Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind?

[Kittybythelighthouse]

I’ve been sensing a shift in opinions on the Lucy Letby case and I’m interested in hearing from people who have changed their mind either way.

Did you used to think she was guilty and now you don’t, or you aren’t sure? What changed your mind?

Also vice versa: did you used to think she was not guilty but then changed your mind to guilty? What convinced you?

The reason I’m using the term ‘not guilty’ rather than ‘innocent’ is because courts don’t prove innocence. Not guilty is a legal conclusion about whether or not the state met its burden of proof.

That's right so far. I hope I can explain this. It's quite clear in my head!

So, we know Lucy Letby worked about 50 shifts at Liverpool Women's Hospital.

The BBC documentary explained that we should expect a rate of extubation of less than 1 every hundred shifts. But they also explained that this wasn't what we usually count as shifts. If you have five children intubated, that's five shifts. If you have ten, that's ten shifts.

So for the unit, they counted 10 intubated children times 10 shifts = 100 shifts, and then showed it only happens 1 in 100 of these "ventilated" shifts on the unit.

But for Letby, they only counted her shifts. The didn't multiply them by the amount of intubated children.

To compare Lucy's shifts properly with the less than 1% rate, they needed to take her shifts, multiply them by the average number of intubated children, and then work out the rate of intubations. You saw them on the BBC graphic doing that calculation for the ward, but they never did it for Lucy Letby.

So they are behaving as if there was only one intubated child on the ward during her shifts, which makes extubation less likely and more "suspicious", but as if there were ten on the ward during all that other shifts, and then they are comparing the two as if they are the same thing.

I think it’s totally fair and rational to be unsure and I appreciate your open mind. I’m personally 99% sure at this point because I’ve been researching it for over a year, but I understand that not everyone has. I think that it will become clear that she isn’t guilty though, like Sally Clark. I’d bet good money on it actually.

“no idea if she had a saviour complex or not, just referring to what a PP who said they were a psychologist”

I would caution against taking seriously the word of a self proclaimed but anonymous expert here. There were several red flags in that post that make me very unsure of that: e.g a degree in criminology, but no awareness of Blackstone’s ratio or the burden of proof etc. A further degree in psychology (which is not the same thing as being a professional psychologist and nothing like being a psychiatrist) but very irresponsible in diagnosing someone from afar via their reported behaviour in tabloids and podcasts. Aligning behaviours from confirmed offenders with someone who may not be an offender at all. For example, she’s blank/cold/whatever - so are many of us. It’s not good practice to work like that and as I say I have my doubts about that particular pp.

I think that it will become clear that she isn’t guilty though, like Sally Clark. I’d bet good money on it actually.

Bet you wouldn't let her anywhere near your baby though.

Sorry, I misunderstood you, didn't I?

I meant the Redditors are correct about the number of shifts Letby worked on the thread at https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1mnadmh/bbc_panorama_getting_the_maths_wrong/

I certainly agree that BBC has got the maths wrong, and presented a huge error of their own as fact based on it. A bit shocking really.

I certainly wouldn't. That doesn't mean she's guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

It's entirely reasonable to think that Letby is bit sketchy, and that her conviction is too.

It just needs a few domain experts to check it over.

If I had a pound for every time someone has tried that gotcha on Mumsnet, I could employ a Norland Nanny instead of Lucy Letby at this stage.

Yes, it is a touch ridiculous. She quite clearly is going nowhere near a hospital ward again, even if totally exonerated.

Unlike some of the other clinicians involved, who I also wouldn't trust to look after my child and for whom that possibility still theoretically exists.

The stats are 100% wrong. It’s not even a question. The maths are simply wrong. They obviously did not consult a statistician and the BBC has a public duty to be accurate, particularly about matters of serious public interest. I’ll try to explain it simply here:

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.

This is totally egregious and shouldn’t happen on the BBC. They should have consulted a statistician. Even an A level maths student would have done a better job. Ffs.

Again I urge everyone to complain to the BBC:

www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints/make-a-complaint/#/submit

I wouldn’t trust any stranger with my child, so it’s a complete non question. Her friend Dawn who spoke on the ITV documentary presumably would, because she knows her.

Can you show me where I actually made a personal attack or is that just what you feel to be true? I'm sensing a theme here.

It's not a gotcha, it's a guess, and I notice you didn't deny it.

You wouldn't let her near your baby even if she was allowed to practice again.

In terms of the rota they definitely didn’t get it right. It contains multiple errors, shifts she wasn’t actually there for etc. Tons of missing data.

The most egregious thing for me (aside from overall bad stats) is the absence of drs. Apparently drs never experienced any suspicion or scrutiny here. Unlike orderlies etc they also work shifts in the way nurses do, so there would likely be more overlap. Also, it was the drs who were accusing her. Plus the oft reported superior attitude of consultants to nurses. It just stinks of sexism and class superiority.

its a gotchya (in your mind) bevause you think expressing doubt and concern over a verdict of ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ mean people are blindly believing 100% innocence and thus you seek to try to paint people as hypocrites who cannot actually belueve the argument (you think) they are making.

So what?

Nope, because I understand the difference between an unsafe conviction and innocence. But also not even if I knew for a fact that she was innocent. Wouldn't have had Gerry Conlon babysitting either, not after what happened to the poor sod when he got out.

I would also not want the retired Dr Dewi Evans anywhere near a loved one of mine. And that one is actually slightly more likely as he's retired rather than struck off.

But as I said, given that it is not a thing that will ever happen, it's not the gotcha some of you appear to think it is.

Having sampled the care of agency temp nurses I'd rather have Letby caring for a baby under my watchful eye than an agency nurse.

I have no children.

I'd imagine lots of, maybe most, parents wouldn't want to entrust their child to someone who had been accused of murdering and harming babies, then exonerated. Because they'd find it hard to still the little voice in their heads saying, what if? Mud sticks, and that's another burden for anyone wrongly accused.

Of course, it doesn't have any bearing on the question of whether Lucy Letby's conviction is safe or not.

I concur with that assessment of the other poster. S/he PM-ed me as she said she would. She replied to my reply, but then had the replies deleted before I could read them, then later had her original PMs deleted. I do not believe she was who she said she was.

No, it was a response to OP saying she would put money on LL not being guilty.

She’d put money on it but not let LL anywhere near her baby.

She can’t be under a watchful eye all the time.

Which is why she was able to commit all the murders.

But you also asked me, and I said I don't know whether LL did it or not.

So what?

I only asked you because you responded to my reply to OP.

So how can you guarantee LL being under a watchful eye with your baby all the time?