Lucy Letby - programme on ITV now

[Viviennemary]

I think this must be a new programme and not a repeat. Experts are being wheeled out to try and say Letby is innocent. I'm not convinced at all. None of them were even at the trial or worked with Letby. It's all theories and opinions..

Can you provide reference to these errors?

Even if there are errors or mistakes, there is not enough agreement that the babies were harmed deliberately, let alone that Lucy had the means and opportunity to cause harm in the ways the prosecution has put forward for the case to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The people stating there are more plausible explanations than murder or deliberate harm are world-renowned professionals at the very top of their game.

The people stating the only possible cause of death is deliberate harm, by Lucy, are not at the very top of their game; at least one of them has a reputation for being an unreliable witness.

There doesn't need to be irrefutable proof of innocence for the conviction to be unsafe; there just needs to be reasonable doubt, and I struggle to see how anyone can deny that there is doubt here.

I haven't read the whole thread so sorry if I repeat something already said. We know innocent people have been convicted in the past so I have no doubt it's possible that LL is innocent. I have not read enough to form an opinion but the things I have read or watched have created a question in my mind.

Also, a friend of mine was on a jury once and they didn't agree with the final verdict but felt pressured into following the majority (which originally had been a 50/50 split).

Had another friend on a different jury who said that 11 of the jurors thought X and one didn't. That person folded and went along with jury.

It just makes me think how easy it is to come to wrong verdict. Channel 4 did an interesting experiment too showing how two jurys with exactly the same evidence can come to different conclusions.

It's a similar case ie no one saw him do anything and it was healthcare so an expert could always pass it off as natural causes. All they have to do is go "nah that evidence is wrong, no murders" exactly what they're doing now. There just isn't the public call for that so no experts who want their 15 mins of fame are crawling out the woodwork. Probably because it happened before websleuths were a thing, or because he was a middle-aged man.

Did Harold Shipman not dupe people into changing their will in his favour before they died? So a very clear financial motive.

Shipman had forged wills and there was other forensic evidence. There is nowhere near the same amount or standard of evidence in this case.

“no experts who want their 15 mins of fame are crawling out the woodwork.”

Are you for real? On what basis do you characterise an international panel of serious and highly respected experts as fame hungry idiots? These people are at the very top of their game, they are ‘famous’ within the field they have devoted their lives work to. They aren’t trying to get on Love Island. That’s just a wild claim to make and you have no basis for it. Can we at least please be serious?

I think he did that once or twice which led to him finally being caught. It certainly wasn't his main motive. Maybe part of him just wanted to get caught by that point. If not for the wills would you say he was still guilty? Because he'd killed many many before that.

@Kittybythelighthouse oh other forensic evidence, such as? Evidence which is no doubt something you could dispute since we've seen from the LL you can find an expert to dispute absolutely anything and everything. Insulin-wrong, air embolism-wrong, liver injury-another doctors fault.

Does this expert panel say anything about baby G and the overfeeding or have they skimmed over that one? What about baby E whose mother found her baby with blood all round his mouth and LL standing over him?

@Firefly1987
oh other forensic evidence, such as? Evidence which is no doubt something you could dispute since we've seen from the LL you can find an expert to dispute absolutely anything and everything. Insulin-wrong, air embolism-wrong, liver injury-another doctors fault.

Does that not just show you how flawed the process is when people are accused of crimes of this nature? Even if it took 100 experts on insulin for them to actually ascertain the facts related to insulin before the trial that's what should have happened.

@kkloo well yes by the very nature those type of cases are always going to be extremely complex. I'm not sure what you're saying though, if you can't find experts that all agree then just let the suspected healthcare serial killer go free? It seems like almost a free pass for anyone who has these types of urges to just go into healthcare tbh! And that's absolutely terrifying.

I agree with you. I feel for the parents. I think it’s a case of systemic errors, poor management and a vulnerable nurse being scapegoated. I think her prison experience must be horrendous. Imagine being wrongly convicted for killing babies? She deserves a fair trial, but given the furore I don’t see how any jury could be unbiased one way or another. Just awful.

I am a strong believer in Blackstones ratio that it's better that 10 guilty go free than one innocent be locked up.

I'm not even necessarily saying that all the experts have to agree but just that the scientific evidence should be as robust and accurate as possible before it is allowed to be used against a person by the state.

I'm not from the UK but it literally astounds me that for such a big/modern/wealthy country that one of the main pieces of evidence referred to was a paper from 1989 and the author of the paper wasn't even consulted about it. It's like something I'd expect to hear about from some poor third world country or from something decades and decades ago.

Of course during the appeal they rejected the idea that it was a critical part of the case against her but that's bollox.

I've watched the Panorama programme. She's guilty. However, more evidence is needed to satisfy the doubters. Let's hope it's found

True. It's a shame they didn't address the so called deaths and collapses that allegedly happened whilst LL wasn't there-which is what we all want clarification on. But I guess there is a reason they can't or wont.

At least they did address the tube dislodgements at Liverpool. I'm sure that'll be debated forever though. You wouldn't think you could argue against a 40x increase in tube dislodgements during her shifts but people still do. As was said in the doc by a statistician-either she was a spectacularly bad nurse or acting maliciously. I don't think ANYTHING will satisfy the doubters at this point, they're too far into it.

I usually avoid reading reports from prisons - they tend to be so voyeuristic. But I did read that after Shoo Lee's February press conference, the other prisoners in her wing decided she was likely innocent.

She's guilty but more evidence is needed sounds well into reasonable doubt territory to me.

I don’t know why you always come at me with a lairy attitude 😂

Okay, re Shipman: I’m not a Shipman expert and I’m not particularly interested in that case, but I’ll humour you. His motive has never been definitively established, and it remains one of the most debated aspects of his crimes. There are several theories, but no single explanation fully accounts for his behaviour. The forged wills and other forensics absolutely were a huge part of what convicted him.

“oh other forensic evidence, such as? Evidence which is no doubt something you could dispute since we've seen from the LL you can find an expert to dispute absolutely anything and everything. Insulin-wrong, air embolism-wrong, liver injury-another doctors fault.”

Again, why are you mind reading me? You don’t ever get it right - no offence! Of course I wouldn’t dispute his conviction. Do you think I am just a nutter who loves murderers or something? Is it so hard to take me at my word that I’m genuinely interested in justice? Ffs.

The forged wills are forensic for a start, as well as providing motive (which is notably missing in the LL case) but there was also toxicology (proving cause of death) and computer forensics (proving deception).

I take the word of serious experts seriously because it matters greatly that justice is fair and rigorous. That’s all. There is no sinister underlying motive.

”Does this expert panel say anything about baby G and the overfeeding or have they skimmed over that one? What about baby E whose mother found her baby with blood all round his mouth and LL standing over him?”

Deep sigh, they cover every baby in double blind peer reviewed reports. You should watch the panel because it’s clear you haven’t. They do not comment on anything except medical evidence for obvious reasons. The idea of death by overfeeding has been thoroughly debunked btw. Link to the panel below again since you clearly haven’t watched it.

https://www.youtube.com/live/N0nmoGes3IU?si=FivxUEsjvM-xFp0_

No. You don’t have to jump from zero to 100. We can have a more thorough and rigorous process as they do in some other countries. Just simply leaving it as is when it’s been shown over and over that this current system doesn’t work is a danger to us all.

@Kittybythelighthouse ok so do you just think that serial killers of babies don't exist simply because you can't personally think of a motive? You're not really interested in any possible motives anyway remember because you think there were no murders. It's definitely easier to get your head around a financial motive for sure, but other such motives do exist. Sadly people have killed babies and children simply to get back at an ex. And that's often their own children who they're supposed to love!

Then we've got Erin Patterson who whilst didn't kill children, killed her husband's family. I don't think we have any motive for that other than "she wanted to hurt her ex" sometimes that's all it take for these types of people. Someone upset them so they will take away the things they love. Us normal people won't understand that but we know it happens. I think that could partly be the motive with LL but I think she likely had more than just that. She was in the perfect position to hurt anyone who crossed her in the worst possible way. Absolutely chilling.

“ok so do you just think that serial killers of babies don't exist simply because you can't personally think of a motive?”

No. And I haven’t said anything like that.

”You're not really interested in any possible motives anyway remember because you think there were no murders.”

It is true that I don’t think it’s wise to start dissecting someone’s behaviour as a murderer before we even know for sure whether or not there were any murders. You got me!

”Then we've got Erin Patterson who whilst didn't kill children, killed her husband's family. I don't think we have any motive for that other than "she wanted to hurt her ex"

Big difference: there were definitely murders in that case.

“Absolutely chilling.”

Only if there were murders. If there were no murders the chilling is only happening in your imagination.

I liked the expert panel on baby G - showed they had plenty of actual experience of little babies. They pointed out among other things that her nappies would have been different if she'd been overfed.

I watched half of last nights episode and the more I hear of it, and let’s be honest it’s a very complex case, the more it seems to me she was scapegoated.

The rota showing she was on shift did look like compelling evidence, but it’s since been shown to be wrong. Statistics can be manipulated to suit any narrative. “100% of people loved and would recommend our new iced drink” - sounds amazing and it must be good but marketing company didn’t say their sample size was only 2 people! Why would they- that wouldn’t have the same affect!

The main evidence used by the prosecution was provided by one expert witness, yet he wasn’t even a specialist in tiny babies. Yes he worked with children but that’s 0-18 and very different from working day in day out with tiny new born babies. There have since been several neonatologist speak to and say he’s basically talking rubbish and that’s significant. The case was based on an opinion of one man basically and that can’t be right.

It’s such an emotive topic but you have to think critically. With more experts speaking up to say it’s an unsafe conviction in their opinion (and they are more knowledgeable that the main EW used by the prosecution) it has to be looked at again otherwise there could be an innocent woman in prison.

I would hope that several judges would come together and listen to the voices of health professionals who think she’s innocent and make their decision based on that. I think that’s what will ultimately happen

I still think she is guilty. I wonder what those Crown Prosecution folk will come up with. And the investigations into other hospitals she worked at. I dont think the Panorama programme added very much.

The stats were 100% mangled. Objectively bad maths. It’s not even a question. They obviously did not consult a statistician or even an A level maths student.

They claim that during Letby’s shifts, babies’ breathing tubes came loose 40 times more often than on other shifts, where the rate was said to be under 1%.

To get that 1% figure, they count each intubated baby separately. So if there are ten babies on a shift, that’s counted as ten shifts for the calculation.

But for Letby, they didn’t count it that way. They treated her 50 shifts as if there was only one intubated baby each time. That makes her total look much smaller: 50 instead of 500, which pushes her calculated rate much higher.

As I say, even an A level maths student would have done a better job.

Thing is though, the average person would go from understands a bit of it, to hasn’t got a clue and the rest would be somewhere in between!

There’s not much hope!

Even highly educated non statisticians often can’t get their heads around stats! It’s a known issue with eg lawyers, judiciary, doctors etc. (clearly journalists too) The average person on the street is very likely to take bad stats at face value.

This is exactly why it was egregious for a publicly funded broadcaster to present such faulty data on prime time TV.