If you were previously on the fence about Lucy Letby’s guilt, have the Thirlwall findings swayed you either way?

The babies died at a lower rate after the hospital was - rightly - downgraded so they no longer took babies that fragile.

I don't know if she is guilty or not but feel her conviction is unsafe. Whenever the case is in the news I'm reminded of the Sally Clarke case. Obviously very different but there's just something about the LL case that feels off.

Dennis Nilsen had a Dog he was very fond of and seemingly took very good care of, who would look after his dog was one of the only things he was concerned about when he was arrested.

I think in any murder case we have to be absolutely certain first of all that a murder took place

Letby's case has a lot in common with Sally's; both involved bad statistics and overreaching expert witnesses.

Not related to the case, but Evans was one of Meadows' biggest supporters at the time of the scandal and has nothing but positive things to say about him.

But they didn’t count babies who died in other hospitals in pre 2015 deaths so the spike in deaths in 2015 is undeniable, the question is was LL responsible. I think she was

Absolutely. They did actually count them in official stats and they are part of the spike that happened in 2015 -16. Like you I would have absolutely no doubt that there was a spike in deaths then - it is obvious. The question is what caused it.

Two things there: by random chance, we should see a similar spike at three or so neonatal units on the NHS every year. This doesn't indicate murder.

Probably more important: the hospital took on more children who were particularly vulnerable specifically from April 2015 onwards. The indictment deaths started June 2015. Occupancy of the intensive care cots went up, and during these busiest months, the indictment babies died.

When you look at the explanations the international expert panel offers for the deaths, they reflect a unit under that sort of pressure - delayed admissions, delayed procedures, delayed test results - alongside the panel's broader claim that the staff didn't have the skills and knowledge base to deal with such vulnerable children.

The spike definitely happened. But deaths dropping off after it reflect the fact that most children born at the unit were less vulnerable, and the most vulnerable were transferred out and died elsewhere. The numbers were definitely a huge cause for alarm whether you believe a murderer was involved or not. Unfortunately we see across the country that maternity and neonatal units struggle and children die unnecessarily without murder being committed.

I imagine lots of murderers have good qualities and lots of innocent people are unpleasant and unattractive - I think it's pretty useless to try to work anything out from people's demeanour. Especially after you have arrested them and locked them up, when they are unlikely to be at their best!

From @Oftenaddled

Probably more important: the hospital took on more children who were particularly vulnerable specifically from April 2015 onwards. The indictment deaths started June 2015. Occupancy of the intensive care cots went up, and during these busiest months, the indictment babies died.

When linked with the downgrading of the unit after LL was removed is often overlooked and used as some sort of fait accompli as to she must hoave done whilst ignoring the massive change in curcumstances for the unit.

Yes but it had been at level 2 for 10 years before being downgraded in 2016 and there’s been 1 death since.

The thirlwell report says:

In the years preceding 2015, the number of deaths on the neonatal unit at the Countess was consistently low. The number of deaths against the number of admissions each year was:

1. 2010: 1 death; 422 admissions
2. 2011: 3 deaths; 514 admissions
3. 2012: 3 deaths; 556 admissions
4. 2013: 2 deaths; 460 admissions
5. 2014: 3 deaths; 557 admissions

In 2015 eight babies out of 468 admissions died on the neonatal unit. In addition, two other babies born at the Countess were transferred to other hospitals, where they died.

She’s an evil monster.

She’s an evil monster if they were murdered.

During my first pregnancy I was found to be positive for thalassemia. It’s really rare in people who are white British (which I am.) I just looked it up and the stats are about one in one thousand. It’s that difference between ‘there is a really low chance of this happening’ and ‘this happened so there must be an alternative explanation.’

What I find interesting is if you look at the stillbirth rates at Chester, they also spiked in 2015, now Lucy wasn’t a midwife so she would have been nowhere near those babies which suggests there was something else going on in that hospital at the time, but of course both things could be true. She’s a murderer AND the hospital was sub-standard

Yes, those numbers are right. Three neonatal units a year will see a similar spike. A much bigger number of hospitals generally.

So are they all harbouring murderers?

It’s not ignoring that at all. There’s been 1 death since the unit was downgraded - 1 in total. These figures related to when the hospital was at the higher level 2 (copied from Thirlwell report):

1. 2010: 1 death; 422 admissions
2. 2011: 3 deaths; 514 admissions
3. 2012: 3 deaths; 556 admissions
4. 2013: 2 deaths; 460 admissions
5. 2014: 3 deaths; 557 admissions
6. In 2015, eight babies out of 468 admissions died on the neonatal unit.

This news article from before Lucy was a suspect states there was 13 unexplained deaths and staffing was an issue, makes you wonder what caused the unexplained deaths she wasn’t charged with.

A spike like there was in a unit like the Countess of Chester has been calculated as less than 1% probability of occurring by random chance, so no, they probably aren’t “harbouring murderers”.

On the spike this came up

Not an Extreme Outlier: Statistical experts, including statistician Sir David Spiegelhalter and mathematics professor John O'Quigley, testified and concluded that the mortality rate at the Countess of Chester Hospital was only about 10% higher than the average for similar neonatal units.

Who calculated that? I think it's increasingly clear that anything the prosecution put forward cannot be relied upon as factual. It's certainly not what Sir David Spiegelhalter, a leading statistician at Cambridge University, put forward to Thirlwall.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpdxn4x5477o

So you admit that the drop in figures is down to the unit being downgraded, yet refuse to see that the increase could and probably would be due to an increase in takling in babies that have more extreme issues?

@Oftenaddled why are you SO sure she's innocent? Like I get having doubts or thinking the trial was a shitshow or whatever but even you admit the insulin could be deliberate harm amongst other things so why are you so closed off to the possiblity?

The insulin could be deliberate harm; there are other explanations that are just as, if not more, plausible, but I agree that deliberate harm could also be an explanation for the high insulin levels. What I don't accept is that there is any evidence that Letby administered the insulin. The poisoned TPN bags are far too far-fetched to be believable.

We don't know if insulin can be delivered that way. We don't know how much insulin it would take if that was the delivery route or whether that would be a noticeable amount to go missing, and there is no explanation as to how she managed to inject insulin into a tamper-proof TPN bag on a small and busy neonatal ward without anyone seeing her.

I'm not saying she's innocent; I don't know whether she is or isn't. I am saying none of what she was convicted of is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Great post. I believe Lucy Letby failed her final nursing placement for not having empathy or something similar but it still doesn’t make her a murderer.

s

I have read the online trial transcripts and their summaries. The methods of death proposed are not logically presented and defended. Their proponents happily switch position on which events were sinister, which not. They cite opposite indicators as proof of the same thing. They bluster, snipe, and change the rules as they go along. They rely on obvious sleights of hand.

So - where does that leave me? I don't have access to the medical notes. The chief prosecution experts, who did, are obviously seriously unreliable. Everyone who has looked at them since the trial and expresses an opinion in public says natural death. The initial autopsies said natural (or iatrogenic) death. The hospital's external reviews said natural or iatrogenic death. Why should I believe it's anything other than natural or iatrogenic death?

The statistics, some people say. Deaths went up. But that's easily explained and happens continuously at other hospitals. She was present at all the deaths and incidents? I am not a statistician but I have some training and some experience in this area. I can very easily how a cheap but specialist nurse ended up on shift for the worst events so often, in a hospital which only needed her specialist services about a third of the time.

What's left after that? Character, social media, notes at home. Why would they matter if the deaths are natural and the pattern of events doesn't need any extraordinary explanations.

I would suggest that it's worth people having a look at the prosecution evidence: Evans and Bohin especially, and seeing what they think. Nearly all of it is now online:
https://lucyletbyinnocence.com/transcripts.html

It's quite a depressing read for anyone who thought a court could make judgements on science. But why should a court be able to do that? Nothing in our system is set up to support it.

I do read any new information and contributions carefully, but nothing has undermined that position yet. Hope that answers your question.

It’s a very depressing thought if this is the case. She’s living a Cat A kafkaesque nightmare.

If it were 1%, we could still expect to see it at more than one hospital a year. So is that murder?