Lucy Letby: Have you changed your mind?

[Kittybythelighthouse]

The other thread has had a lot of really interesting discussion but we are running out of pages so here’s a new one for those who are interested in continuing the conversation.

Whether you’re sure she’s guilty, sure she isn’t, or are somewhere in between, I’m interested in hearing how your opinion has evolved (or hasn’t!) since you first heard about the case,

Please try to be respectful - this is a heated topic. Its a matter of huge public interest with a lot of strong opinions, but we are all adults and can disagree with each other in a respectful manner.

Old thread is here (the poll still has a few days left):
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5388914-lucy-letby-have-you-changed-your-mind?page=38&reply=146359313

Is there another new panorama @Newbutoldfather

If it was squashed, would she have to change identity like maxine parks? I can't make a decision but I'm nkt qualified to really. I think a case this complex needed as people pointed out, a specialist just who understands the science correctly.

@SomeLikeitSnot ,

Yes, it was last night.

She wouldn't be obliged to change her name but she might need to to be safe

But what about the baby with the liver damage that Dewi Evans said was blunt force trauma - surely a liver that had suffered that would have been obvious and raised concerns?

And the fact that it didn’t then subsequently raise concerns with the police who secured Evans’ services?

I’ve often wondered about why LL decided against having Mike Hall on the stand. The only think I could think was that the defense thought the prosecution was so flimsy that is wasn't warranted?

There were nurses who wanted to defend, apparently they were warned off doing that?

It's really interesting that you found the segment on the ventilated tubes damning, because I thought it would look that way to people, very reasonably.

I know a number of people have complained to the BBC about this segment, and I'm planning to too. I don't usually do this kind of thing but I'm really bothered by how they presented this statistic.

This claim has been made by a lawyer before, but the way he put it showed he didn't understand what he was saying. He was comparing the chance of a single baby extubating (for Letby's shifts) to the chance of any of the babies on the ward extubating (for other shifts).

Statistician Jane Hutton wrote to him to say she was worried that he was spreading misinformation. She offered to help. He just never mentioned it again, though he'd said he was going to explain it in court at the Thirlwall Enquiry.

The BBC seems to have picked it up from him and expressed it the same way. @Kittybythelighthouse has explained it really well - not sure if I have managed to, but she may be able to post her explanation.

Yes, a few nurses contacted Phil Hammond in the Private Eye to say they were warned off.

The best possible explanation I've seen for Lucy Letby not calling her defence expert is this blog post:

jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Lucy_Letby:_the_missing_defence_evidence

Yes, the stats look damning as presented but this is because they are mangled stats - objectively bad maths to put it simply.

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.

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 tbh. Shameful.

The post mortems worry me too. I don't think all those pathologists got it wrong.

Yes, many people don’t realise that the pathologist at the trial was not one of the pathologists who conducted the original (uncontroversial) post mortems. The pathologist at the trial didn’t see or examine any of the babies. He came to the case a year + down the line and made reports based on Dewi Evans reports.

Panorama didn’t make this clear.

Which is incredible REALLG isn’t it? Not one pathologist from the post mortem’s was there.

I know what it means. That’s exactly what I meant. She can’t be proven innocent, but having her conviction overturned will make many members of the public believe that to be so.

Was LL doing her training for specialty go the time period that these stats cover?

I also think that if she is released the media will do a complete 180, because they’ll know what side their bread is buttered for exclusive interviews. The Sun and the Mirror will lead with her face on the front with the words ‘Free at Last’ or something like it.

Sorry, I misunderstood your post. You’re probably right, but on the same token many people will never accept that she isn’t guilty. Every miscarriage of justice has a fallout like that. There are still people who think e.g the Birmingham Six were guilty. It is what it is.

First her more basic student placements in 2012, then her training in speciality in 2015.

I don’t think the Panorama doc specified. Not sure. I will be rewatching that segment later though.

I voted on the previous thread and I voted that the case needs reviewing.

However having watched the BBC programme last night, I am even more confused. On the BBC programme it said that many of the theories given by the expert panel were already presented in court to the jury. Although presented how exactly? As no expert witnesses were called?

The theory about the insulin levels being naturally high in pre term babies is plausible, but unlikely according to the BBC programme.

There is the case of Dr Ravi Jayaram and his incorrect testimony who has refused to comment.

There are so many people getting involved and saying different things and giving different opinions and theories it’s very difficult to know who or what to take seriously.

How could a jury who aren’t medically trained make a decision on what is presented to them if doctors themselves cannot make up their minds.

Yes, I think that is shocking actually. Why weren’t they called to trial?

They say placements in 2012 and 2015 on Panorama. She did her qualification in specialism in 2015.

There's a reddit thread here that I linked on the previous thread which people may find useful for more on the maths and the detail.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/s/b5dKcRV5fl

I think she’s guilty. With medical cases, there’s always going to be an element of expert vs expert but at the end of the day, we’re talking multiple deaths and incidents, not just one. Much harder to explain.

That’s right, nurses who wanted to speak in support of Letby at trial told Phil Hammond that they were warned off doing so and there’s also this article:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/20/claim-nhs-hospital-told-nurse-dont-give-evidence-lucy-letby/

People think that most of her colleagues suspected her, but we know from Thirlwall that most of them either had no issue with her at all or had high regard for her.

All of the medical evidence has been thoroughly dismantled though. The expert witness has been exposed as a charlatan. There isn’t anything left that can’t be explained.

But if her conviction is overturned due to lack of evidence to convict her beyond reasonable doubt she is innocent. Innocent until proven guilty.