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..

They dropped Hutton because after speaking to her they realised statistics weren’t going to be relevant in building their case, which is why they didn’t then use statistics as part of their case. The rota chart was used to demonstrate opportunity.

And yes, after an investigation lasting many years the police were convinced that Letby had committed these crimes and therefore, as you would obviously expect, their goal was to make sure she was convicted.

tested and challenged by experienced counsel via a lengthy trial, and then thoroughly considered by court of appeal judges

The problem, and this is a fundamental problem with expert evidence in our justice system and not just relating to this particular case, is that these lawyers and barristers and judges know next to nothing about science or medicine or statistics.

Even worse in my opinion is that because they do know a lot about law and have been sucessful in their own domain they imagine that this expertise extends to other areas and so do not listen or seek to understand with enough care or attention.

I read a book called Insulin Murders by a medical scientist, now dead, who did research in this area and was also involved in court cases both for the prosecution and defense. It seems that there have likely been other faulty verdicts.

I don't have the book to hand to quote directly but he was particularly critical of the court of appeal judges in the appeal of Deborah Winzar against her conviction for murdering her husband.

The problem, and this is a fundamental problem with expert evidence in our justice system and not just relating to this particular case, is that these lawyers and barristers and judges know next to nothing about science or medicine or statistics.
Even worse in my opinion is that because they do know a lot about law and have been sucessful in their own domain they imagine that this expertise extends to other areas and so do not listen or seek to understand with enough care or attention.

This is so wildly inaccurate that I don't know where to start. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of how the justice system works in this country.

The judges and the legal teams are supposed to be experts in law. The expert witnesses are supposed to equip them with the knowledge they need to represent their clients (legal teams) and objectively decide the case based on the law (judges). There are ample opportunities throughout the process to review, understand and examine the evidence.

If you're hoping to have specialist legal teams and judges originating from all different backgrounds you are delusional and there is no way any legal system could ever function like that, anywhere in the world.

Indeed. And how lucky that the nurse they happened to pick had been hoarding handover sheets at home over several years and house moves as well as incessantly searching families on social media.

I don't see anyone on this thread arguing that there was a deliberate conspiracy against Letby.

Group-think, bolstered by Evans giving the whole thing "scientific" credibility, is enough to account for it.

It is exactly what the underlining point is - that LL was a scapegoat, an innocent nurse uninvolved in baby deaths. What the obvious conclusion is from that is that the consultants set her up and I fundamentally disagree with this.

Doubtless they checked whether taking handover sheets home and doing social media searches on patients and families was unique to this one nurse ...

The problem is that our system of expert witnesses and non expert judges and juries is not working well and is leading to injustices.

The law commision published proposals on how to improve it.

lawcom.gov.uk/project/expert-evidence-in-criminal-proceedings/

Specifically in the case of deaths in hospitals Phil Hammond has made some good suggestions and I think a similar system has been implemented in the Netherlands. Will look for a link.

Depends what you mean by, set her up. If you mean they deliberately framed an innocent woman, I agree that didn't happen.

If you mean, accidentally accused an innocent woman, that's what I think happened.

This case doesn't need conspiracy theories. We have international scientific experts telling us the underlying science is all wrong. We don't need to referee consultants vs managers vs Letby. That's a sideshow.

We need to follow the science.

But this is where you're missing the point by focusing on the individual elements and not on the wider picture. There is a reason why they believed it was LL and not a different staff member that they need to raise concerns about. IME senior staff members raising independent concerns of similar kind about the same individual is a major red flag and it's very unlikely they are incorrect.

That's actually the worst reason they could give.

If they believed that using the statistician would undermine their aim to convict Letby, they had a duty to disclose that to the defence. It's been confirmed that they didn't do this.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/10/lucy-letby-police-cps-handling-case-raises-new-concerns-about-convictions

That's because their aim should never be to convict anyone, but to see justice done.

Focusing on science is only one part of the case, LL's actions that raised concerns of her colleagues and which are clearly linked to the babies who died are the other part of the case, you can't dismiss them and focus on your preferred scientific evidence only.

Sure, but what that demonstrates is that the handover notes and internet searches add nothing of value. If you have a culture where both things happen, and a murdering nurse, the nurse doing these things just doesn't add to evidence that she's a murderer.

Letby was a Facebook addict who searched for everyone she encountered. She made hundreds of searches a month. I would also be amazed if anyone, knowing they had been accused of killing or harming children they barely remembered, wouldn't search for the family online to have a look.

90% of the handover notes in Letby's home had nothing to do with the children she's accused of harming. It looks as if she simply took notes home. I do similar - not working in a hospital. Bring notes and papers home in my bag, stash them away, come across them, sort, consolidate, eventually bring them back in to shred. It's nothing sinister.

If the babies died of natural causes, there is no case.

Found the programme very interesting that shift chart they used as evidence was a disgrace, makes you wonder about the caliber of her defence. After following closely the Sandie Peggie case , I now have doubts to the honesty of the other medics / staff involved and for the first time I am questioning her conviction

I get that people may find the fb searching odd behaviour. The note stashing odd behaviour. But it doesn’t make someone a murderer. I know someone (not a hcp) who will online search pretty much everyone she comes across.

There have been plenty of unsafe convictions or accusations in the past because a possible suspect is a bit odd, doesn’t behave as expected. Lindy Chamberlin, Christopher Jefferies, Joanne Lees. Maybe William Tyrell’s foster mother. I’d like to think the legal system has moved away from this but not so sure.

She wasn't accused of killing them at the time of the searches?

I'm sorry any HCP doing this kind of searches should be subject to gross misconduct proceedings, that's entirely inappropriate.

You are very quick to assume nothing untoward happened, but there is a reason why CoC and now Liverpool baby deaths are now investigated and the common denominator is LL. There is a reason why her consultant colleagues raised concerns specifically about her. Just because you don't agree with Evans or Jayaram and there are medics who don't does not mean LL has no case to answer, that's jumping from serious concerns about someone to automatically assuming they've done nothing wrong.

I'm sorry any HCP doing this kind of searches should be subject to gross misconduct proceedings, that's entirely inappropriate.

This is your opinion, you may have a valid point, and it may well be inappropriate, but searching SM is not gross misconduct. And it’s definitely not illegal. All it tells you is that LL was nosy and searched patient’s relatives.

If she had only searched for the babies she was alleged to have harmed that would be different altogether. But that is not the case at all.

The science is precisely the case, and the only case. If there is no scientific evidence of murder, there’s no murder.

Most of the Facebook searches happened well before she was accused of killing or harming children, but not all.

Her ward had no policy around social media use like this. This was confirmed at Thirlwall. Maybe medical professionals could confirm whether rules like this exist now? (I have seen rules around posting on social media, using information found in searches in recruitment processes, but never anything forbidding searches. How would you ever police that anyway?)

The reason CoC and Liverpool deaths and incidents are still under investigation is that Letby has been convicted of murder, and people have naturally enough wondered if she was harming children earlier. There was no file of unsolved murders sitting waiting when she was convicted.

I am automatically assuming that facebook searches, doodles, and hoarding handover notes do not make someone a murderer. If I assumed anything else I could never go near a hospital again. These are not terribly unusual behaviours.

If there were evidence that anyone had harmed children deliberately, I would certainly agree that Letby should be scrutinized as a candidate. Without that evidence, the rest is meaningless.

I think - looking at her text messages too - that she got emotionally involved with the families and babies.

I am bored by Facebook etc, but actually, if I cared for tiny babies for their first few weeks, and got to know their parents, I can absolutely imagine looking for later photos on social media to see them growing up and thriving. And if you're doing that kind of thing, it's hardly a leap to looking up parents and seeing how they are getting on. She was a young nurse working closely with people - not a robot.

This is not true - people have been convicted of murder where no body is ever found.

The experts who have come forward since the reporting ban was lifted are all working pro bono. They are not being paid by the defence. They are doing this out of professional and moral integrity. They include for e.g a senior neonatologist at the Karolinska Institute - which is literally the home of the Nobel prize for medicine. These experts were not accessible to Letby before the trial and they vastly eclipse the prosecution witnesses and the previous defence in terms of experience and standing. It is as PP said like a premier league team vs under 8’s. She wouldn’t be able to afford them in a million years if they weren’t pro bono, but they are.

Such a response to a miscarriage of justice is unprecedented. Anyone who isn’t at least a little perturbed by this is very hard for me to understand. As a PP said digging heels in that she definitely guilty and we should all look the other way smacks of zealotry. No one can honestly be that sure that she’s guilty now.

I’m sorry but this is dreadfully naive. I suggest you have a dig into other miscarriages of justice and listen to Paddy Hill talking about the importance of the media and public attention in freeing The Birmingham Six. The postmasters would also be mouldering still with convictions if it weren’t for public and media attention. The fact is that the British judiciary do not overturn miscarriages of justice without public outcry. It’s as simple as that. If you’ve been wrongfully convicted and you sit quietly, patiently, and don’t engage the media, you will stay exactly where you are.