Lucy Letby in the news

[Viviennemary]

I've just been watching the BBC news and apparently some experts have been questioning the validity of Lucy Letbys conviction. I must say when I read the details of the trial she did sound 100% guilty. But it would be a tragedy if she is innocent Personally I don't think she is but who knows. Somebody on the news said the only person who knows is Lucy Letby.

Evans still won't have made the final decisions as to which events led to which charges. It simply doesn't work like that.

@Neodymium ive always said you could not get enough air through an NG tube to kill. You’d be there for ages and it would be so slow they’d be burping it up. And someone would see you.

Has anyone posted a link to the triedbystats article on Baby C.

It states that:

“In Novemeber 2020 Letby was charged with a murder that none of the police experts actually said happened.”

It’s very interesting on the sequence of events that led to her being convicted on the basis of what should have been exonerating evidence.

https://medium.com/@triedbystats/lucy-letby-was-convicted-of-murdering-baby-c-based-on-evidence-from-a-day-when-she-wasnt-on-shift-8fb2bb93e0ef

Detective Paul Hughes explains the investigation here.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cSxlwSlPgbE

Programme now about Lucy Letby on channel five plus 1. Trying to blame it all on sewage. Ridiculous. iMHO.

Ridiculous! raw sewage never did anyone any harm!

Did you only watch part of it? Prof John Ashton (a former public health director with decades of experience looking into health incidents, so just another flakey conspiracy theorist so-called expert) talked about the Swiss cheese model and there was discussion and evidence on how the unit had been deskilled to save money so with only 3 years experience Lucy Letby was the senior nurse.

I don’t understand how anyone who thinks the bacterial outbreak isn’t a factor would account for the fact that deaths and stillbirths rose in maternity at the same time as neonatal.

You clearly didn't watch the programme at all, or virtually none of it.

It discussed a hell of a lot more than just the sewage problem.

It discussed super bugs that the hospital had been struggling with and not eradicated, the unreliable door swipe data, the unsuitable insulin tests, the outdated and flawed research regarding the air embolisms, the fact that air in the babies' stomachs could get there by a number of routes including resuscitation if that had been needed. It also managed to explore how expert doctors are reluctant to appear for the defence these days due to threats to their careers and jobs.

Raw sewage getting near sinks where people wash their hands before dealing with very vulnerable babies is clearly an infection control problem. Just one aspect of very many.

I'm more convinced than ever that these convictions are unsafe, or certainly not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The whole case should certainly be re-examined by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

I think she is guilty and so did the jury. That's enough for me.

Good thing you aren't in charge of the judicial system.

Just as well juries in this country are infallible.

No, it didn't.

It said that given that the information we have on contaminated water on Letby's ward came only through a leak (despite all the scrutiny and reviews), it would be necessary to know what tests were done on the infants to exclude this as a contributary factor in their deaths.

Well no, obviously a parody.

The documentary the police team made didn't inspire confidence either, though.

Most premature babies who die after CPR show evidence of air embolism caused by CPR if the right tests are undertaken.

People don't do these tests routinely because if you are performing CPR and it fails, they have died of whatever triggered the need for resuscitation - injuries and embolisms from CPR haven't killed them.

Air in the system after death isn't diagnostic of air embolism suffered before CPR.

If post mortem evidence suffices, you could find that dozens of babies have been murdered with air embolism in hospitals every year. Because they will nearly always try to resuscitate them and that will nearly always cause air embolism.

Not good news for the nurses!

Tee hee! You don’t say!

The judge in his summing up said words to the effect that if the jury were sure of deliberate harm in one case that could legitimately influence their reasoning on how likely it was in the other cases.

James W Phillips does a good job here
https://jameswphillips.substack.com/p/letby-trials-2-new-strong-evidence?utm_source=post-banner&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true

of applying the same principle in reverse. She could not have murdered baby C. This devalues the circumstantial evidence used to convict on the other charges

“Given it appears she actually is innocent on this count, and was telling the truth on at least this count, it begins to raise questions about how a) this kind of evidence was used to insinuate that she is guilty and/or b) that the subsequent reactions by Letby to other deaths are in fact completely consistent with her behaviour when a baby dies that she has never intended to harm. The case appears to reveal her normal emotional response when innocent, and it is consistent with the other cases.”

No, deaths didn't stop and the infant population was very different.

Letby faced charges on 17 babies. She was found guilty of harming only 3 who would have been cared for at a level 1 unit.

Two of the babies she is accused of murdering would have been there, out of seven. The other was an attempted murder case. There is no official definition or register of unattempted collapses, so no comparison we can make there

So, Lucy is accused of killing two babies who were in level 1 care in a 14 month period. The unit was then downgraded and she stopped working there. Four babies in level 1 care died as early or late neonatal deaths in the next 14 months.

Letby was accused of causing about half the infant deaths on the unit. So it looks as if outcomes for level 1 babies did not change at all when she was removed from the ward. Still, there would be plenty of ways to explain a change that didn't involve murder.

Edit: this was a reply to @ClockwiseHoneysuckle

You persist in ignoring the stark contrast with the death rate in the two preceding years, and the fact that the majority of the babies concerned would still have been at the Countess of Chester if the unit had been a Level 1 unit. You cannot get away from the fact that there was a sudden fall in deaths and collapses of Level 1 babies when Letby was finally stopped from working.

And should surely have been exonerating evidence not just for this case, but for the others where the prosecution pointed to the same "evidence".

Surely you are aware that there have been many unsafe convictions in the past, and jury verdicts have been overturned?
There's a lot of information about this case that's come to light, that wasn't presented to the jury.

I think this quote
You persist in ignoring the stark contrast with the death rate in the two preceding years, and the fact that the majority of the babies concerned would still have been at the Countess of Chester if the unit had been a Level 1 unit. You cannot get away from the fact that there was a sudden fall in deaths and collapses of Level 1 babies when Letby was finally stopped from working.

from @ClockwiseHoneysuckle shows exactly why the statisticians are up in arms. If you believe this spike in deaths was unheard of anywhere else and evidence in itself of foul play then that will affect your assessment of the other evidence.

Anyone with any common sense knows that.

The jury system is not infallible. OP and some others think it is though, and that they are too

Totally taking the written notes out of the equation, what stands out to me is writing a condolence card for all 3 triplets while the third was still alive. I don't think that's something you just do by mistake.

I also believe the mum who found her with her distressed, bleeding baby. Letby was shown to have falsified notes to make it appear this didn't happen. I don't see what reason an innocent person would have to do that.

plus, what about the corresponding death rate in the maternity ward?

Also, the deaths that were not investigated as old Dewi ‘decided’ they were actually natural causes was already a significant death spike on the unit. I think 7-8 deaths that were not included in the court case. Presumably because letby wasn’t working those shifts that was enough to rule those deaths not suspicious.

Even the babies who were over 32 weeks had other issues or the mother had issues. The downgrading of the unit wasn’t just about the age of the babies but also the level of care they needed.

Doctors who actually worked there and were a lot more experienced than Lucy Letby began voicing their concerns and they were hushed up and threatened. She is absolutely guilty.

LL did what many if not most nurses do and write up notes later in parenthesis. Estimating the time incorrectly does make her a liar any more than it makes her a murderer. And it is no surprise if people have different recollections of events from 8 years ago.