Lucy Letby press conference

[Viviennemary]

There is a press conference going on now trying to get Lucy Letby's conviction overturned. From what I read the guilty verdict was sound. All those ill babies dying when she was alone with them. Just a coincidence? Already been refused an appeal.

I remember Stefan Kischco
https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/real-life/man-touched-miscarriage-justice-visits-8511545

That's almost by-the-by, I've previously said on this thread that she might still be guilty but the point is that she must be found so by fair trial.

It doesn't appear that the trial was fair so the evidence needs to retested.

It's not a case of the media & intellectuals saying whether she's innocent or not, it's about making sure her conviction is safe - and if it isn't, then addressing any miscarriages of justice.

Where has this panel come from? They are seemingly a group who were already concerned taht the conviction is unsafe a and who have then been brought together by the defence team? They are being represented as an independent panel but I am thinking that they have reviewed the evidence from a starting point that she is not guilty. I may be wrong about that - I can't seem to find anything about how it was formed?

I would be interested to hear about them.

You are wrong. Lee explains in the press conference. Most of them didn’t even know about the case to start with and it was all done on the condition that the conclusions would be published whether or not they supported Letby.

Of course - you are quite correct - I think I subconsciously bury all thoughts of revalidation lol. I don’t think she could work again anyway even if she could ever be reinstated after a RtP course or whatever as I think public trust in her would be gone forever even if found not guilty at retrial.

no, the comment as not condescending - and I agree with it, what you are failing to understand is that these apparent PATTERNS were presented as statistical evidence, using the notion of statistical probability. Many of the expert statisticians who have looked at the case consider this simplistic and misleading.

eg this paper which cites this case, and others, as an example of how people misunderstand the whole notion of how "likely" clusters of death are to happen.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00258024241242549

statistical probability only really works on very large numbers of cases, we are talking here about a statistically very small number. If I were to toss a coin ten times I might get any combination of heads and tails. Just because the stats say its a 50:50 chance of either doesn't mean that if it's all heads or tails I've somehow cheated - though I'm sure many people would accuse me of doing so. Probability is often counterintuitive, people want there to be coherent reasons why a cluster of things happen, and they want to find one explanation to fit all of the deaths. She was a convenient target.

If you get chance try and watch the press conference from today. It explains the reasoning behind their findings in detail.

I'll never understand how a jury can be made up of people with hardly a brain cell between them yet they can be deemed intelligent enough to interpret vast academic medical evidence presented to them for example in this case. Perhaps someone can enlighten me because on reflection it doesn't make sense. I do admit its just a thought which has only crossed my mind since reading this thread.

I'm ashamed to say that when I was a juror on a GBH trial, I was bullied into voting guilty because the guy 'looked like he did it'.

Nothing was provided which was beyond reasonable doubt. People just wanted to go home.

After the verdict was read it became clear he was a deeply unpleasant character and probably guilty as sin but they didn't tell you about any previous history back then.

What was the outcome, there's no point in an objective jury if you all just follow like sheep with no evidence

I was the only dissenter out of twelve. The pressure was unbelievable.

Once I gave in it was a unanimous guilty verdict.

Like I say, I regret it.

My son was in NICU after being born prematurely when this story first came out, it made me feel sick.
Since then I’ve followed it with more interest than I’d usually give to such news stories. I remember feeling angry with what was over the press before the trial - she was guilty as hell in my eyes.
During the trial I followed a TikTok account that recapped the trial daily, not with just the newspaper headlines, it did a full comprehensive unbiased coverage of the ins and outs. About 3 weeks in, I remember feeling really uneasy, to me it was becoming apparent it wasn’t the open and shut case the headlines had you believe. I don’t understand how a jury found her guilty “beyond reasonable doubt”. I think there is a real chance this is a hospital cover up.

Well, she got a crucial detail.wrong in any case: LL did NOT 'admit she did it' in 'her diary'. So I would question her knowledge of the case.

Also, has anyone posted the article or whatever it was that proved the panel got details of the babies' deaths wrong? Did I miss it?

There's no point in an objective jury if you all just follow like sheep with no evidence

There was shitloads of evidence but mostly circumstantial.

It hinged on CCTV footage which did not clearly identify the perpetrator yet was used to hang him.

I'm very happy he went to prison.

I really feel for the jurors on this one, because of the emotive nature of the crimes and the desire of everyone to provide closure for the parents it would have been extremely difficult to stand up and say you didn’t think she did it, if the other jurors were convinced she did.
Even on Mumsnet where none of us are involved you came in for a fair degree of insults and ‘omg why are you supporting a baby killer?’ if you expressed doubts.

I’d say sadly, she’d be more likely to need witness protection. I can’t imagine mentally how it would be possible to survive this. Also for her family.

Yep. I would imagine the pressure was humongous.

I've always been firmly on the side of 'trust the system'.

Then I read this, recall the shit I saw over the years working in a major teaching hospital and realise I don't trust the system.

There are various things to take into account - repeated actions that all add up to something uncouth

I think we’re more concerned about the evidence than bad manners?

The death rate on the unit was 10% higher than other similar units, for the period of her employment only. It’s a 13 cot scbu, which doesn’t care for extremely premature or very ill babies. Considering the average tertiary neonatal unit, where they take in the smallest micro premies and most unwell babies, and usually have about 30 cots, has a lower death rate than babies cared for by Letby the evidence against her isn’t great.

I'm not saying she's innocent. But the NHS has undeniably fucked a lot of nurses over. Half of the things nurses get struck off for are products of wider failings.

White lives matter too.

Dr Shoo Lee is the Canadian expert whose paper was used to convict her. He is now retired but was asked by her new defence team to look at how his work was used by the prosecution. He said his work had been misrepresented, he did not believe it proved what the prosecution said it proved.

When his evidence was deemed inadmissible in her appeal process he asked Letby and her team for permission to assemble an international panel of experts to look at the MEDICAL evidence alone for each case. This was on condition that whatever they found would be published. Each case was reviewed independently by two difference neonatal experts. If their conclusions differed then a third expert would be brought into the discussion. In two out of the 17 cases they needed the third expert. In all cases they found no evidence of murder. They did find evidence of lack of adequate care.

That must’ve been a really difficult situation to be in. Were there ringleaders or was it the full jury putting pressure on you?