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”

It doesn't say "they went".

It clearly (or less so for some) says "they can't" - in response to the partially obstructed rhetoric question above "How will things ever be like they used to".

There might be issues with the conviction (I don't know the case in detail) but the armchair detectives think a little too much of their own abilities. Thus has always been the case.

This. ^ Of course it was her, and no silly conspiracy theorists are going to make me change my mind!

Anyone who thinks she didn't do it is deluded.

The police did an excellent job. This was a massive investigation- the largest of its kind. There are thousands of pieces of data. To suggest the police did a shit job because the outcome was not what you wanted is wrong.

No it's not. Suggesting Letby is innocent is as ludicrous and farcical as suggesting Shipman is/was.

Why are people so determined she is innocent? Because she is a nurse? Because she is pretty? Because she was charming and likeable? Another reason?

Evidence is often coincidental. But as the saying goes once a coincidence, twice a coincidence, three times it’s probably not a coincidence any more.

There won’t be a smoking gun in these cases if there is no CCTV or confession, so the evidence rather than single pronged and damming will be a network of coincidences, suggestive factors and basically excluding that anyone else could’ve done it. A few of these together wouldn’t be strong enough, there has to be a LOT and it seems this is what made up the case.

It’s a very unusual case and I doubt anyone bar those who sat in the court room will truly know all the facts.

oh I get it now! It's the hospitals fault she killed them because it was badly run?

Here.

Or it’s possible that the clear understaffing and mismanagement of a ward full of critically ill babies contributed to the increase in deaths from 5 a year to 13?

deaths went down after letby’s arrest because the ward was deemed not capable of providing the correct level of care, so they stopped taking such sick babies.

the cause of death is only implicated, not proven. I don’t think any of the post mortems indicate murder?

I have no idea if Letby is guilty or not but the people who think the handwritten notes alone are enough to prove guilt have no understanding of depression and mental illness.

Your first statement is not obvious at all. To actually know whether that statements is true requires good knowledge about how statistics works.

What makes you think that hasn’t been applied in this case?

Setting aside the ins and outs of the evidence - though I have lots of thoughts about it:

1. I really feel like there are so many questions about her defence team. Why weren't the medical expert witnesses they had called? Why weren't the stats challenged? Given that there are clearly experts out there who could have made a valuable contribution to the defence, why didn't they find them, or use them when they did have them? I don't understand it. I have heard the suggestion that Letby herself would have had a say in how the defence presented her case - so what did she make of it?

1. For me, this case also raises serious questions about how the justice system works. Is there an argument for cases with complex backgrounds like this to have expert jurors rather than simply expert witnesses? How can a jury weigh the evidence well if they can't understand it fully? I think as a juror I'd feel uneasy about being asked to weigh up medical fact/opinion with limited knowledge. (Caveat, I've never been on a jury so I'm not sure of the process.)

No.

iirc correctly there was direct evidence in shipman’s cases.

biological evidence showing overdose levels of opiates.
shipman signing all the death certs
shipman being left money in will after forging will.
Victim diary entries written after death
taxi driver contacting police about seemingly healthy patients dying after seeing shipman
colleague expressing concern over the very high amount of death certs shipman was signing
etc.

very different case and physical evidence to show murder.

Her conviction makes me incredibly uneasy.

If she is innocent, it is a huge miscarriage of justice and should make any nhs staff member fearful to practice.

I've not seen convincing evidence, and it's widely known the trust was badly managed, under staffed and providing suboptimal care.
If she was one of the most senior nurses (at her age!) and she was taking overtime to make a house deposit, it makes sense she'd be caring for the sicker babies a lot of the time.

There are babies who died when she wasn't on shift. They were just conveniently left out of the chart. Now that's shockingly misleading.

"probably not" is a wooly statement.

And the articles about this case are stating that statistics experts do in fact dispute the way statistics has been used in this case.

There is also a Telegraph article about this today
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-letby-serial-killer-or-miscarriage-justice-victim/

The graphs of the shift patterns are particularly interesting. The way they were presented to the Jury was misleading and they've been heavily criticised by senior Statisticians.

Experts dispute each other all the time. That’s why both teams are free to hire their own experts, with anything not in dispute agreed as fact.

Haven't read the thread. Apparently the hospital had rates of neonatal deaths in NICU that were far too high.

Since letby no longer works there are the death stats back to what they should be?

If so, there's your answer

Absolutely this. People say and do all manner of ' strange 'things when under extreme stress. The notes do not contain an admission of guilt; they are purely reflective of a disturbed, frantic, panicked mind from a person who has been accused of the most heinous crimes. I've never understood the importance placed on the notes and why her defence didn't bring in a psychiatric expert to demystify the ramblings. Again, no one can be entirely certain of her innocence but equally so, I don't believe anyone can be entirely certain of her guilt either. The evidence is weak.

Several prominent statisticians have pointed out that it hasn't. Read the article.

No it's not any answer. The unit stopped treating his risk babies when she stopped working there. So which factor caused the drop in deaths?

So I can answer why the defence did use experts. In the U.K. there is no battle
of the experts where each side pays for an opinion. What happens is that each side collects expert opinions and there is a pre-trial expert conference where the experts from the prosecution and defence sit down to discuss the evidence and their opinions.

Lucy’s defence did have experts. However, after the pre-trial conference it was decided not to use them.

Stillbirth rates were high at the same time as excess nicu deaths. That to me is alarming.

@HowIrresponsible

Not so, because they downgraded the hospital, meaning they were no longer able to take the youngest/ sickest babies. This would of course mean death rates would come down.

Thanks, this is a really interesting insight into that process. It doesn't quite answer the question of why they decided not to, though. Is it likely that the defence felt their expert opinion wasn't strong enough, then?