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”

That’s not what the article is about. Did you read it?

Yet the expert witnesses were convinced, independently reached the same conclusions and presented these to court. I am not an expert witness. Like the jury I rely upon their judgment. They are privy to information, including the full post mortem reports, which in totality they have the expertise to interpret. Nobody outwith this case is privy to the same information, even if they believe they possess the same expertise.

The absence of an expert witness presenting an alternative opinion, suggests that when presented with all of the relevant information, the defence could not find an expert to disagree. They aren't going to say this openly because doing so would harm their client.

I agree.

OP is acting like the letter from the Royal Statistical Society confirmed had the statistics been presented differently they would’ve been so damning the case would’ve fallen apart.

All the letter actually said was they had concerns they weren’t presented as accurately as they could’ve been.

Of course, I don’t think i said people couldn’t discuss it. Of course they can - and they should. Transparency of justice is crucial.

I was merely saying that when push comes to shove, and LL had the opportunity to establish an innocent cause, they weren’t able to find anyone whose evidence they felt would have stood up to scrutiny. I’m more persuaded by that than by interviews given to newspapers by people who (Dr Hall aside) haven’t seen all of the evidence and didn’t sit through the trial.

Don’t try to make out anyone who disagrees with you is ‘overly emotional’. You’re the one who started a thread about it!

I’m not “acting like” anything. I think you’re reading a lot into my comments that isn’t there and, for some reason, being very combative. There’s really no need. Civil discussion about weighty matters like this is possible, even when the context of the case is very upsetting. We don’t share the same opinions. That’s okay. Can we at least be civil?

That’s a fair opinion to have. Myers could have made the right call there, or perhaps he made a grave mistake. Miscarriages of justice do happen and have happened in similar circumstances. Either way, if there is concern over the safety of the convictions (which you said you also share for at least some of them?) then scrutiny is valid.

Why “so-called” journalists? And who do you think made those podcasts? Daily Mail journalists! Who, I’m sure many would agree, aren’t just out to find the cold hard truth and sales be damned.

As multiple posters have pointed out:

1. it’s medical professionals who are raising concerns about the case and trial, not randoms on MN. Many of them have seen most if not all the info now; some were even due to be witnesses and followed it daily in court
2. Appeals are about legal errors, in essence, not about extra points they want to hammer home. The appeal was dismissed not because they definitely decided she was extra guilty, but because there was no legal flaws found in the original case
3. Anyone talking about the wise/sensible/expert/trustworthy jurors who used all their skills and brilliance to find her guilty, hasn’t ever served on a jury before. I was absolutely horrified at the pre-judgment I found there, and people totally unable to understand the complex arguments or even instructions from the judge. The idea that these 12 people - 6 of whom statistically will be below average intelligence - could have the understanding to see ambiguity when they were given pretty ropy legal instruction, is alarming
4. This is a national legal system that any of us could come up against. It’s not about being disrespectful to the families, it’s about living in a society where the legal system is fair and open, and if experts in the field have questions about a public case they can voice their concerns, not be shamed into silence because of the grief suffering families will be feeling.

There are some wonderful cases of dogged journalistic and legal investigation that have cast real doubt on convictions, sometimes securing successful appeal.

There are also misguided attempts to pursue ‘justice’, for whatever reason. Hanratty’s case was a good example of a long-running, celebrated and completely wrong attempt to overturn a guilty verdict. It consumed and misled journalists as good as Paul Foot and Ludovic Kennedy.

IMO this one is in the second category.

I assume that the Jury who sat through months of the evidence made the right decision. HTH.

Exactly. And look at how many posters on here don’t understand that, or won’t read/can’t understand the issues raised in the Guardian and New Yorker articles. Now think how many of those people may have been on the jury.

I don’t know if Letby is guilty or innocent, but I can absolutely comprehend that there are some very dodgy legals here, hence these post-judgement articles.

Yeah, she could have genuinely been a crap nurse. Places generally aren't concerned with a nurse's effectiveness as long as shifts are covered. There is a culture of this in many places, particularly short staffed ones. We used to joke that all you needed was a PIN and a pulse and you'd be hired.

The jury could well have made the right decision on the evidence as it was presented.

Using cherry picked statistics as a key indicator of guilt is questionable at the very least.

Edit to add: Cherry picked evidence in a paper sent out for peer review wouldn't get a pass.

Naive.

Agreed

It is disingenuous to call Letby’s trial a ‘gross miscarriage of justice’ and then pretend that you aren’t claiming that she’s innocent.

Please provide proof of ‘cherry-picked evidence’.

Your attempts to create an echo chamber on this thread are hilarious.

You don’t own this thread, you seem to want to control the discussion, but you can’t.

The work sheet time-table.

Did you not read the links the op has provided?

If not, then why are you commenting on this thread?

@BigWordAtlas ”This is a national legal system that any of us could come up against. It’s not about being disrespectful to the families, it’s about living in a society where the legal system is fair and open, and if experts in the field have questions about a public case they can voice their concerns, not be shamed into silence because of the grief suffering families will be feeling.”

I could not agree more. The repercussions here, if it’s a miscarriage of justice, are serious. It’s not just about Lucy Letby. Open discussion is important.

Ah I see - part of the Richard Gill brigade.

The guilty verdicts were not based on the timesheets alone. What about the other evidence in the trial? Did you follow all this? Do you accept babies were poisoned with insulin?

What is your opinion on why she linked babies she killed/attempted to kill by grouping their handover sheets together?
I am a nurse - there were so many other pieces of evidence that made me sure of her guilt, after being sceptical when the trial began.

I have no desire for an echo chamber. I am interested in all viewpoints. I just want civility.

Only if that's what happened(!) - it's very easy to attack a strawman.

If statistics had been the basis of her convictions then she would have been charged and convicted of several more murders. The prosecution did not rely upon statistics, they did not even use a statistician when making their case. As far as I'm aware they never made any claim as to the "chances" of any particular number of babies dying under LL's care. They were careful to avoid the mistakes of prosecutors in previous comparable cases.

A comparison of when babies died against when LL was at work was used to demonstrate that LL was the only person with the opportunity and means to inflict harm upon all of those babies in which convincing evidence of intentional harm leading to death was established - unanimously and independently - by expert witnesses privy to all of the pertinent clinical information. Where the evidence of intentional harm to an individual baby was inadequate, LL was not charged. This was a case by case approach and not a blanket approach "she was there, so she killed them" as has been claimed.

Bitter laugh, that's a good point😄😄

The suspected insulin administration testing wasn't conducted to a forensic standard apparently.