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”

Yes. Do you know why that was? It seems astonishing.

I suspect that even with an expert to guide them, many people will struggle with the reasoning required in this case. Even for maths undergraduates, it takes a good while for them to work through their intuitive biases and shake them off.

No but the RCPCH had already done that. The system errors were higlighted by our gold standard confidential inquiry into maternal and neonatal deaths which has been operating since the 1950s and is the global model for identification of these trends. It operates on the presumption that rises in death rates are preventable - but the prevention is usually achieved through identifying preventable causes of death like infection, late detection of maternal complications etc and introduce improved practice to prevent them.

The hospital then invited the RCPCH in to investigate the causes of the rise in deaths and adverse incidents. They concluded the unit was under-staffed and identified several other problems BUT said even if these were addressed the deaths remained unexplained and needed to be investigated.

The police were not called into investigate system errors. That investigation had already been conducted. They were called into investigate the causes of individual deaths when system errors had already been found to be unlikely to explain them.

That said the police made it clear they worked on the assumption the deaths could be natural, or accidental (i.e. manslaughter) or unlawful killing. They did not open the case assuming they were investigating a murder and they reached the conclusion Letby was a suspect independent of the hospital.

"We need to have a discussion, except the sinister, hysterical people who disagree with me - they are free not to take part" 🙄

Who has attempted to shut down your discussion? People are just disagreeing with you. That's what a discussion is. You seem to want an echo chamber.

Exactly! People are inclined to want to find patterns. It’s a normal human instinct. This is why the table that was on the front page of every newspaper, and shown repeatedly during the first trial, is so insidious without a statistician present to explain that it is, essentially, meaningless.

I don’t know why the RSS were not asked to bring a statistics expert to the trial. That was never released.

@Tinylittleunicorn again, I am not going to get dragged into an argument so I’m replying only once. I invite civil discussion from anyone. The quote you shared was in response to a person stating that we should just stop all discussion now because you, tinylittleunicorn, had ‘won’ some part of the argument in their eyes. The discussion isn’t going to stop. Not here, not elsewhere. If you do not like it you do not have to take part. Thank you.

Keep going @Tinylittleunicorn Ypu are doing a great job.

FYI- the Reddit board on this topic is much more factual and better informed. I’ve just read some really well evidence critiques of The Guardian article with the main takeaway being that the journo massively over exaggerated the expertise of the experts willing to go on record. I do wonder then who the anonymous experts were.

They said the thread seems pointless. Not illegal. They haven't threatened you. They haven't reported you. Noone is silencing you. There is no need to invoke your democratic rights whilst in the same breath accusing others of being hysterical. I've said my piece and I'm pleased I haven't had to resort to ad hominem attacks on those that disagree with me.

I didn’t say anything of the sort. I said that the thread was pointless because there is no sensible basis for questioning Letby’s convictions (the words I actually used were “no good reason to doubt”), and that more discussion would be for reasons other than ones of fact.

I think that even more strongly after your further comments.

I’ve just read some really well evidence critiques of The Guardian article with the main takeaway being that the journo massively over exaggerated the expertise of the experts willing to go on record.

I would be genuinely interested to read those critiques if you don't mind sharing a link?

Felicity Lawrence is a very respected British journalist with a long and illustrious career behind her. She’s been nominated for the Orwell Prize. She isn’t a hack. That said, if people have genuine concerns about the veracity of what she has written, or the fact checking process within the Guardian, they should write to The Guardian and/or IPSO to lodge formal complaints. https://www.ipso.co.uk/making-a-complaint/

The Telegraph wrote a very similar in depth article yesterday where they also speak to experts who have concerns about the safety of the verdict.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-letby-serial-killer-or-miscarriage-justice-victim/

Both articles were, reportedly, in the works for months, held back by the reporting ban. I find it hard to believe that both of these solid and respectable, legacy press, newspapers have decided to throw caution to the wind, abandon journalistic standards, and foolishly publish such bombshell articles without undertaking any basic due diligence.

So far we have The Guardian, The Telegraph, The New Yorker, soon Private Eye too when they publish Dr Phil Hammond’s article next week, more to come, all colluding in a big plan to get a serial killer out of prison. If anything that sounds like a conspiracy theory.

@Reallybadidea

Have a look at the r/lucyletby board. A poster there has done a really detailed critique of the article. It’s very interesting.

Thanks @Kittybythelighthouse I’ve already put on a complaint about both the Guardian and Telegraph articles being misleading.

People would do well to remember that the whole focus of newspapers is to sell more newspapers. This often leads to overly provocative articles on hot button issues. All newspapers are guilty of this.

If the Countess of Chester's maternity unit was so poor and had amongst the highest number of stillbirths in the UK could it have been that they were sending infants to the neonatal unit in a worse state than usual and the neonatal doctors failed to identify all their possible problems? Not giving IV antibiotics for strep B whilst in labour etc.? The unit sounded very poor and mistakes were made in the care of some of those babies during their collapses from what I've been reading.

And yet you refer a poster to a Reddit board. A bastion of independent journalism.

@placemats It sits at about the same level as Mumsnet, which we are all on right now.

Surely we can all apply critical thought to everything we see. Nothing is above questioning- not even articles that reinforce our own world view.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66104004

This is a prime example of shoddy journalism. Partisan, emotional and in parts reads like Mills and Boon. It's no surprise that the writer is now releasing a book, no doubt 'sensational'. The cover picture alone is disgraceful.

You're dead right. If she was fat and spotty I'd be convinced by the ridiculous statistical evidence and the nonsensical murder technique theories.

Because you blame yourself for the deaths of a load of tiny babies and you think you could have done more.

I didn’t follow the trial but the evidence doesn’t seem as clear cut as I expected it to be.

What do you mean she wasn't well liked? And manipulative. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just not aware of what you're referring to.

Listen to the evidence. She’s guilty as hell. Hope she rots.

I agree. My son has brain damage as a result.of negligence against him at countess of Chester over 20 yrs ago. I still have the letter from them 'thorough investigation internally and no issues our side. We settled his claim when he was 18. I now run a charity supporting other families going through birth injury negligence claims www.billys.org.uk we know how much the NHS lie and cover up. I have followed this case from the beginning. The evidence is nonsense and circumstantial at best. I have always believed she is a scape.goat for the massive failings there.

It was in the New Yorker, 24/5/24 (or 5/24/24 if you’re in the US!) and was extremely concerning. There are huge questions over this case. And over the censoring of the article in the UK. Did it make some vested interests too uncomfortable? I’m glad the Guardian have now brought the matter to attention in the UK. Maybe she’s guilty - or maybe it’s just too easy for people with power to push the blame downwards.

And over the censoring of the article in the UK. Did it majestysome vested interests too uncomfortable?

Oh FFS. The publisher was subject to the general, longstanding and routine contempt of court law. It wasn’t ’censored’.

I can understand the NHS covering up their failings but why would the judicial system be a party to framing Lucy? Which is what they would be doing if such a weak case was allowed to convict someone with and biased evidence allowed to stand..

There is a lot of damning evidence against her, including falsification of notes and inappropriate interactions. The account of one of the mum’s word against LL was verified by mobile phone records.

There have been two distinct trials with juries leading to conviction.

I don’t think this baseless speculation is helping the families.