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”

Those who think she may have been wrongly convicted; do you think she's entirely innocent of it all or do you simply think that a bit more is being pinned on her than she's actually guilty of?

That's a good question.

I think for me it boils down to the question of intent. There's a vast difference between poor practice which could lead to devastating outcomes, and deliberate acts. And this area is very grey.

Given the facts we have about conditions on the unit and other incidents like the wrongly inserted NG tube (I believe) I don't think it's unbelievable that other things could have been conveniently "pinned" on her.

I don’t know if she is guilty or innocent. I suspect the only person who ever will know 100% is her.

However, if she is innocent, then yes I think she’s innocent of all the deaths. That being said, it’s totally possible she made mistakes in the babies care. She worked a lot of shifts and appears to have been increasingly under stress. We all make mistakes at work sometimes, but in this setting it can mean the difference between life and death.

Her life is over either way. Even if the conviction was overturned. A lot of people would then think she’s got away with murder. She could never go back to a “normal” life now.

That’s why I hope she is guilty. The thought of someone’s life being so destroyed when they’ve done nothing wrong is horrific. Of course equally horrific is the thought of someone committing these crimes and getting away with it.

What I’m struggling to understand, is why her defence case was seemingly so weak. If there are so many flaws in the evidence, why didn’t the defence call on experts who could have explained that? From the little I know about it, it almost feels like they barely bothered putting up a defence.

That is a good question but you are doing that thing of seamlessly slipping from ‘May have been wrongly convicted’ to ‘IS entirely innocent’ which misrepresents what many of us on here are saying.

I think she MAY have been wrongly convicted but this means I think she MAY be completely innocent, not that she IS. I am currently holding two possibilities in my head, that she may be a manipulative liar guilty of most or all of the crimes she is convicted of (and if that is the case, probably a whole slew more she has got away with) or she MAY be completely innocent. Thinking it is not fully proven beyond reasonable doubt in court does not mean I think that Gill, the newspaper articles, the various blogs etc have conclusively proven it the other way.

In answer to your question, I think if she’s guilty there’s a chance that one or more of the verdicts might be wrong in either direction because there are a lot of them and by the very nature of the cases the evidence is not always very clear. But I can’t say my heart would be bleeding for her if she had been unfairly convicted of one or two in amongst a lot of others where she was guilty, and in that scenario there would probably be others she had got away with.

IF she is innocent then yes she might be innocent of all the charges.

As a retired criminal barrister I am not labouring under a ‘common misconception’ that the jury hear all possible evidence. They will hear all evidence allowed by the judge because it is considered relevant and more probative than prejudicial. Further, the jury will have heard the expert medical testimony that both Defence and Prosecution Counsel view as best supporting their case.
It is not impossible that fresh evidence will suggest a miscarriage in this case; I am just hesitant to accept theories based on media reports and even suggestions of medical experts who have not had access to the case files.
All of the above is, of course, offered, with ‘the greatest of respect’, to use your favoured phrase, a hackneyed court expression which usually signifies the contrary.

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

Well, we agree on the fact that juries don’t hear all the evidence then.

Important to note that the jury did not hear expert medical testimony on the behalf of the defence. That’s one of the biggest issues with this case.

Dr Hall (medical expert for the defence) did have access to all of the files. He was not called to speak on behalf of the defence, but he was there. As a retired barrister you’ll know there could be many reasons for this. We don’t know what they are.

I’m not using the term “with the greatest respect” in the context you are used to it. I am genuinely trying to keep the tone of this conversation civil and respectful. That’s all. I did not mean to offend you.

I think it's important to note that with regard to expert medical testimony, it's introduction doesn't necessarily depend on whether it is good and credible in and of itself, it's whether the court thinks it is and allows it. Also, if it is one report that goes against three in consensus, the author of that report does run the risk of being "discredited" moving forward based on the final outcome of the case. It's simple weight of numbers.

In some cases, multiple reports can be commissioned but the first is part of material given to the next experts as it forms part of the next investigation. So in complex cases the second and third experts cannot be truly independent or unbiased.

You find this out when you read a report and see the line "On the balance of probabilities I cannot disagree with Expert A whose report I read on X date".

Apologies for quoting a message from several days ago but I can't see that anyone addressed the numbers in it.

I don't think anyone has claimed that there were 25 deaths in the unit in 2015-2016. It certainly appears that 15 deaths were under investigation initially. However LL was only charged and convicted for 7 of those deaths. So by all accounts there were (at least) 8 deaths where she wasn't charged. How were those 7 deaths identified as being murders rather than by natural causes given that none were thought to be suspicious at the time?

Edited to add that I have not seen anything to shows that LL was present at all 15 as the quoted post states. Happy to be corrected on this.

Did anyone answer this?

Also I thought I read about another death due to an ET tube being placed incorrectly?
When was this and who was involved?

I read somewhere that it was Gibbs who left the baby unattended behind a screen after a procedure. The baby wasn't being monitored. Letby raised this. I think it was Harkness that incorrectly placed the ET tube. When the baby collapsed he attributed it to the monitors, the baby died.

You’re right. It was Harkness that put the tube in the oesophagus rather than the windpipe, suffocating the baby. He blamed the alarm on a faulty machine and was strongly criticised for doing so.

Yes, that’s true too. It was Gibbs and (I think) Harkness. Will dig up that source when I get a min (on my way to an event).

That’s a really important point to add.

There are strange anomalies regarding air embolism and resuscitation. Evans and Bion stated that one deciding factor was the fact the babies didn't respond to resuscitation, but in the case of one they say it was the fact that the baby could be resuscitated that leads them to believe it was air embolism. This was stated at trial and reference to this can also be found in the statement of why the appeal was turned down. I can't link now because I'm on my phone.

When I was practicing there would be two reasons why you would not call your expert. One would be if the Prosecution entirely agreed with their evidence and so it could be read by Counsel as a statement to the court. It would be highly unlikely to be agreed by the Prosecution if it contained evidence that suggested that the defendant was not guilty. The second reason for not calling our own expert would be that their evidence contained material that was unhelpful to the Defendant’s case. That may be the case here.
The only other possible explanation would be monumental incompetence of Defence Counsel, who failed to call a helpful witness. Maybe that was the case but Lucy Letby was represented by a team led by a KC of 30 years’ experience, Benjamin Myers.

I was reading yesterday that air embolism can also be caused by resuscitation.

This why I am keeping an open mind.

whatever I think of the science and the evidence, I can’t imagine in a high profile case such as this Letby would have been represented by anyone less than top
flight lawyers. Presumably even if she couldn’t afford them some arrangement would have been in place as poor representation would not be in the case’s best interest.

something seems off to me, and I don’t know why. I genuinely don’t know if she’s guilty or innocent, or whether I’ve been watching too many US legal dramas where there’s always that key piece of “slam dunk” evidence, or where our hero finds a huge miscarriage of justice and the death row inmate is immediately freed.

but I do believe the defence weren’t incompetent, though I am not sure all the circumstantial evidence sums to guilty.

it’s an interesting one.

Quite. Evidence - whether statistical or other expert opinion evidence - not deployed by Letby’s team will have been fully considered before being rejected. Experienced silks do not overlook significant, helpful evidence.

This isn't an archive link I'm afraid.

Those who doubt should read Baby E’s mum’s testimony. She gives clear, timed and verified account of catching Letby in the middle of what she thinks was an attack in her child. Letby later falsified the medical notes for this incident.

So if it was that clear why didn’t she report it at the time?

if she reported it at the time it would carry more weight. If she remembered what she saw after Letby was arrested then that’s less reliable.

did she report it after witnessing the attack?

I can understand why a parent in this situation may not feel able to express their concerns immediately. On the other hand I can also see why your memories may be affected in the light of being told that the nurse may have harmed your baby.

Iirc child E didn't even have a post mortem so couldn't have been considered unusual by the medical staff at the time

Thank you for this, I took your advice and read the testimony.
However like so many other things in this case it can be taken either way depending on whether you already think she is guilty or innocent. The mother saw and heard her child in distress, but there is nothing in her account to prove whether the child was in trouble because of something Letby had done to her on purpose or by other natural/iatrogenic causes.
Perhaps there are clues in the account that people who know about neonatal medicine would pick up but for a lay person it’s not a description of Letby being caught doing anything. It’s definitely consistent with the narrative of Letby harming the baby but does not show her doing it.