Lucy Letby found guilty of attempted murder (baby K)

LemonPeonies · 02/07/2024 16:14

I can't believe some people were doubting her guilt. Hope she rots 🤢

Original poster

PrettyFlyforaMaiTai · 02/07/2024 16:39

There are apparently more cases where babies in her care/when she was on duty have allegedly had their breathing tubes pulled or tampered with. I wonder if Baby K was the test to see whether the other cases could be brought forward for trial?

OP posts:

Original poster

PrettyFlyforaMaiTai · 02/07/2024 16:40

I wonder if she will attend on Friday? Or be made to considering she refused to come up last time.

OP posts:

Original poster

PrettyFlyforaMaiTai · 02/07/2024 17:17

They’ve now released the reason why her appeal was refused

www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-letby-3/

OP posts:

Elderflower14 · 02/07/2024 17:24

Bloody good job. Hope she rots in hell or her life is made hell in prison!!! 😡 😡 😡 😡

Viviennemary · 02/07/2024 19:21

Relief all round the correct verdict was reached. The jury didnt take long.

Mouswife · 02/07/2024 19:23

Glad it’s over for the victims family

Nigbo · 09/07/2024 12:02

I'm not a lawyer but the first thing that flagged this case up to me was the use of the statistical evidence , ie that Letby had been on shift for each of the baby deaths, I do have considerable experience in statistics and their use in science and my immediate thought was that the statistical evidence was very suspect. Most folk have a very poor gut understanding of stats and probability. It's one of the easiest ways to mislead a jury or for that matter electors, politicians are very good at doing that. Since then I understand the retired president of the Royal Society of Statisticians has questioned both evidence and the way it was presented to the jury. More recently several more eminent mathematicians have questioned the data. Cases based on statistical evidence in the Netherlands eventually got found unsafe . I also know from work in biology that anti body testing (for the Letby case for synthetic insulin) in general at best can only be used as a general indicator that the thing you are testing for might be there but you need to follow up with more detailed investigation , but is never conclusive and certainly to use as evidence in a legal cases is inappropriate.
So I am not saying she is innocent but that at least 2 of the 3 strands of evidence that she was convicted on are unsafe.
Her defence team has done a poor job that is for certain.

Justrelax · 29/07/2024 23:26

Nigbo · 09/07/2024 12:02

I'm not a lawyer but the first thing that flagged this case up to me was the use of the statistical evidence , ie that Letby had been on shift for each of the baby deaths, I do have considerable experience in statistics and their use in science and my immediate thought was that the statistical evidence was very suspect. Most folk have a very poor gut understanding of stats and probability. It's one of the easiest ways to mislead a jury or for that matter electors, politicians are very good at doing that. Since then I understand the retired president of the Royal Society of Statisticians has questioned both evidence and the way it was presented to the jury. More recently several more eminent mathematicians have questioned the data. Cases based on statistical evidence in the Netherlands eventually got found unsafe . I also know from work in biology that anti body testing (for the Letby case for synthetic insulin) in general at best can only be used as a general indicator that the thing you are testing for might be there but you need to follow up with more detailed investigation , but is never conclusive and certainly to use as evidence in a legal cases is inappropriate.
So I am not saying she is innocent but that at least 2 of the 3 strands of evidence that she was convicted on are unsafe.
Her defence team has done a poor job that is for certain.

Utter nonsense. She was convicted on the basis of the very damning and extensive evidence against her. This latest case and the short time taken to reach a verdict shows that - once again - a jury of her peers could see exactly what happened. Statistics had very little relevance and she has a highly skilled and experienced QC who knows a hell of a lot more about the case (and probably everything) than random internet folk. Anyone who defends a baby murderer is sick in the head.

evelynevelyn · 30/07/2024 00:22

Classics of this type of thread, coming in early:

Point: "This person might not be a baby murderer"

Rebuttal: "Anyone who defends a baby murderer is sick in the head"

"The process is reliable, so we outsiders cannot second-guess it. And I know the process is reliable because it produced the answer that I, an outsider, know to be right."

BikesIHaveLost · 30/07/2024 00:44

evelynevelyn · 30/07/2024 00:22

Classics of this type of thread, coming in early:

Point: "This person might not be a baby murderer"

Rebuttal: "Anyone who defends a baby murderer is sick in the head"

"The process is reliable, so we outsiders cannot second-guess it. And I know the process is reliable because it produced the answer that I, an outsider, know to be right."

You’ve forgotten the ‘You’re only defending her because she’s white, blonde and pretty’ line.

urbanbuddha · 30/07/2024 00:59

Nigbo · 09/07/2024 12:02

I'm not a lawyer but the first thing that flagged this case up to me was the use of the statistical evidence , ie that Letby had been on shift for each of the baby deaths, I do have considerable experience in statistics and their use in science and my immediate thought was that the statistical evidence was very suspect. Most folk have a very poor gut understanding of stats and probability. It's one of the easiest ways to mislead a jury or for that matter electors, politicians are very good at doing that. Since then I understand the retired president of the Royal Society of Statisticians has questioned both evidence and the way it was presented to the jury. More recently several more eminent mathematicians have questioned the data. Cases based on statistical evidence in the Netherlands eventually got found unsafe . I also know from work in biology that anti body testing (for the Letby case for synthetic insulin) in general at best can only be used as a general indicator that the thing you are testing for might be there but you need to follow up with more detailed investigation , but is never conclusive and certainly to use as evidence in a legal cases is inappropriate.
So I am not saying she is innocent but that at least 2 of the 3 strands of evidence that she was convicted on are unsafe.
Her defence team has done a poor job that is for certain.

These are the points that worry me as a lay person. I don’t know if she’s guilty or innocent but I would need to be more convinced than I am before I could say she was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

MrsTerryPratchett · 30/07/2024 01:12

Nigbo · 09/07/2024 12:02

I'm not a lawyer but the first thing that flagged this case up to me was the use of the statistical evidence , ie that Letby had been on shift for each of the baby deaths, I do have considerable experience in statistics and their use in science and my immediate thought was that the statistical evidence was very suspect. Most folk have a very poor gut understanding of stats and probability. It's one of the easiest ways to mislead a jury or for that matter electors, politicians are very good at doing that. Since then I understand the retired president of the Royal Society of Statisticians has questioned both evidence and the way it was presented to the jury. More recently several more eminent mathematicians have questioned the data. Cases based on statistical evidence in the Netherlands eventually got found unsafe . I also know from work in biology that anti body testing (for the Letby case for synthetic insulin) in general at best can only be used as a general indicator that the thing you are testing for might be there but you need to follow up with more detailed investigation , but is never conclusive and certainly to use as evidence in a legal cases is inappropriate.
So I am not saying she is innocent but that at least 2 of the 3 strands of evidence that she was convicted on are unsafe.
Her defence team has done a poor job that is for certain.

People do not understand statistical fishing trips. If you look for any correlations, you will find one. Nothing is truly random in distribution.

I haven't looked at the case so can't comment on anything else but you are correct that the lay public does not understand statistics, chance, risk or anything related to them. And much as you explain, people will always say, "well it CAN'T be a coincidence" when things can be and are. Especially if you go looking for it.

Nailproblems · 04/08/2024 13:56

Has anyone else seen the article today about the bacteria colonising the taps in the nicu at the hospital at the same time as the excess deaths ? Is this why her only defence witness was a plumber ?

Custardandrhubarbcrumble · 04/08/2024 14:03

I've not seen the evidence in any of the cases. But I do feel the jury in the latest case are not coming at it impartially really. They were always far more likely to find an already convicted murderer guilty than someone with no previous convictions, however strong or weak the evidence was.

There's always a nagging doubt for me when someone continues to plead not guilty even though they are probably being advised by lawyers to plead guilty. It smacks of exactly what someone who has been wrongly convicted would do.

Nailproblems · 04/08/2024 14:36

Custardandrhubarbcrumble · 04/08/2024 14:03

I've not seen the evidence in any of the cases. But I do feel the jury in the latest case are not coming at it impartially really. They were always far more likely to find an already convicted murderer guilty than someone with no previous convictions, however strong or weak the evidence was.

There's always a nagging doubt for me when someone continues to plead not guilty even though they are probably being advised by lawyers to plead guilty. It smacks of exactly what someone who has been wrongly convicted would do.

I think it was the telegraph apparently it’s a leaked report about the taps being colonised in that same time ? Very worrying