Page 26 | The Guardian today on the safety of the Lucy Letby convictions

Kittybythelighthouse · 2024-07-09T07:40:36+00:00

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 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”

BifurBofurBombur · 12/07/2024 10:12

MistressoftheDarkSide · 12/07/2024 01:38

Legally safe by what definition given the medical complexities at play? Simplistically the prosecution constructed a case that was successful in getting the defendant convicted, yes. However, the victims were already fragile and at greater risk of collapse than full term infants. Of course this makes it much easier to paint Lucy Letby as the most vile of murderers. But does it reflect good and robust scientific evidence?

I've just spent a couple of hours reading a blog by a retired doctor who has gone through the medical evidence and good lord it's enlightening. There are differential diagnoses for each collapse and death far more complex than a lay person could imagine.

I've tried really hard to maintain impartiality in this case but it's becoming harder the more I read to be honest.

At the very least this case should be re-examined in far greater detail from every aspect.

I've just started reading it and I'm not surprised he's writing under a false name. He's very combative and dismissive and wouldn't be taken seriously in a court.

who has gone through the medical evidence

He hasn't got the babies medical files.

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/07/2024 11:34

BifurBofurBombur · 12/07/2024 10:12

I've just started reading it and I'm not surprised he's writing under a false name. He's very combative and dismissive and wouldn't be taken seriously in a court.

who has gone through the medical evidence

He hasn't got the babies medical files.

Show quote history

Dr Hall has seen everything, including the babies medical records. In any case, a tremendous amount of detail about the deaths came out during the trial. Presumably, for obvious reasons, everything relevant was put forward during the trial. There is enough out there for many prominent physicians and scientists to have quite marked doubts
and to go on record saying as much.

OP posts:

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/07/2024 11:35

Totallymessed · 11/07/2024 14:26

I think in a case like this, with complicated, largely circumstantial evidence and requiring the jury to understand statistics- which is a subject that is often not intuitive and can go against how you expect things to work- that evidence from expert statisticians should be a compulsory part of the trial. If that isn't the case, then the legal system needs to be changed.

When you are potentially sending someone to prison for the rest of their life, every piece of evidence needs to be thoroughly looked at, dispassionately, and understood. I have no idea why anyone would not see how vital this is for justice to be done. Just because historically, this hasn't been a requirement doesn't mean it shouldn't be.

Show quote history

Agree. And this is all the RSS were asking for. It’s a shame it was refused.

Edit: important to note based on previous incorrect comments that any expert statistician from the RSS could have been brought to the trial as an independent expert not on behalf of the defence. It was not just Gill who requested this, it was multiple RSS members.

OP posts:

BifurBofurBombur · 12/07/2024 11:37

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/07/2024 11:34

Dr Hall has seen everything, including the babies medical records. In any case, a tremendous amount of detail about the deaths came out during the trial. Presumably, for obvious reasons, everything relevant was put forward during the trial. There is enough out there for many prominent physicians and scientists to have quite marked doubts
and to go on record saying as much.

Show quote history

The poster says she's talking about James Egan (not his real name)?

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/07/2024 11:40

BifurBofurBombur · 12/07/2024 11:37

The poster says she's talking about James Egan (not his real name)?

Show quote history

I’m making the point that regardless of what James Egan said (I don’t know who that is) Dr Hall did see all of the evidence and he disagrees strongly with the prosecution.

OP posts:

BifurBofurBombur · 12/07/2024 11:45

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/07/2024 11:40

I’m making the point that regardless of what James Egan said (I don’t know who that is) Dr Hall did see all of the evidence and he disagrees strongly with the prosecution.

Show quote history

And yet the defence team didn't call him to give evidence.

MistressoftheDarkSide · 12/07/2024 12:03

BifurBofurBombur · 12/07/2024 10:12

I've just started reading it and I'm not surprised he's writing under a false name. He's very combative and dismissive and wouldn't be taken seriously in a court.

who has gone through the medical evidence

He hasn't got the babies medical files.

Show quote history

I agree with your assessment of his tone. But I also hear frustration, disbelief, and almost despair in parts. He's not trying to claim expert witness status, just giving his perspective on medical matters which fly in the face of his own knowledge and experience.

Firethehorse · 12/07/2024 12:22

Kittybythelighthouse · 09/07/2024 10:44

The New Yorker. Accessible here. https://archive.ph/AWpyz

Show quote history

Wow That article is so eye opening - the jurors were not given the full correct information & experts were suppressed and threatened with legal action/ imprisonment. This is absolutely awful and raises a strong possibility of her complete innocence. I can’t help feeling the ‘important men’ needed a scapegoat and there she was.

Onethreefiveseven · 12/07/2024 13:40

Whether or not the conviction was safe, I'd say it now has an image problem, and I'd say that this is caused primarily by its online proponents.

It's only through engagement with a minority of more sensible posts that I've come to understand how the prosecution's case was actually constructed and that the logic of it was actually sound (to be clear, I still don't know if the conviction was safe, primarily because I'm unable to appraise the medical evidence, and also because I'm unconvinced that a lay jury were appropriate in this trial).

But most of the pro-conviction arguments I've seen on threads like this have been frankly awful. Lots of them have been erroneous arguments from statistics, not just about shift patterns, but also things like the dates of the deaths. Others are appeals to authority (a jury found her guilty so she is). Many are simple character assassinations, some of which are quite disturbing - the fact that she had fairy lights in her room, was close to her parents - if this is evidence of being a serial killer then god help the rest of us. Many more are completely ad hominem, accusing any doubters of being racists or conspiracy theorists. The tone is often bullish and censorious.

All of this combines to give the impression that the case for the prosecution is actually worse than it is. In my view, anyone who wants to promote actual understanding of this trial should be calling out posts like these and explicitly distancing themself from them.

Rabblemum · 12/07/2024 17:47

ihateteatime · 09/07/2024 10:33

Because she was in anguish, terrified, confused, panicking and spiralling massively. I’m lost as to how people don’t see this. I wrote ‘I killed him’ after my dad died; I didn’t

She also wrote she’d done nothing wrong.

I find it really odd how literal people are about those notes. Do they think everyone who says in exasperation ‘I’m going to strangle him!’ Should be locked up as well?

Show quote history

I do belive these notes may be emotional outpourings, by themselves they aren't a confession.

OtterMouse · 12/07/2024 17:50

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/07/2024 19:20

Onethreefiveseven · 12/07/2024 13:40

Whether or not the conviction was safe, I'd say it now has an image problem, and I'd say that this is caused primarily by its online proponents.

It's only through engagement with a minority of more sensible posts that I've come to understand how the prosecution's case was actually constructed and that the logic of it was actually sound (to be clear, I still don't know if the conviction was safe, primarily because I'm unable to appraise the medical evidence, and also because I'm unconvinced that a lay jury were appropriate in this trial).

But most of the pro-conviction arguments I've seen on threads like this have been frankly awful. Lots of them have been erroneous arguments from statistics, not just about shift patterns, but also things like the dates of the deaths. Others are appeals to authority (a jury found her guilty so she is). Many are simple character assassinations, some of which are quite disturbing - the fact that she had fairy lights in her room, was close to her parents - if this is evidence of being a serial killer then god help the rest of us. Many more are completely ad hominem, accusing any doubters of being racists or conspiracy theorists. The tone is often bullish and censorious.

All of this combines to give the impression that the case for the prosecution is actually worse than it is. In my view, anyone who wants to promote actual understanding of this trial should be calling out posts like these and explicitly distancing themself from them.

I agree. A calm, measured, discussion about all this seems to be impossible. If you express doubt you’re hit with fever pitch instantly. It’s scary, frankly, and yes likely very off-putting to newcomers. I’d be interested to hear what you believe the strongest pro-conviction points are.

OP posts:

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/07/2024 19:22

BifurBofurBombur · 12/07/2024 11:45

And yet the defence team didn't call him to give evidence.

Show quote history

So? There are many possible reasons for that.

OP posts:

placemats · 12/07/2024 22:44

Why did the Judge request specifically that the jury rule out conspiracy theories when it came to the second trial?

Can anyone point out to me those conspiracy theories?

Please don't mention Gill; he's already helped get two nurses released from prison because of the cherry picking use of statistics to secure prosecution.

FarmCFer · 12/07/2024 22:48

@placemats perhaps the massive conspiracy that she was scapegoated by the hospital…

and then the police, and then the courts…🙄
ludicrous.

By the way, did you ever have a read of the original trial?

Macaronichee · 12/07/2024 22:53

WaldoPablo · 09/07/2024 10:55

As some us have been saying all along!

I really resent the way some MN posters shout down any suggestion that she isn't an evil baby killer who should rot in hell. The last thread was terrible, some really aggressive posters.

She might be innocent! Its perfectly reasonable to question the verdict.

It’s reasonable to question the verdict. There have been cases of miscarriages of justice. It’s also reasonable to think that the jury who heard all the evidence presented to them by expert counsel (unlike the Mumsnetters commenting) came to a sensible judgment and bore in mind that they had to be sure beyond reasonable doubt. They did not convict on every count across the board, which suggests careful consideration.

placemats · 12/07/2024 23:00

@FarmCFer

In answer to your question, yes.

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 13/07/2024 00:30

Macaronichee · 12/07/2024 22:53

It’s reasonable to question the verdict. There have been cases of miscarriages of justice. It’s also reasonable to think that the jury who heard all the evidence presented to them by expert counsel (unlike the Mumsnetters commenting) came to a sensible judgment and bore in mind that they had to be sure beyond reasonable doubt. They did not convict on every count across the board, which suggests careful consideration.

Show quote history

With all due respect to the jury, juries don’t hear “all the evidence”. That’s not how jury trials work, though it is a common misconception. Juries are not infallible either. They can and do make mistakes. I don’t think the mumsnetters commenting here who have doubts are basing that on their own hunches. There are good reasons to have doubt in the safety of the convictions (which isn’t the same thing as thinking she is definitely innocent).

A slew of world-leading consultant neonatologists, senior neonatal nurses, public health professionals, GPs, prominent statisticians, biochemists, legal experts, and a leading government microbiologist, have come out in recent days voicing strong concerns about the safety of the convictions. They include:

Dr Svilena Dimitrova, consultant neonatologist who is part of the government-appointed Ockenden report into the NHS maternity scandal.

Prof John Ashton, who had blown the whistle on a cluster of baby and maternal deaths at the Morecambe Bay hospitals when he was regional director of public health for the north-west of England.

Dr Shoo Lee, the world-leading neonatologist who wrote the report that the prosecution based their air embolus theory on.

Dr Jane Hawdon, the lead consultant neonatologist at the Royal Free hospital in London.

Roger Norwich, a medico-legal expert with an interest in paediatrics and newborns.

John O’Quigley, a professor of statistical science at University College London.

Prof Alan Wayne Jones, a forensic scientist, who is one of Europe’s foremost experts on toxicology and insulin.

That’s not an exhaustive list.

You may be aware that a MoJ happened to a nurse before in eerily similar circumstances (Lucia De Berk) because of blind spots between the justice system and medicine/science. There are other examples of healthcare worker related miscarriages of justice that have similar characteristics, too.

The Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question

The New Yorker - https://archive.ph/AWpyz

The Telegraph - https://archive.ph/3Spzs

Royal Society of Statisticians - https://rss.org.uk/RSS/media/File-library/News/2022/ReportHealthcareserialkillerorcoincidencestatisticalissuesininvestigationofsuspectedmedicalmisconductSept2022FINAL.pdf

https://rss.org.uk/RSS/media/File-library/News/2022/Report_Healthcare_serial_killer_or_coincidence_statistical_issues_in_investigation_of_suspected_medical_misconduct_Sept_2022_FINAL.pdf

OP posts:

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 13/07/2024 06:48

Bigcoatlady · 11/07/2024 15:21

The prosecution had very deliberately not adduced statistical evidence. Had the defence chosen to invite Gill to give evidence that it was not significant that Letby was on shift on all those occasions the obvious thing to do for the prosecution to do in response is say 'Yes, we're not claiming we're inferring from her presence that she is suspicion. We're claiming that because deliberate killings occurred on days 1,3 and 5 and L was the only person on shift on all of days 1, 3 and 5 we have deduced she is the only common factor who could have caused the killings.' I.e. the defence looked at the offer and thought this will only draw attention to a weakness in our case.

The Gill claim - based on his work on the de Berk case - is that the SAME mistake happened. I.e. they only investigated after noticing a high death rate when de Berk was on duty and then only examined the deaths that occurred when de Berk was working in the hopspital and then having retrospectively established that the deaths when de Berk was on duty were the suspicious ones, calculated the odds against her being present at 342 million to one against.

That did not happen here. The police investigated all the deaths in the unit, isolated those which could not be explained, and then isolated those which looked as if they had been caused deliberately. The final stage was looking for who had the opportunity to commit the killings or attempted killings. Its the opposite approach, they have not inferred de Berk is suspicious from her association with high death rates. They deduced Letby is suspicious from the fact deliberate killings occurred and she is the only person who had the opportunity to commit the murders.

Importantly assessing whether deductive logic is plausible is straightforward, young children can do it.

You can parse the prosecution case as a simple logic problem a 5yr old can do:

a) Last week I went into the kitchen every morning at 10am. On Mon, Tues and Friday mornings I saw that someone had taken cookies from the jar.
b) The only people who went into the kitchen before me were Annie and Sam.
c) Sam went into the kitchen before me on Mon, Tues and Wed.
d) Annie went into the kitchen before me on Mon, Tues, Thurs and Friday mornings.

Provided you can solve that successfully you can assess the validity of the evidence of L's presence of the ward. Gill are in error in claiming the prosecution are saying the equivalent of Annie must have taken the cookies because she was there. They are saying the only person who had the opportunity to take the cookies was Annie.

It is OK to dispute whether or not the cookies were stolen/the killings were deliberate. The defence had every opportunity to do that and definitely commissioned their own expert witnesses. They decided not to call them, my deduction from that is that they could not rebut the overwhelming and tragic evidence of deliberate killing.

Show quote history

With respect, this is actually a great example of why the statistics in this case are so bad. The shift chart seems simple, common sense, easy to read, a child could understand it. That’s why it’s so insidious. That’s exactly what makes it dangerous.

The prosecution used the chart multiple times in the trial - in opening and closing arguments and several times throughout the trial, projecting it on a screen in the courtroom. The shift chart, so easy a child could understand it, undoubtedly had an outsize impact on the jury vs weeks and months spent on complex, sometimes opaque, medical arguments burdened with jargon.

Any statistician will tell you that most (untrained) people are very bad at reading statistics but very good at spotting patterns. This includes doctors, lawyers, judges, juries, the general public. Basically anyone who doesn’t have specific training in statistics.

Nearly every medical miscarriage of justice has featured similar poor statistics that seem convincing but are worthless in reality. The Royal Society of Statisticians have been begging to be heard on this for years. I’ll post their report again below.

The shift chart has been roundly dismissed by multiple experienced statisticians. It makes such basic statistical errors that it is not really a matter for argument. No reputable statistician would defend it.

In reality the chart is an example of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, where a gunman shoots randomly at a barn and then draws a target around the biggest cluster of bulletholes. It’s meaningless.

https://rss.org.uk/RSS/media/File-library/News/2022/ReportHealthcareserialkillerorcoincidencestatisticalissuesininvestigationofsuspectedmedicalmisconductSept2022FINAL.pdf

https://rss.org.uk/RSS/media/File-library/News/2022/Report_Healthcare_serial_killer_or_coincidence_statistical_issues_in_investigation_of_suspected_medical_misconduct_Sept_2022_FINAL.pdf

OP posts:

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 13/07/2024 07:54

The Independent have weighed in on this conversation this morning with an article by David James Smith, former Commissioner of the CCRC (Criminal Cases review Commission), which is where Letby’s final opportunity for appeal lies.

Here’s a link https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lucy-letby-innocent-appeal-new-yorker-b2578297.html

And an archive link (no paywall) https://archive.ph/3tofU

The only broadsheets (I.e quality papers offering in-depth reporting of current issues of public concern)* *left to comment regarding increasing numbers of experts with criticisms, are The Times and (technically) The Financial Times.

On the other end of the scale The Daily Mail has weighed in too. I wouldn’t normally link The DM, but it’s significant because they have been so biased in their reporting of this so far and generally have a very different audience to the above papers. This piece, by Peter Hitchens (not someone I often agree with) is measured and rational.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13628785/Lucy-Letby-innocent-case-reopened-doubts-conviction-raised-medical-experts-criminologists-PETER-HITCHENS.html

Is Lucy Letby innocent? I’m a miscarriage of justice expert – here’s what I think

As the chorus of voices raising concerns about the conviction of ‘killer nurse’ Lucy Letby grows louder, former commissioner at the Criminal Cases Review Commission, David James Smith, looks at how seriously they should be taken

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lucy-letby-innocent-appeal-new-yorker-b2578297.html

OP posts:

Reallybadidea · 13/07/2024 08:02

Oh god, Peter Hitchens is the last person I'd want on my side if I had been wrongly convicted 😂

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 13/07/2024 08:38

Reallybadidea · 13/07/2024 08:02

Oh god, Peter Hitchens is the last person I'd want on my side if I had been wrongly convicted 😂

I mean, sure, I’m not a fan either. An expert on miscarriages of justice like David James Smith, former Commissioner of the CCRC though? I’d take that.

OP posts:

Reallybadidea · 13/07/2024 09:42

Kittybythelighthouse · 13/07/2024 08:38

I mean, sure, I’m not a fan either. An expert on miscarriages of justice like David James Smith, former Commissioner of the CCRC though? I’d take that.

Show quote history

He certainly seems like someone who would be able to spot any obvious flaws in the arguments that her convictions may be unsafe.

OtterMouse · 13/07/2024 10:01

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

DysonSphere · 13/07/2024 10:20

Does anyone have an archive link for the Peter Hitchins article?