The Guardian today on the safety of the Lucy Letby convictions

[Kittybythelighthouse]

This article was apparently months in the making but it was delayed by the reporting restrictions https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question

“A Guardian investigation has interviewed dozens of these experts and seen further evidence from emails and documents. Those raising concerns include several leading consultant neonatologists, some with current or recent leadership roles, and several senior neonatal nurses. Others are public health professionals, GPs, biochemists, a leading government microbiologist, and lawyers. Several of those still working in the NHS have asked to remain anonymous, fearing the impact if they are named.

These experts said they were acutely aware of the suffering of the families involved and did not want to reopen their trauma, but were so troubled they felt compelled to become involved”

As someone who worked as a nurse for many years I am well aware of what handover sheets are. It would not be typical behaviour to stash these notes at home. Nurses have to adhere to a code of conduct around confidentiality and are well aware that these notes should not be brought home. If brought home by accident they should be shredded . She was keeping them under her bed along with other medical documents related to some of the babies that died. I don’t know any nurse who would be comfortable keeping “bags “ of handover sheets at home

100% this! Excellent post!

You don't even know the difference between when LL started working for the NN unit and when she started working in the NNICU.

You thought they were the same, you presumably thought a newly qualified nurse was immediately stuck in the NNICU.

(Hence you claiming "she was working on the NICU for three years before the spike in deaths").

But you feel qualified to lead a debate about this, based on a newspaper article.

"Have a lovely rest of day" too.

I don't know whether the conviction is sound. I hope it is because she's now locked up for the next 40 or 50
Court cases should always be able to withstand scrutiny though. I've lived long enough to see several major miscarriages of justice on the news, so it does happen.

It’s quite something to accuse the guardian and a slew of professional experts with opinions as “conspiracy theorists”. The Telegraph just published a similar article today. They have sources too. Are they all in on it as well? Sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory.

Her behaviour outside work was odd in multiple ways (again one thing could just be a quirky personality but many things is more than circumstantial).

Nurses commented that taking handover sheets home accidentally happens (put in a pocket and forgotten about until later). They should then be destroyed and disposed of. She was collecting them as trophies. They even moved house with her. There's no reasonable explanation for that.

Excuse me? I've not accused you of this before. If someone else did, it's because you're guilty of it.

And if you value statistical inference, why don't you make more of an effort to understand how it works?

Excuse me? I've not accused you of this before. If someone else did, it's because you're guilty of it.

Isn't that Texas Sharp Shooter Fallacy?

Pmsl.

Yeah there is a definite and clear difference on believing somebody is innocent, and believing the evidence used to convict them was inadequate.

So many high profile serious cases these days seem to involve unprecedented forms of evidence, as advances in science and technology and the creativity of the defence and prosecution teams. I'm thinking of the Idaho student murders recently, and the very foggy genetic mapping they did to reach him, which the defence claims has not been revealed to them.

We may look back at things like rotas being used as evidence and wonder why that was admissable or at least not adequately refuted by the defence.

Yes, they are conspiracy theorists. 'Professional experts.' LOL! 😆

From a (very quick I admit) reading of the CCRC website, it appears that they will take on your case if you have not yet appealed, or your appeal was unsuccessful.

LL was not given leave to appeal, so I wonder if the CCRC can intervene in her case?

Perhaps lurching claims like your one about the note. It doesn’t say ‘they went’. It says ‘they won’t’ It has an apostrophe. When that’s pointed out to you, suddenly the note is no longer important.

The New Yorker article is problematic and has many errors. It would not have been published in this country.

The fact remains that Letby herself accepted babies were deliberately poisoned with insulin. She was the only person on duty for every shift. Who else could have done this? And what are the chances of there being a serial killer working at the hospital where another nurse coincidentally wrote notes about killing babies (but didn’t really do it)?

Perhaps you should write to both The Guardian and The Telegraph and let them know they’ve been hoodwinked by conspiracy theorists spreading misinformation? Or just go straight to IPSO and report them? https://www.ipso.co.uk/making-a-complaint/

Exactly . It is drummed into your head as a nurse to be so careful about confidentiality and these handover sheets almost always contain confidential information. It is very common to go home with one in a pocket. The advice is to destroy if brought home by accident because if someone broke into house and takes them you are at fault as a nurse for being in breach of confidentiality regulations. You just don’t stash them around at home under your bed .

"When should I apply to the CCRC?
You should apply to the CCRC after you have tried to appeal through the courts in the usual way
Appeals can be submitted even if you think you’ve missed the deadline
If you already lost your appeal but you still think you have been wrongly convicted or sentenced, you should apply to us for a case review
What if I have not appealed?"

Applying to the CCRC - Criminal Cases Review Commission

They can intervene if an appeal was not granted.

So glad there's a post on this. Thank you @Kittybythelighthouse

I have no idea if Letby has murdered or attempted to murder those babies, what was always in doubt was the judicial process.

It never made sense, especially regarding the statistics on the work sheet; the insulin and air embolism events. Most importantly, no one saw her doing it.

What is concrete in evidence is that this was a failing unit unable to cover the needs of such premature babies.

Absolutely nothing to point towards such violent crimes? Come on.

Thank you 🙏🏻

Afaik, but I am not an expert in evidence law, there would be nothing to stop the defence calling their own witness disputing the relevance of the shift table on the basis that it is less persuasive than it looks. I know they did secure a lot of expert evidence before the trial and then decided not to call those experts as witnesses. The only expert witness who spoke at the trial was an expert on plumbing at the hospital giving evidence as to the poor physical conditions of the building.

The reason why the prosecution did not bring it are transparent, in the past it has been found to mislead witnesses when brought for the prosecution and lead to successful appeals. So they just gave the data to the jury instead.

However, I think the defence could get an expert to present evidence to the jury about the shift pattern and explain that their naturalistic inferences about the significance about the shift table are flawed. They could have called John Quigley to say all the table proves is Letby was on shift when she was on shift.

They didn't possibly because once they did that the prosecution would get a different expert to calculate the odds of someone being on shift when a baby unexpectedly dies on x many occasions as so many million to one against - the de Berk error - which whilst problematic is probably still admissable and lets face it is probably what the jury are privately (and inaccurately) calculating. I dunno - that might increase the chance of an appeal finding a mistrial and leading to retrial in the future, but its more likely to give you a conviction now. Even if the prosecution do not do that the Quigley point is wholly counter intuitive, as with the Monty Hall outcome etc, and so they would be trying to get the jury to believe something people don't find easy to believe.

Importantly, it isn't that helpful. IF you accept the deaths are deliberate, and the defence tacitly did, the shift data still places Letby at the scene. Which may not be that persuasive given the overall number of shifts she did and how many healthy babies she cared for etc. But it certainly doesn't suggest she did not do it.

Her behaviour outside work was odd in multiple ways (again one thing could just be a quirky personality but many things is more than circumstantial

Her behaviour inside work was odd (and that's a kind word for it) too.

She had to be told repeatedly to stay out of rooms with grieving parents in them.

She was gushing over parents who'd just lost their baby (on the third unexpected collapse), about the baby's first bath, whether the Mum wanted to bathe them, and whether she wanted a memory box. The mother said she just wanted her to go away and couldn't understand what she thought she was doing.

A father said she suggested they put their baby a ventilated crib for deceased babies, before the baby had even passed away.

Then there was the incident with the screaming and the blood around the baby's mouth that the Mum happened upon and challenged LL about. LL said she had no recollection of the entire thing.

Her colleagues were angered and bamboozled by her behaviour too; one reported her anger and what they said in reply when LL said "he's not making it out of here alive, is he?" about a baby whose prospects were considered "optimistic".

They were perplexed by her refusing shifts on the low needs parts of the unit.

One commented that she became associated with the collapses, that if a baby collapsed staff would say "Lucy's on, isn't she".

@HowIrresponsible this is exactly what is happening. The investigation is being reviewed. It is entirely possible that with enough money, you buy the help of lawyers that can help you bury as much as possible. It’s not a conspiracy theory unfortunately.

'The New Yorker article is problematic and has many errors. It would not have been published in this country.'

It was banned from being circulated in this country because of the latest trial.

Thank you 🙏🏻

That is, literally, a conspiracy theory. You are suggesting that two legacy press newspapers and a whole bunch of medics, scientists, statisticians, are conspiring to get the conviction overturned.