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”

I think she probably did do it.

But I think the touching and naive faith in our legal system is misplaced. Courts usually get it right. But they can get it wrong. There are plenty of high profile cases of miscarriages of justice from the Birmingham 6 to the postmasters.

It's ok to question things.

The trouble with those who aren't convinced is that they have a lot of opinions but no actual knowledge. This is t a soap opera for public consumption, it's the lives of children. I trust the legions of expert opinion over yours.

*isnt

This is consistent elsewhere unfortunately (tattle, Reddit.) I am not sure why. Far from the insistence that she has supporters because she is young and white, I’ve found the opposite.

I've not heard this about "they went I killed them" before. Do you have any evidence? Looking at the post it note it just seems to say the part that people quote (alongside all the other writings).

I have had huge issues with the safety of her convictions from the start. There are a lot of problems with the way evidence has been presented and the fact that it seems like much of her conviction rests on the perceived expertise of a small number of people as apposed to actual, tangible evidence. The Nee Yorker article only underlined my worries. I haven't read the Guardian article yet, but am about to.

I’ve not followed the case much but as soon as the rota became news as key evidence I winced. Anyone with even a grasp of statistics will know that sometimes, seemingly linked events are just a statistical coincidence, especially when dealing with small numbers, as in this case.

There’s a rather famous example of a cluster of cancer cases in a small area that people wanted to find a cause for but it was just a statistical coincidence.

I know nothing about nursing in this kind of environment but I would like to see a review of the hospital in relation to this case. From what I've read, they shouldn't have had such unwell neonates in that unit. There weren't enough staff and they didn't have sufficient training.

@MoreDangerousThanAWomanScorned

“However, the article doesn't mention the keeping of patient notes (against all hospital rules) or the seemingly obsessive searching for the parents of babies who had died online”

She didn’t keep patient notes. She had 257 handover sheets, around 250 had absolutely nothing to do with any of the babies in question. Handover sheets are actually very dry documents, single sheets of a4 paper. Nurses fill these in to give to the nurse taking over after a shift. In reality they frequently end up coming home in pockets, piled up to be shredded later. This isn’t meaningful to me at all.

She did not “obsessively” search for the parents online. She searched literally once or twice for a couple of the parents to see how they were doing. That’s not unusual. Many nurses do this, though perhaps they shouldn’t. It’s not evidence of anything. Much was made of her searching for Baby K’s surname 2 years after the death. The search happens to have taken place after Nurse Williams’s interview with police. You can read into that if you want, but NW spoke quite strongly against Jarayam’s account of the events in the case of Baby K at the retrial. Letby hadn’t searched the name before and says she doesn’t recall searching it. We don’t even know what she clicked on, or if it was connected to them at all. We just know it was the same surname.

“She had a relationship with a doctor and the deaths gave her attention and sympathy from him.”

This is the most egregious myth. According to the texts they read in court, the doctor was far more forward than she was. She was quite aloof. He offered her a couple of lifts home after upsetting shifts and she declined. Not exactly the actions of a woman obsessed. They also went on a series of trips together to London and somewhere else I can’t recall. There may have been an affair, but I don’t buy the motivation to murder babies to get his attention here. He was giving his attention freely. If anything a married doctor, 20 years older, isn’t covering himself in glory here.

Stroud and leukaemia? Or was it a different cluster?

And of course Sally Clark, Tripti Patel and others were convicted on statistical evidence.

The death rates did go down after her arrest, which people seem to fixate on as evidence that she must be guilty.

What isn't mentioned as much though is that, because of the deaths, the NICU was downgraded so they weren't allowed to look after babies who were that sick anymore. So of course, less extremely sick babies will mean less deaths.

I'm not saying she's innocent, but the Countess of Chester hospital has a lot of issues. I know people who work there and also did a ton of research as I was due to give birth there around the time Letby was convicted and I was very anxious. The CQC report is interesting reading, multiple instances of management lying to the inspectors. One example - a nurse or midwife told the inspectors they didn't think it was safe that there was often only one staff member on the maternity unit when the other was taking patients for elective c sections on one day of the week (I believe it was Thursdays). Inspector asked management about this, management denied that ever happens. Inspector pointed out they had witnessed it happen multiple times during the time they had been there doing the inspection.

There were things that happened to me that never should have happened, due to very poor management. I don't want to be too outing but lots of admin issues, GDPR breaches. It's still very badly managed and by all accounts it's improved a lot since Letby was there. I'm not saying she's innocent, but I don't think it's entirely outside the realm of possibility that she was used as a scapegoat.

Because you care so much, you feel like every baby that dies is your fault, even if it isn't? Haven't you ever blamed yourself for something that isn't your fault? I know I have. Women blame themselves for being raped for gods sake.

Well this is a different issue isn't it. A lot of NHS units are on their knees and providing substandard care. You can't help thinking that they're desperate to pin this on someone (although then you have to ask how their systems allowed this to happen, so it's not really a get-out for them).

This is a perfectly fair take. Thank you.

Lord. Did you read the article? It’s filled with experts, many in superior positions to those at the trial, who have serious concerns.

I'm always uncomfortable with cases like this in healthcare settings.
And also where the case is emotionally charged. It doesn't get more emotionally charged than dead babies.
I reserved judgement throughout the case as there have always been and will always be miscarriages of justice.
I therefore am not surprised to see these concerns over the safety of her conviction.
I remember saying to my partner, but what if she actually didn't do it?
I'm going to be following this with interest.
I'm an ex nurse, an ex public health professional and the DM of a nurse.

It’s right there on the note. Just to the left of “I did this”

Lots of people are obsessed with murder victims' families - look at the popular interest in the McCann family, for example. It might be ghoulish, but it doesn't indicate guilt. An expert quoted in the Guardian article had the same unusual name as a boy I knew at university, so I went straight off to google and Linkedin stalk him to see if he was the same person (he was). I haven't killed any of his family members, and nor am I planning to!

Is that what it says ? Not just "I killed them ?"

This. Those poor parents.

The RCPCH came in did a report in 2016 on the request of management after Jarayam and Brearey raised concerns about Letby. It was a damning report. The hospital was an absolute mess. The NICU was downgraded after that and no longer allowed to take the same acuity of vulnerable neonates. That’s also when Letby was removed from the ward, though the RCPCH did not feel Letby was at fault. This is why the death rate fell when she was taken off the ward, though people tend to not report the simultaneous downgrading of the NICU.

I’ve never seen that before [shocked]

I’ve never been convinced. I hope to god she is guilty because if she isn’t, well it doesn’t bear thinking about.

It’s never mentioned, but it’s very significant!

God true crime podcasts have created an army of have a go heroes confecting conspiracies on the basis of partial access to the facts

Two juries and an appeal court think she's a killer