We need to talk about Lucy Letby

[HardwickHall]

As the “Lucy Letby denied leave to appeal” thread has filled up, I thought I’d start another thread to discuss the case, hopefully for discussion of the trial, evidence, prosecution and defence etc rather than fact free frothing.

I’ve just listened to episode 15 of “We Need To Talk About Lucy Letby” where they discuss the New Yorker article by Rachel Aviv and specifically the problems with the roster data table which was shown (several times as I understand it) by the prosecution during the trial. It’s quite shocking actually. Recommended listening.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/we-need-to-talk-about-lucy-letby/id1736761161?i=1000658160398

The scapegoat theory doesn’t make sense. There have been many cases in the U.K. where there have been institutional failings in hospitals and trusts and large numbers of excess deaths. In none of these has someone been fitted up for murder. So why would it be in this situation?

The medical evidence has been taken apart and put back together again by expert witnesses on the prosecution side of the case.

The defence had ample opporutunity to respond. They did not. Why did they not robustly take apart the medical evidence and refute it? Where were all the expert witnesses in Letby's defence?

Conditions in the hospital, likewise. A witness claimed they saw Letby standing doing nothing whilst a baby desaturated. This was Baby K; now subject to a retrial, so now is her opportunity to give a plausible explanations. Whether her defence will take it remains to be seen. Beyond Letby's own denials the first trial never dealt satisfactorily with this question (or the question as to why the alarm which would have alerted staff to the desaturation had been disabled).

If anything Letby was cosseted and protected by that hospital, who before examining Letby's own behaviour accused a whole set of concerned paediatric healthcare professionals of a bullying campaign against her. The idea that she was set up to cover for failings is simply not borne out by this context.

There is little to laugh at about this distressing case. But the idea that the justice system can be successfully 'held to account' by idle gossips on the internet strikes me as distinctly comical.

There was scope to refute the roster evidence with expert witnesses.
There was scope to refute the "confession" notes with expert witnesses.
There was scope to refute the cause of death evidence with expert witnesses.
The defense called a plumber.
Maybe she didn't get the best defence possible?

She did. She had an excellent and highly renowned team of defence barristers - the least of which every citizen has a right to expect and the cornerstone of a robust justice system. Anything else would have left the case vulnerable to appeal. As we've seen in recent weeks, the right to appeal was denied on the basis of a set series of criteria which apply to every other citizen in these circumstances. Letby has not been singled out as a 'scapegoat', either by the hospital or by the legal system. And the suggestion I've seen made elsewhere, that these two establishment institutions are somehow in cahoots, is too fantastical to be plausible.

If the defence wasn't provided it's a logical conclusion that it wasn't there. Where there was doubt, the verdicts of the jury illustrated this accordingly.

This was a fair trial that returned safe verdicts.

@SerafinasGoose You don't think there was an element of cherry picking about the roster data? Or other viewpoints about cause of death/injury?

"Within two hours of Baby K’s birth, Letby was said to have been “caught virtually red-handed” by a senior consultant paediatrician when he saw her standing over the cot “doing nothing” as Baby K’s blood oxygen levels dipped and alarms were not sounding as they should have done."

From today's news, she sounds nice and innocent 🙄

You do realise the media isn’t objective, yes?

@BeetlejuiceBeetlejuiceBeetlejuice Note the article states.. Caught by a senior consultant paediatrician. Not caught by the media like you are suggesting.

I’ve stood over babies desaturating and “not done anything”. Including silencing alarms. Babies do desaturate briefly, take a breath and rapidly improve. It’s not out of the realms of possibility that she was pausing 15 seconds to see which way the baby was going and he walked in at the wrong time. 🤷‍♀️

https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/aop.html

@CormorantStrikesBack

I didn't know that, I guess though when you put it all together it paints a picture of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is sometimes as important as physical evidence so on anyone else your example of waiting 15 seconds would be completely innocent, her reasoning for not doing anything for innocent reasons seems unlikely when you look at her behaviour as a whole.

I agree there seems to be a lot of circumstantial evidence. But so much of it in isolation seems to be potentially innocent stuff, like the watching while a baby desaturates. If they looked for circumstantial evidence for someone else would there be similar? Every NICU nurse I know will have watched a baby desaturate while silencing the alarm. Was she just unfortunate that she was working so much so present for so many? I have no idea from a statistical pov how much circumstantial evidence you need before saying well nobody can be this unlucky/explain everything away. I did listen to all the podcast and read the court updates daily but admit it was a year ago, i can’t remember all the details. I do hope she’s guilty but I’m uneasy.

I’m aware. I read your comment. My point is that the media are choosing their spin, and usually there’s a political element. It sells papers to push the demon nurse narrative. If we ‘other’ people then we feel better about ourselves, as a society.

The U.K. press generally aren’t going to poke the hornets’ nest or a potential miscarriage of justice at this point, particularly when The New Yorker article was blocked. They have a vested interest in keeping people sweet on the NHS.

Presumably you’re not taking the stance that a doctor can’t possibly be incorrect, or can’t possibly be covering something up, or can’t possibly miss things. That would be illogical.

What’s her behaviour as a whole?

I’m also curious as to how you account for the other factors: that statistically, it’s far more likely the deaths can be attributed to natural causes (and indeed were, with zero alarm bells at the time), that the unit was under-resourced (and this had been raised by senior doctors) and at serious risk of an increased risk of infant deaths, that the unit was downgraded (if it had no fault why would this be), that the rota stats were presented completely incorrectly?

What’s her behaviour as a whole?

If you bother to read the live updates from Court you’ll find her behaviour as a whole.

I’m also curious as to how you account for the other factors: that statistically, it’s far more likely the deaths can be attributed to natural causes

There were at least 8 senior medical witnesses - from paediatricians to endocrinologists to pathologists - who proved the deaths were not as a result of natural causes. Again if you read the live updates from court you’ll find the answer to your curiosity

That the unit was under-resourced (and this had been raised by senior doctors)

Letby was given opportunity at the start of every day, during her testimony, to change her mind as to the account she had given on her police statement. She, herself, stated, several times, that the unit was not under resourced.

The unit was downgraded (if it had no fault why would this be)

The unit was downgraded after Letby was arrested. There has been no explanation why it was downgraded. Your guess is as good as anyone else’s.

Things that would improve transparency in cases like those of Sally Clark:

• If any whistleblower in the UK had ever benefited by coming forward.
• If none of the parties to a case could expect to profit from a particular verdict.
• If the British judicial system recognised that miscarriages of justice take place and had efficient and effective procedures to deal with such circumstances.

Well the fact that the hospital was downgraded may be significant if it wasn't for the fact that the babies she was found guilty of killing were not seriously premature and at risk due to that

Iirc they were 6 weeks, 7 weeks 8 weeks 10 weeks and 1 was full term in nicu and being monitored due to the mothers waters breaking early

Some of the attempted murders were on babies that were much more premature

She did what all serial killers do, she escalated to the point where the hospital could no longer bollock the consultants and make them apologise for accusing her, she was protected by the hospital for how long? People thinking she was thrown to the wolves due to inadequate care are being bloody ridiculous after all the support she was given when it was first raised by staff that worked with her

Sally clarkes babies died in 1996 and 1998 sids was higher back then and the back to back campaign to try and prevent it didn't start until 1994 , it's horrific what she went through but it's not relivent to this case 20 years later

I’m not understanding why you’re getting passive aggressive with someone who has a different opinion to you on the internet.

I have read plenty, thank you. I was asking for your opinion as to why you think this is watertight with no room for potential error.

What I can’t be ‘bothered’ with, is trying to converse with someone in good faith who isn’t treating me with the same respect.

What all serial killers do…?

I’m still confused as to how those who support the verdict think those who don’t are somehow supporting LL by having concerns about points in the case that don’t add up. If the verdict is watertight then there should be no problem in examining it.

The answers to your questions are in the live reports from Court.

If you think anyone has the time or inclination to go through 10 months worth of evidence to explain it to you then you are very much mistaken.

The live reports are online. Look for them yourself.

Would appreciate a heads-up from anyone with knowledge of jurisprudence. I've heard of cases before where after the verdict, those in the court have been aghast at the defendant's previous criminal history.
I haven't heard of a situation before where the defendant's previous convictions have been used to support the prosecution case. From today's Guardian:

“You have killed seven babies on that ward haven’t you?”
“And you have tried to kill six others, one on two separate occasions?” the prosecutor continued.

If the rules have changed, do we expect a sea change in conviction rates for violence against women?

What concerns me is that there were 17 babies who died in that period and she was only charged with 7. Considering that the normal rate was 3 babies per year if you take out the 7 she supposedly killed that is still 10 which still indicates something is off in the ward.

Absolutely. What is the explanation for this?

I’m also interested in this aspect. I’ve been trying to find information about this but not getting far. Is it because of the “evidence of bad character” section in the Criminal Justice Act 2003?

@HardwickHall My searching suggested 'bad character', but given some awful verdicts where a lovely man who loves his mother and rescues stray kittens is acquitted of his most serious charges before dozens or previous convictions for similar or more serious crimes are revealed, I'm surprised it's not used more widely.