He answered all the questions what they asked. What made you think hes not an expert

[@jacquelinecorbett8304]

Well said!

[@jacquelinecorbett8304]

I agree …can’t see he’s done any homework regarding the subject. Poor journalism

[@ShowalterdontlikeME]

David Wilson should keep up with the times - a soon as the reporting restrictions were lifted it quickly became evident she was innocent.

[@matthewmcbride28]

This guy hasn't got a clue.

[@jackieemslie]

What if she IS Innocent.. like she says! Media and justices are appalling here. Same kind of people who would have believed post office folks I their community were guilty

[@Sunworshiper-l7z]

I don't think she did it. They are looking to reopen case. This could be a miscarriage of justice. He even suggested she is beige.....they now think a doctor could be responsible

[@KoalaB354]

I wonder if you'll regret this, ITV

[@bitabyte]

The thing to remember here is that Dr. Wilson is an expert in Criminology (think of it as a creative writer of sorts). He is Prof. Peter Green or a spokesperson for the Royal Statistics Society; he is not Prof. Geoff Chase (Insulin expert), he is not Prof Alan Wayne Jones, an expert in forensic toxicology - and I could go on with a list of genuine scientific experts. Justice cannot prevail with just theories or rhetoric. FACTS and EVIDENCE is exactly what is lacking in Lucy Letby's conviction in a trial-by-jury (the modern version of a kangaroo court). I am no Criminologist but what struck me immediately (common sense) was: Could the poor nurse have been used as a scape goat? Namely to protect the status quo - if not the TV career of one of doctors in residence? That is the question - not a politically correct one admitedly. Let's wait and see the result of barrister Mark McDonald appeal to the Criminal Cases Review Commission ...

[@robleeuknhl3345]

Yeah his comments are clearly career driven

[@JabesAllowed]

After declaring on Channel 4 that she doesn't conform to his own profile of a serial killer (is an outlier), and dismissing core parts of the prosecution evidence, he fails to specify any evidence at all that convinces him she's guilty. I'd like him to explain that, if he can.

[@ruthgardner6468]

It’s because he thinks she lied that she didn’t know what ‘go commando’ meant…. That’s the sure footed basis for her lies so they claim…

[@caz4961]

A person can still be a serial killer without conforming to popular stereotypes can't they? The point being they don't all look like Freddie Kruger or act like Hannibal Lecter.

[@bitabyte]

@@caz4961 Yes! But what makes you think she fits such an non-stereotype? Certainly not the evidence and the real (medical/scientific) experts' opinions. What we have here is a gross miscarriage of Justice dished out in a trial-by-jury - the modern version of a kangaroo court! Trial-by-juries are forbidden in mainland Europe and for a good reason (...)

[@richw9394]

They should never have allowed those post-it notes as evidence, I can't believe that through prosecution even believed they were relevant.

[@caz4961]

So saying things like "I killed them on purpose" and "I'm evil" etc are not relevant evidence when a person is being tried for multiple murders? You're not serious with that one are you?

[@richw9394]

@caz4961 The notes are meaningless, they also say "I didn't do this", "slander". You can't just take them out of context and use the lines that fit the narrative that you want to believe. They are just the ramblings of someone distressed likey noting what she thinks others think of you. It's common in extreme stress for people to question if they did something wrong and question their sanity. They had a huge team and investigated her for years, so a couple of postit notes out of context are meaningless. They didn't even find any incriminating deleted web searches, but she confessed contradictory on a postit note that she failed to destroyed. Really?

[@andypandy-v3j]

@@caz4961 How many babies have you cared for that died and you felt guilt abouty (even though it wasn't your fault). Guilt is a very powerful emotion and Letby was very young and inexperienced at at the time. She was the most qualified nurse (even though she was young) and so was called to the most serious cases. There is no reason to suspect that she harmed any babies. Read the evidence. There is literally none.

[@bitabyte]

@@caz4961 Not if her counselor had instructed her to use free association (check Freud for details) as a way to deal with the stress of the accusations of those turning her into a scapegoat for their own mistakes and/or incompetence. The so-called "gang of four". During her trial, Lucy named four hospital consultants who she alleged had conspired against her namely: Dr Stephen Brearey, Dr John Gibbs, Dr Ravi Jayaram and one other doctor. Oddly enough the police never investigated these - they were doctors, consultants you see, therefore "above suspicion". You know the drill ...

[@pixiedragon83]

The reason we are so invested and horrified by this is because the case was an absolute atrocity and very likely an innocent person is locked away for life...the reason is not because she looks nice...I had absolutely no interest in the case and I was absolutely sure she was guilty until I actually paid attention to the details of the case...and it starts to fall apart...the reason I changed my mind has nothing to do with her ethnicity or her gender...it's because the evidence is flimsy and is essentially an attack on truth, science and justice...this man speaking so much nonsense is very clearly a paid stooge...

[@autumnsea7848]

who says the evidence is flimsy?

[@aurora6920]

i think people are interested and clicked on this video is because it's such a heart breaking story involving newborn babies and betrayal that the hospital could let this happen. Also so much confusion into what actually happened!

[@ruthbashford3176]

@@autumnsea7848 Everyone who knows anything about the case.

[@autumnsea7848]

@ hyperbole

[@andypandy-v3j]

​@@autumnsea7848Everybody with a brain!

[@welshboo1]

Evidence.... There wasn't any evidence. She solely got convicted on one person's opinion. The notes was suggested by the counselor to write. It's not real evidence. The problem with letby's case is that no professional person would take to the stand to defend her. Reason being is because a professor of medicine did take to the stand in the defence of a woman accused of killing her child with baby shaken syndrome. The woman was incident. The professor got banned from working in hospitals etc. Professionals are scared of losing their jobs if they don't toe the line. I've said from day one Lucy is innocent.

[@Mesem-tp7nx]

Completely concur with you she's innocent 😢💚

[@8964TS]

“One person’s opinion” tells us all we need to know about your knowledge of the case. You’re one of those who thinks Dewi Evans was the only witness, aren’t you?

[@autumnsea7848]

conspiracy

[@ruthbashford3176]

@@8964TS There was several other so called medical experts who agreed with Evans' nonsense, but they're all silent now! There were no medical defence witnesses but there are 50 or 60 medical experts who were so angered by Dewi Evans air embolism and insulin poisoning fantasies that some of them are now working on the case free of charge to expose the nonsensical medical evidence. NOT one medical expert (outside of the trial) has agreed with Dewi Evans' theories.

[@KingBee24]

@@8964TS The other expert witnesses were chosen by Dewi Evans. He sent them his report and they rubber stamped it. None of them actually examined the babies ... including Evans ... unlike the pathologists who did the post mortems and concluded natural causes.

[@MarkReynolds-g9b]

So this criminologists thinks LL is guilty despite discounting the "confession" notes (they were therapy notes post arrest) and the on duty statistics (discredetied by statisticians because they left out many other incidents/deaths when LL wasnt on duty) and accepting that she is an "outlyer" and not like other serial killers ( maybe because she isnt one?)... so whats left that points to any babies being harmed by anyone at all, let alone Lucy Letby? The criminologist doesnt explain his conclusion.... presumably because he cant... unless he means the evidence of the much discretited Dr Dewii "Evans" (not Davis). Dr Dewi Evans - An "expert" witness who touted his services to the Police, helped the investigation ( not blind - names were on the medical notes - are we expected to believe the Police didnt tell him who the suspect was?) and then marked his own homework as CPS expert witness in court. A judge in a preceeding case threw his evidence out saying he was incapable of considering all options and warned the LL trial judge of this. DE has done lots of interviews with media and boasts of only ever losing one case. Which demonstrates that his focus was not just on the money (100s of thousands) its about winning as well, and not about being a proper balanced expert witness. He is of course a medical genius though (hastnt practiced for 15 years and was never neonatologist or a pathologist), because he claims that he knew what had happened to the first baby he looked at, baby O (liver injury & and air imbulus) within 10 minutes of reading the medical notes. Something the Neonatalists who had cared for the baby and the Pathologist who carried out the autopsy couldnt ascertain. He of course says LL caused the Liver damage and air embolus.. How does he know it was LL? He is supposed to be an expert witness. He is not there to point the finger. LLs defence now say that their expert who has read the same baby O notes points to the record of a needle put into the liver by mistake by a Dr. He aspirated blood not air and the baby died of shock as a result of trauma to the liver which is supported by blood test results. The pathologist wasnt told this has been done but it explains why there was no bruising to surrounding tissues which would have resulted from blunt force trauma. At last, we have some. "Direct" credible evidence that someone harmed a baby albiet not deliberately. Only LL knows the truth but I would be prepared to put money her only being giilty of working 60 hour weeks and caring for babies to the best of her abilities. LLs nurse colleagues speak highly of her but were told not to give evidence supporting her by the hospital. The docs may not think highly of LL because they had to appologise to her for their original accusations - motive? Im not aware of anyone coming up with a credible motive for LL to harm babies? Pleass look at the "evidence", more and more has now come to light which the jury were never told. Private Eye (who first covered Post Office scandal) have done some excellent coverage and have 11 articles on their web site. LL will get a retrial .... one day... I hope its very soon for all concerned.

[@m39403]

well said

[@richardmullins44]

A retrial will not help if she is framed sgain

[@markwhite3958]

Totally agree- well put!!! FREE LUCY LETBY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@ruthbashford3176]

@@richardmullins44 I think any retrial would collapse from lack of prosecution medical witnesses.

[@sharonhesketh8370]

Well said! 🙌

[@m39403]

She needs a retrial, not a slot on a morning chat show!!

[@markwhite3958]

Exactly!!!! FREE LUCY LETBY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@robinhood4640]

Nurses have got enough on their plate, they don't need even more procedures, to make sure that something that didn't even happen doesn't happen again. We need some procedures to stop doctors letting their imagination run wild, to avoid responsibility for their failings.

[@StuartGilham]

Very senior people in the medical establishment have grave concerns about this case. David Davis mentioned the past president of the head of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child health. I’ve heard of similar in the neonatology world. The exact people who would know the most about the case.

[@KingBee24]

I'm not impressed with this guy. As a criminologist, he's made several factual inaccuracies. There was only one trial, the second one was a formality, Dr Evans ( not Davis ) changed his mind re: how three of the babies died, not one ... and the role of an expert witness is not to decide guilt or innocence. David Wilson says that there was no motive, no hard evidence and she doesn't fit the profile. The criteria required for guilt is "beyond reasonable doubt" as he surely knows and there are scores of practicing neonatologists who have very different opinions to the old, long retired doctor who was expert witness in this trial. The male interviewer is conflating different issues. Parents anguish at losing their baby is a separate issue as to how they died. Justice must always take priority over the sensibilities of the victims, otherwise people will be judged by emotion rather than reason.

[@welshboo1]

Totally agree.

[@BernieRowlands-d4o]

Spot on.

[@m39403]

Totally agree. Very poor show, did he see say the Police were investigating 3 more murders! Confirmation bias I believe!

[@robinhood4640]

I am not sure which baby, or how accurate this is, but it is being said that one baby was born and later died, without Lucy even being on duty between the birth and the death, and she was found guilty for that one too. It is difficult to know the truth, because both sides of the argument are twisting and turning everything to validate their opinion of guilty or not guilty.

[@Snicklum]

The second trial wasn't a formality, it was a retrial regarding the death of Baby K which lasted four weeks (I went and watched it).

[@70mikejn]

A conviction based on quackery, do your research before spouting off on national TV.

[@HumanimalChannel]

Pray tell... what is YOUR research that tells you she is innocent? The debunked new Yorker article.!?

[@KingBee24]

@@HumanimalChannel Debunked by who ?

[@patrickbass9957]

They asked her to write down her worst fears, they didn't mention that before about the notes, and then they used them as evidence against her ???

[@autumnsea7848]

'I killed them' and 'I am evil' isn't a fear is it?

[@patrickbass9957]

I haven't read all the notes, but did she only write them because she was told to write them ? It sounds here as if she was told to write them after she was suspended and she knew why she was being suspended because it she was put under suspicion. Then she wrote the notes. Why would she have written crazy notes that would convict her? This guy is wrong surely. In the press, at least, it was made clear that they found these notes, and it was implied that they were written while she was still working, it wasn't implied that she was told to write things down by some sort of work psychologist.

[@patrickbass9957]

What exactly was she told to write, and were the notes just just actual notes of some essay or a typed reply

[@patrickbass9957]

​@@autumnsea7848On the same page you're talking about she also wrote "I haven't done anything wrong"

[@HumanimalChannel]

No therapist told her to make scribbles on Post It notes lol. It is very clear in the trial transcript that those notes are nothing to do with therapy processes . That's actually lies... this guy is just repeating media lies lol

[@ruthbashford3176]

How could a long retired, discredited (in a previous case) paediatrician (not even a neonatologist or pathologist) overturn the results of post mortems? If there had been any suspicion of foul play the Coroner would have been informed and the bodies re-examined by a forensic pathologist.

[@TerryStamper]

Post Mortems are routinely overturned when reinvestigated after foul play comes to the attention of the medical staff. The Thirlwall Inquiry highlighted the limitations of the pathologist's post mortems where they were performed as being "by process of elimination". The methods used are not immediately obvious because medical interventions and equipment were developed to prevent air embolisms. Which is why you end up in a situation where multiple doctors and nurses with years of experience seeing symptoms they had never ever seen before - and most importantly never saw since. Evans was not "discredited in a previous case". This is factually inaccurate and the Court of Appeals emphasized that this was not true. Evans had a private letter submitted without his knowledge or consent by a solicitor in a case he was not directly involved in. It was not a report, it was not meant for the court and it was not related to his career as an expert witness. And criticizing the fact that he's retired when the defense expert is similarly retired - while ignoring he was one of 3 expert witnesses including Dr Sandie Bohin, who is still working today, agreeing with his assessments show that you do not really know what you're talking about. They did not suspect foul play, the coroner was never informed and it was only after the death toll mounted that it became clear that there WAS foul play. They found evidence of poisoning, they nailed down her methods and were correct as the circumstantial evidence highlighted that Letby was very aware of air embolisms - something she downplayed her knowledge of in her police interviews.

[@KingBee24]

@@TerryStamper You must have read a different Thirlwall Inquiry to the one that I read. Nicholas Rheinberg, Senior Coroner for Cheshire was highly critical of the consultants for not informing him that they had suspicions of foul play ! This is what he had to say about the original post mortems ... "absolutely meticulous, not in any way deficient or unsatisfactory when placed against a forensic post mortem". You're being somewhat disingenuous re: your second paragraph. Lord Justice Jackson wrote to Judge Goss warning him that Evans report was "worthless" and that "he makes no effort to provide a balanced opinion". These are the relevant points. The full text of the letter is online.

[@ruthbashford3176]

@@TerryStamper Post mortems might be overturned but only when bodies have been exhumed and re-examined by a pathologist. The theories of air embolism have been so comprehensively discredited and even ridiculed by medical experts, including consultant neonatologists, that is seems as if Dewi Evans plucked them out of thin air. Evans co-conspirators at the trial who agreed with his theories remain silent, they have distanced themselves from this lunatic. NOT one medical expert (outside of the trial) has publicly agreed with Evans' theories. Dr Evans most certainly was discredited in a previous case and Judge Jackson took the unprecedented step of writing to Goss to warn him that the doctor's evidence was likely to be worthless. The death toll mounted because there were pseudomonas and other infections in the unit mainly caused by sewage leaks. The consultants were out of their depth, as well as being incompetent, dealing with very premature and sick babies and the neonatal unit was downgraded to a level 1 (which it still is) soon after Letby left. You're the one who doesn't know what they're talking about, I listen to the experts. Experts like consultant neonatologists, Dr Svilena Dimitrova, professor Colin Morley, Dr Neil Alton, Dr Richard Taylor as well as other medical experts like Dr Phil Hammond and Dr Michael McConville. You should do the same, you might learn something. Finally even the laboratory that conducted the insulin blood tests warned they were not able to detect exogenous insulin and if that was suspected they should be referred to a specialist laboratory. This did not happen as the babies soon recovered.

[@ruthbashford3176]

@@TerryStamper Post mortems are overturned when a body is exhumed and re-examined by a forensic pathologist, not when a discredited paediatrician has read patient notes and looked at a few x-rays. Judge Jackson took the unprecedented step to write to Goss to warn him that Evans' evidence could be untrustworthy. Numerous medical experts, including consultant neonatologists, have stated that the air embolism theories of Dewi Evans are implausible (that's a polite way of putting it) NOT one medical expert (outside of the trial) has agreed with Evans. Even the laboratory that conducted the insulin tests warned they could not be depended on to detect exogenous insulin.

[@ruthbashford3176]

@@TerryStamper Post mortems are overturned when bodies are exhumed and examined by a forensic pathologist, not when a discredited paediatrician reads patient notes and looks at a few x-rays. Evans was certainly discredited in a previous case and Judge Jackson took the unprecedented step of writing to Goss to warn him that his evidence was likely to be worthless. There was no evidence that any baby had been poisoned, even the laboratory that conducted the insulin tests warned they were not suitable to detect exogenous insulin. Not one medical expert (outside of the trial) has agreed with Evans air embolism theories. In fact numerous neonatologists have said his theories are implausible (and that's a polite way of putting it) The so called medical experts who agreed with Evans' nonsense should face some serious questing. They all seem to have gone quiet now and are wisely distancing themselves from this charlatan

[@Bubbaland-g2n]

I have a feeling she's innocent.

[@Donchampignon]

The Thurwell inquiry is a complete waste of money. Investigating ways to prevent a crime that never happened. Its further evidence of what a complete debacle the whole affair has been. The judge in this case was asleep at the wheel and now a hard working nurse is serving life in prison as a scapegoat for a shockingly incompetent and poorly run hospital. It makes a mockery of everything British and brings deep shame on the nation. I suggest everyone watch John Sweeneys excellent series of podcasts "Was there ever a crime"

[@HumanimalChannel]

Lucybis a mediocre nurse and not a scapegoat.

[@KingBee24]

@@HumanimalChannel You post on all these channels, but never make a viable contribution. Give us just one piece of evidence ! Just one will do.

[@stephenquelch5197]

​@@KingBee24how about you provide one proving her innocence.

[@treefrog1956]

The Thirlwall Paradox - investigating something that never ever happened.

[@willowm9469]

The whole case is falling apart. There needs to be a retrial. If someone's in jail for the rest of their life we need to be sure the conviction is sound. Not addressing this will have repercussions for the criminal justice system and the NHS.

[@Sunflowerlightt]

I agree. Not enough facts. I still think the consultants have convinced themselves. Where are the facts.

[@8964TS]

Haha. Yeah, right. Ten months of trial but it’s only now falling apart because people with incomplete information question things on social media. LOL

[@autumnsea7848]

who says it's falling apart?

[@Walterwhite_cooks]

The fact ur defending her is crazy

[@ruthbashford3176]

@@autumnsea7848 Anyone who knows anything about the case.

[@BernieRowlands-d4o]

Evans, Bohin,Gibbs, Brearey, Jayaram, Dr B. Take a look.

[@gstr]

Always interesting stumbling into comment sections on this case and seeing some who are certain she's guilty. As if they live in another reality to those of us who are convinced she's innocent. Well, ultimately those of us in the "innocent" group are going to be the ones proven right. Zero doubt about it. Just a question of how long.

[@lennymice2261]

Good luck with that.

[@jonathancoe4529]

Hi, I hope you're well. Our paths have crossed before in various comments sections including CS2C. I just wondered if you monitor any of the Facebook groups about the Lucy Letby case? There are many lively debates on this case there. Whenever I try to leave links on KZbin comments they disappear. @@lennymice2261

[@jonathancoe4529]

Mark McDonald says realistically around March/April. But if there's a big enough backlash on Starmer over Southport (which there is), that will help things because he's protecting his chums in the judiciary.

[@jonathancoe4529]

​@@lennymice2261No luck needed. Just a matter of time.

[@stephenquelch5197]

Interesting viewpoint. The question is whose alternative reality is based on the real world and whose is the fantasy. ?

[@jilly103]

Lucy is innocent 😢

[@markwhite3958]

So right at the end Mr Wilson confirms that he thinks Lucy is guilty. It is like he is a slightly more credible version of CS2CR where they all think Lucy is guilty no matter what the real subsequent evidence is and the fact that at least one of the babies was killed (accidentally) by a consultant and another baby Lucy had never met. Its a shame he wasn't interviewed by a journalistic heavyweight rather than two lightweight daytime presenters. No disrespect intended towards these two presenters but a case as serious as this should be dealt with by someone who is capable of testing the thoughts of the interviewee. FREE LUCY LETBY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@sinchasin3611]

So how did babies get the insulin in their bloodstream and air? Someone did it. And then you can gather all circumstantial evidence that leads to who did it.

[@judewhitbread2394]

@sinchasin3611 Absolutely, and it's nowhere near fact thst a doctor accidentally killed anyone on that unit. More delusion.

[@andypandy-v3j]

@@sinchasin3611 There was no insulin. But if there was then where did Letby get it from (a large quantity) and how did she administer it without anyone seeing and why couldn't someone else have done it? If there was air then it was most likely from the resuscitation attempts.

[@marksimpson7883]

She's not guilty she was a scap goet

[@salzburg18]

Is that a majestic Welsh mountain range?

[@colinmcewen9530]

shes cleary innocent and those doctors clearly committed perjury

[@marksimpson7883]

How true is that

[@usernameheda]

tin foil hat is out tonight I see

[@colinmcewen9530]

@@usernameheda no its called a fact do some research on the case

[@usernameheda]

@ I have done my research unlike you - tell me, how did synthetic insulin get into that babies blood stream ? magic ?

[@ruthbashford3176]

@@marksimpson7883 very true

[@richardmullins44]

She‘d been Framed by the Main stream Media, Social Media, prosecution, judge, the list goes on

[@fredphipps9452]

But surely Dewi Evans slipped up big time; therefore her guilty verdict is totally unsafe

[@nadinehassan59]

When I watched the documentary about Lucy Letby I thought she was💯 guilty , but now I think there is a lot of doubt in this case

[@stellar52]

Your intuition was absolutely right. Check out HG Tudor's analysis of her

[@KingBee24]

@@stellar52 Why ? He's a self appointed amateur psychologist.

[@stellar52]

@KingBee24 nope. He's a diagnosed narcissistic Psychopath. I'm not an expert, but due to my own past, growing up with Narcissists and having had several partners with NPD, once I learned about it, I was able to recognise it quickly, in people. Sometimes, only one habit has to be there, sometimes several. If they are only used by Narcissists and if there is further info and also, trials or interviews open to the public, it's absolutely possible to see "what" someone is. But it's quite difficult, most of the time. Whenever a person committed a crime, everyone who knew them would say that they never saw this coming. None of my abusers is seen for what they are, by others and also, I myself am autistic with adhd and nobody ever saw it in me, for 52 years, although I struggle with every typical autistic and adhd behaviour there is. I'm not walking around analysing everyone, because I can't. I need info and see behaviours and I never even saw that my own daughter is on the spectrum. Why? Because we have many wrong perceptions about how someone with whatever condition looks like. And we need to have a certain way of understanding things. I never knew this before, but my pattern recognition has always been really good and personality disorders are my special interest, as well.

[@KingBee24]

@@stellar52 You're correct that you're not an expert. Having a condition most definitely does not qualify you to diagnose it in others, quite the opposite in fact. HG Tudor's very amateurish understanding of psychology couldn't be more unreliable.

[@stellar52]

@KingBee24 If I hadn't realised the condition I have and the one my abusers have, I'd still be stuck there because nobody diagnosed me or told me who they are, to warn me. People like you are the cause others struggle and suffer. I don't care about your opinion and gaslighting

[@richardmullins44]

Every gesture this guy makes Betrays his falsity

[@Justin-td4bb]

Shes clearly innocent.

[@sinchasin3611]

Just because nobody saw her doing that?

[@Justin-td4bb]

@sinchasin3611 no. Mainly because the stats were not understood and they incriminated other nurses just as much.

[@MrChrisalf2004]

"Dewi DAVIES"????? Thats where he exposed himself as clueless.

[@ruthbashford3176]

LOL Shows how much he knows about the case!

[@ShowalterdontlikeME]

Thank you for pointing that out.😂

[@ruthgardner6468]

Indeed that was a shockingly unfortunate error!!

[@Why-I-Oughta]

Ah, the biased media and their descriptions of white child unalivers. 👼🏼

[@richardmullins44]

It‘s difficult for a bureaucracy to correct Even a Minor matter if they are not funded to do so.

[@bethv8149]

I love it when Professor Wilson appears on This Morning! Thank you for having him on today. Greetings from North Carolina!

[@richardmullins44]

The Trial is an emperor‘s clothes investigation

[@steely666]

She's innocent.

[@Kitcat-i5v]

LL framed!!!!

[@richardmullins44]

He‘s a stooge for. The prosecution. A heap of you know what

[@roathripper]

so when is she going to be acquitted and re-instated to her job?

[@MarianneBillings]

Never, thankfully.

[@annemagee5714]

She will never be re-instated , the taking home confidential information is a sacking offence.

[@jasmircreed9676]

Never for the rest of her life.

[@usernameheda]

people really need to read about the trial and evidence before saying she's innocent

[@clarec7640]

Intelligent people who think for themselves and do their own research say she is innocent. Because their research shows that the trial was flawed. Do your own research do not believe everything you are told. Worshipping and obeying your superiors, thinking they have done a superb job by reading and being misled by the court transcripts is the issue. Most people are serfs they only obey their superiors.

[@usernameheda]

@@clarec7640 trial being flawed doesn’t mean she’s innocent. Bold (and loudly wrong) of you to assume everyone who thinks she’s guilty also thinks the trial was perfect 😂 duhmass

[@usernameheda]

@@clarec7640 *tells people to do their own research* Clarec: “iNtElLiGeNt PeOpLe Do ThEiR OwN rEsEaRcH” Did you not do reading and comprehension at your school of “intelligence” ?

[@markwhite3958]

Oh I think we have. Take a moment to look at all the comments above- the vast majority support Lucy - doesn't that make you think?????

[@KingBee24]

@@markwhite3958 That's the problem. CS2CR followers DON'T think.

[@richardmullins44]

He‘s a heap of you know what. „How do you Tell if a lawyer is lying“

[@markwhite3958]

His lips are moving!!!!

[@sparkles1260]

She is guilty! Why would you think otherwise ? Because she's white and young??

[@GRH_Roadhouse]

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 Roadhouse

[@KingBee24]

What a puerile thing to say ! The bulk of Miscarriages of Justice are middle aged men !

[@jasmircreed9676]

Exactly, her supporters are in denial and want to believe she is innocent. Their views won't change while Letby stays in jail for the rest of her life.

[@turquoiseblue228]

Because we examine the evidence that's why. Have you done so? No, you just react.

[@goatnibblez]

Agreed. If we call it "relatability" to give them the benefit of doubt. If Lucy Letby was named Mo, and were an immigrant doctor from Nigeria, I can guarantee many of her supporters would call for her to be deported.

[@IRSH-sy5jn]

It would be interesting to find out what her sexiety is ? And more about her background.

[@Swansong321]

This is actually very fair and balanced...I think that some of the sensationalist evidence isn't necessarily damning...but that doesn't mean she's innocent...she's guilty and completely wicked and the poor babies and their parents are completely forgotten by David Davis and the" I love Lucy "trolls

[@kevinmcfarlane5149]

The parents were grieving the loss of their babies when they were lied to and told their babies were murdered. What they did to the parents was atrocious.

[@autumnsea7848]

@ If it was a lie or a cover up, why would they wait for so many babies to die before speaking it?

[@pjac-z4n]

I would say its people with a genuine opposing opinion rather than trolls

[@ShowalterdontlikeME]

So bereaved parents need to be falsely told their children were murdered to make them feel better?

[@HumanimalChannel]

What an over used out of touch Talking Head. LUCY letby is guilty tho, thru and thru

[@jonathancoe4529]

We agree on your first point. "Dewi Davis" 🤣

[@missbutnew]

What sad fir you mum's aut there who killed the babies

[@Walterwhite_cooks]

The comments defending this monster is actually hilarious

[@peterwilliamskelhorn6675]

@Walterwhite_cooks I'm not defending her. I'm just sick and tired of hearing about her

[@BernieRowlands-d4o]

Why watch this vid?​@@peterwilliamskelhorn6675

[@C_Xx7xX]

Armchair detectives without a fig of common sense

[@clairedavison5607]

Like the justice system never gets it wrong! 🙄

[@stud105]

Defending a monster is harsh. We're defending our right to a fair trial and legal system. It's not for her, it's for all of us including you. She may well be guilty.

[@dianecameron137]

why keep giving this the air time she is guilty she is still being investigated on other cases and those that say she did not do this are sick think of the families of the babies for gods sake these monsters are real and with a smile on their face as they work let this lie now she will never get to hurt more children and trials should not be by media the full evidence was in the court by the people with the facts the proof

[@BernieRowlands-d4o]

We are not sick as you say. We want the truth.

[@turquoiseblue228]

We are not sick. We can think.

[@pixiedragon83]

Try keeping up with the emerging facts...FFS...they need to start teaching critical thinking in school...

[@melgrant7404]

Agree Diane.

[@stephenquelch5197]

The problem is that a great many of the Letby supporters are not interested in looking at the court case in any detail. They jump on anything that supports their pre conceived view that she is innocent and ignore anything that refutes this. You will not change their minds with a you tube comment section. Whilst I find these comments interesting I also think it's a little sad.

[@caz4961]

Oh dear, even he's fallen for some of the fake information being put out there. There was no counsellor, not one mentioned in 8 years even by Letby herself. In fact she stated jotting her thoughts down was something she always did. That's how easily repeated lies can become accepted as facts, even by experts. Dewi Evans hasn't changed his mind since the trial and he gave a statement that refuted McDonalds accusation.

[@jonathancoe4529]

My sisters are nurses and are aware of 'Externalising Stress Therapy'. If it was so incriminating why did she not throw them away?

[@caz4961]

@@jonathancoe4529 Maybe she did throw some away and forgot about others, some were found in handbags? Forgotten what she'd written or when? After all she forgot that she'd taken over 200 hospital documents home, despite having moved them several times.

[@autumnsea7848]

David Wilson is honest and fair, and he is so right. LL doesn't conform to the perception of a Serial Killer in many people's eyes (like Harold Shipman) and the crimes are so horrific, people like Peter Hitchens are in denial. They WANT her to be innocent.

[@KingBee24]

Peter Hitchens doesn't say she's innocent. He says that there are so many doubts that the case needs to be re-examined.

[@autumnsea7848]

@@KingBee24 he argues she should not have gone to jail which presumes her innocence because, in his eyes she wasn't proven guilty

[@KingBee24]

@@autumnsea7848 The criteria is "beyond reasonable doubt", which this case clearly isn't. It's a dangerous precedent for someone to be convicted by opinion, when there is so much doubt.

[@turquoiseblue228]

And you WANT her to be guilty.

[@autumnsea7848]

@@turquoiseblue228 why do you say that?

[@Saimansiddharth2.0]

Anybody wanna friendship with me ❤

[@marianneberge1123]

polygraph test ?

[@davestokes3446]

They don't work!

[@annieridesagain3262]

These tests don't work on serial killers, because they are always psychopaths and pathological liars. They don't feel the slightest twinge of guilt or empathy for any other fellow human beings, so their body systems remain completely at ease whist being rigged up to the electrical lie detecting equipment , under their verbal questioning. They will pass the polygraph test with flying colours, ( albeit seemingly!)

[@usernameheda]

pseudoscience

[@richardmullins44]

It‘s difficult for a bureaucracy to correct Even a Minor matter if they are not funded to do so.