Letby Case (part 2)

[OneFrenchEgg]

www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4652340-lucy-letby-court-case?reply=121815754

follow up, remember rules around discussion of active cases

She's fighting so hard to not place herself near many of he babies when they collapsed it's actually making me more suspicious of her actions. She's a nurse spotting things like this is her job right??

And many of the instances when she is placed near them have come from her friends/colleagues who couldn't believe the allegations when they first came about, not the gang of 4.

I don’t really put ‘experts’ on this kind of pedestal tbh. They’re professionals giving their opinion no more no less. They may be right or wrong, it’s hard to say given that there’s no hard objective evidence other than in the insulin cases.

Are they in court today?

I believe so, I'm not sure if they finish at 3 though due to an app.That may be a different day this week though.

Just a gentle reminder that we shouldn’t be speculating on guilt or innocence only discussing the evidence

I agree. It definitely feels like she had an agenda and was not happy with anyone who stood in her way of being in room 1.

I don't place much emphasis on the rambling notes myself, there are too many contradictory thoughts for me to begin to try and understand them. At that stage, serial killer or not, she was clearly in a very bad place mentally.

I did find it interesting as they cross examined her the other day regarding the case with the Dr you mentioned. His timings all add up and are logged on the computers. He even states he didn't actually see her do anything and that it's her lack of action (alarms not sounding, no intervention etc..) that concerned him. She yet again has no recollection of any of it, but surely if you were going to lie and try and frame someone for murder you would say you categorically saw something.

Hi all

Please can we remind you that as this is an active case, we can't allow any speculation on the thread. Thanks.

Has any more information about the higher than average stillbirth rate at the same time been discussed at all ?

In passing. I haven’t seen detailed information about it.

Another day of inconsistencies- it’s strange how things happened quite quickly after parents had left the ward. This happened to a few of the babies not just one family

Today LL once again disputed a version of events submitted by a family.

The KC also called Dr A her boyfriend. Which she didn’t seem to appreciate

I'm kind of late to this thread so you probably already have this info. Although the rate of stillbirth varies and is higher than the national average it doesn't seem to vary significantly in the COCH itself. The neonate death increase in 2015/2016 speaks for itself however.

Yes that’s the data I’ve seen. There’s a significant increase in stillbirths in 2015 and 2017. In neonate deaths it’s 2015 and 2016.

From a statistical point of view, I'd say the 2 and 6 are unusually low. They wouldnt be significant due to the overall variation though and the confidence intervals would definately overlap. Whereas the neonates would probably have a statistically significant higher than average in 2015/2016 with CI not overlapping.

Without more data it’s impossible to tell.

What data?

But stillbirth National average was 3.8 per 1000 (until 2020/21 when it rose to 4.1 - first rise in 7 years) so from that pov 2013 & 2014 are also over double the average.

More annual data.

National data doesn't really matter here. It's the variation in the actual hospital that's key to this case. It alludes to an outside factor at play that has been present before in that hospital.

National data does matter, it’s an index of how the hospital is performing on stillbirths compared to the national average. However, it’s true the data for the particular hospital is key, which is why we need more annual data.

That's what I said, national data doesn't matter here i.e in this case, which is probably why it's not getting discussed in the trial.

Also the dataset from a large number of years is likely to fluctuate more due to technological advances etc... so would loose it's comparability. The key data is likely the years we actually have the numbers for.

Sorry this should say an outside factor that HAS NOT been present before in that hospital.

I disagree, I think it does matter, although it’s not relevant to the trial as that is not focused on stillbirths.

It’s precisely the fluctuation I would like to see over a wider number of years.

The stillbirth data is what we’ve been comparing to the National average.
The trial is about neonates. The neonate data doesn’t tell you anything about an outside factor -(I guess you mean indicates not alludes?), it’s raw numbers for which different explanations could be found.