Lucy Letby denied leave to appeal

[Viviennemary]

Just heard on the news Lucy Letby the convicted serial killer has been denied leave to appeal. Good decision I think. She should stay behind bars for the rest of her life.

Strange comment. There are examples of other hospitals where poor staffing and resources have led directly to a high death rate.

Were other hospitals running a level 2 unit that was suspended following a royal college of paediatrics report citing “inadequate staffing levels”, “poor decision making” and “insufficient senior cover”?

I agree with this. I listened to all the trial podcasts and considering it was about medicine it all seemed very non scientific somehow. Like they'd posed a theory that 'could be' possible but was in fact most unlikely. All the evidence to me seems circumstantial. Added to the fact that the unit was clearly a failing unit and I'm very uncomfortable about this case. I keep thinking if the unit Drs got a feeling about her that must be based on something but then if there was no scapegoat they'd also have been held accountable when the inevitable enquiry into why there were so many poor outcomes happened.

It could still go to the Supreme Court.

It is also relevant to note that the hospital had a spike in stillbirths at the same time. Letby did not work in the maternity ward.

I hope so. This thread has been illuminating and has deeply concerned me. It’s a horrendous thought to think a woman is in a cell right now and has done nothing.

I meant to share this earlier. The Royal Statistical Society has, in fact, written to the chair of the Letby inquiry about exactly this. https://rss.org.uk/news-publication/news-publications/2023/general-news/the-rss-writes-to-the-chair-of-the-lucy-letby-inqu/

Yes the same Richard Gill who was involved in De Berks release. She was not tried in a British Court.

I kept track of evidence in exactly the same way as you and everyone else. Heard it, read it, listened to podcasts, watched YouTube videos from credible sources.

Dr Hall was not called to give evidence, therefore anything he has to say re the evidence already heard is not relevant.

That’s not so. Any future hearing (for example, the Supreme Court) can include new evidence, witnesses etc.

Interesting that that letter from the Royal Statistical Society doesn't actually express any concern about the way statistics were used in the Letby case, and just asks the inquiry chair to consider including a point on their use in the ToR (which seems sensible). This is especially interesting if there is already precedent for the RSS expressing concern about other cases.

Perhaps it's because, contrary to assertions made by several posters on this thread, the prosecution in the Letby trial never actually relied on statistical evidence to make their case.

The Supreme Court dealing with appeals virtually never takes witness evidence, and there are very strict rules around admitting new evidence of any kind. In particular, it needs to be shown that it wasn't available at the time of the original hearing and/or that there was a good reason why it could not have been produced at that time. Obviously none of that applies in relation to Dr Hall's evidence.

In that letter the RSS clearly state a concern about statistical evidence that was presented in the trial:

“Some of the
evidence used in the trial was on the face of it statistical in nature – eg, the duty roster spreadsheet of data
that indicated Letby’s presence on shift when babies collapsed or died. And, if you are considering ways in
which NHS trusts might more quickly act in this type of case, evidence based on statistics and data could
well play an important role.
However, it is far from straightforward to draw conclusions from suspicious clusters of deaths in a hospital
setting – it is a statistical challenge to distinguish event clusters that arise from criminal acts from those that
arise coincidentally from other factors, even if the data in question was collected with rigour.”

I think the point with regard to the duty roster is that it was simply presented as what triggered the original concerns and investigation. The prosecution was certainly not claiming that it was in any way conclusive on its own.

@Kittybythelighthouse They really don't clearly state a concern - 'on the face of it statistical in nature' is putting it incredibly vaguely. And the whole letter is couched in very general terms around how the NHS could be supported to look at clusters of incidents in future and take appropriate action quickly (good idea).

That is not at all reflective of what the letter says. It is advising caution in reading clusters of incidents as criminal acts vs coincidence arising from other factors.

“it is far from straightforward to draw conclusions from suspicious clusters of deaths in a hospital
setting – it is a statistical challenge to distinguish event clusters that arise from criminal acts from those that
arise coincidentally from other factors, even if the data in question was collected with rigour.
This is an area
where the Royal Statistical Society has recently conducted work. In 2022 we released our report, Healthcare
Serial Killer or Coincidence? Statistical issues in the investigation of suspected medical misconduct, which
details some of the challenges in using statistics and data to identify criminal activity in a medical setting and
sets out some proposals for how statistics might be properly used.”

Of course they weren’t claiming that it was conclusive. No one thinks it’s the only thing the prosecution presented in court. The statistical pattern was not the only evidence presented against Lucia De Berk either. It is still a faulty use of statistics. Becoming suspicious based on a statistical pattern like this and then working backwards from there, is a faulty use of statistics that can lead to miscarriages of justice (and indeed has done just that in several high profile cases).

Child E wasn't receiving insulin at the time of child F's collapse.

It is advising caution in reading clusters of incidents as criminal acts vs coincidence arising from other factors.

Agreed, and fair enough, but the letter does not formally express any concern about the way statistics were used in this case.

The CCRC does consider evidence and witnesses not presented at trial. I understand that this is what happened with the Post Office Horizon scandal.

That isn't what happened here, though, is it? Those originally charged with the investigation completely dismissed the statistics and found that there was no case to answer. Even when they went to the police, it was not on the basis that they thought the babies had been murdered, but that they just didn't know and wanted the police to investigate.

I think it’s very hard to read the letter and have that take away. It’s a very carefully worded letter, as it should be, but the whole point of the letter is about underlining the shakiness of those statistics.

It’s a bit disingenuous to overlook that the entire reason Letby was suspected in the first place is because Jarayam noted that she was on shift for most of the deaths. This misuse of statistics was repeated in most of the news coverage, as was the infamous shift chart (which actually had a mistake on it, a shift that Letby was not present for but yet was reproduced ad infinitum anyway). This dodgy statistical ‘evidence’ was literally front page news for months. It is also repeated over and over in this very thread as supposedly compelling evidence against Letby.

The incidents all occur when Letby is either caring for babies, minutes after she's given IV medicine or she's been the one to notice the babies deteriorated. There doesn't seem to be many incidents when she's on shift but in the canteen, labour ward, on a training course, in Ibiza. She's always in the thick of the drama.

Yes to all of this.

I don't think you understood the point that was being made there.

Absolutely.

And let’s not forget the whole hospital had repeated CQC “requires improvement” ratings.