Lucy Letby - The Notes, Where The Law Failed

 14 August 2025

Why Private, Random Thoughts Should Never Be Used to Convict Someone

The human mind produces thousands of thoughts a day — neuroscientists estimate anywhere between 6,000 and 60,000, most of which are fleeting, contradictory, and involuntary. Many are never acted upon, and many are not even consciously endorsed. Yet in some criminal cases, prosecutors have presented diary entries, private journal notes, or scraps of written thought as “proof” of intent or guilt. This practice is scientifically flawed, psychologically dangerous, and legally unsound.

1. Thoughts Are Not Actions

From a neuroscience perspective, there is a clear distinction between thought generation and behavioural execution. Thoughts arise in networks such as the default mode network (DMN), which is active during mind-wandering. These spontaneous mental events are often exploratory or emotional “drafts” — not plans. Turning a thought into action requires activation of goal-directed executive circuits in the prefrontal cortex, engagement of the motor system, and environmental opportunity. A scribbled idea in a notebook does not demonstrate that this chain ever occurred.

2. Intrusive and Anxious Thoughts Are Normal

Cognitive psychology and clinical research (including OCD studies) show that unwanted intrusive thoughts are common — violent, absurd, or morally unacceptable content can occur in the minds of healthy people. Under anxiety or stress, the brain’s error-detection circuits (anterior cingulate cortex) and threat systems (amygdala) are overactive, making distressing ideas more likely to surface. Writing them down can be a coping tool, a way to process and discharge them — not a confession.

3. Written Fragments Lack Context

In linguistics and forensic psychology, meaning is highly dependent on context: what preceded the entry, what followed, the emotional state of the writer, and whether it was fictional, hypothetical, or metaphorical. Without this context, interpretation is guesswork — and guesswork in a courtroom undermines the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt.”

4. The Memory–Meaning Gap

Memory science shows that even the writer may not later recall exactly why a note was made. Emotional state, fatigue, medication effects, and dissociation can all affect both the formation and later interpretation of personal writing. Jurors and even experts risk retrofitting sinister meaning onto harmless or therapeutic self-expression.

5. The Chilling Effect on Mental Health

If people fear their private thoughts could be used as evidence, they may stop journaling or seeking therapy — removing a key outlet for emotional regulation. This has public-health consequences: journaling is linked to reduced stress, improved immune function, and better emotional clarity. Criminalising thought risks harming many to pursue a few.

6. Legal and Ethical Principles

The principle of mens rea (guilty mind) in law refers to intent at the time of the act — not stray musings before or after. Democracies also uphold the right to freedom of thought (Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights) as absolute. Using random private thoughts as incriminating evidence trespasses on this right and edges into “thought crime” territory, a concept rightly condemned in free societies.

Case Study: When Private Thoughts Become a Courtroom Weapon

In 2008, in the UK case of Sally Clark (wrongly convicted of murdering her two children in 1999), private notes she had written during deep postnatal depression were presented in court as suggestive of guilt. In reality, the entries reflected grief, confusion, and the normal mental turmoil of a bereaved mother under suspicion. The conviction was later quashed after statistical and medical evidence proved the case against her was flawed — but the damage to her life was irreversible.

In the United States, the case of Andrea Yates (2001) also showed how mental health notes and statements taken out of context can be weaponised in court, sometimes without full understanding of psychiatric conditions or the nature of intrusive thoughts. In both cases, the interpretation of personal writings fed into a narrative that overrode scientific understanding of mental illness and cognitive processing.

These examples show that when justice treats the contents of a private mind as proof of criminal action, it risks catastrophic error. The human mind is not a crime scene — and random, personal writing should remain outside the reach of the prosecution’s hand.

Selected Scientific and Legal References

1. Andrews-Hanna, J. R., Smallwood, J., & Spreng, R. N. (2014). The default network and self-generated thought: component processes, dynamic control, and clinical relevance. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1316(1), 29–52.

2. Rachman, S. (2007). Unwanted intrusive thoughts. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45(9), 2159–2166.

3. Brewin, C. R., & Andrews, B. (2017). Creating memories for false autobiographical events in childhood: A systematic review. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31(1), 2–23.

4. European Court of Human Rights. (2023). Guide on Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

5. Gudjonsson, G. H., & Haward, L. R. (1998). Forensic Psychology: A Guide to Practice. Routledge.

6. McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (2012). Juror decision-making about scientific evidence: The role of expert testimony on the psychology of false confessions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18(3), 303–331.

Liz Lucy Robillard 14/08/25

lizlucyrobillard.crd.co