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

What ARE the chances that a group of renowned, successful, respected scientists frok across the globe wouod come together with pre-conceived hypothesis that murder did not occur, put it to the test, and then when their hypotheses is disproved they present it to the entire world as proved, because they wanted it to be true? Because finding evidence of murder was NEVER on their agenda?

Asking for a friend.

The conspiracy theories you hear if you tune into this debate are not in defence of Lucy Letby!

Exactly. Look at these people. They have achieved eminence in their fields and are doing lifesaving work as a matter of daily routine. They used gold standard research processes to minimise bias and undue influence.

So what are the chances?

I'm sure someone will be willing to conjure you up a dodgy statistic and then sulk and say of course they were only ignoring all the problems with sample size or applicability because they assumed the rest of us needed them to show us some numbers, however ropey, to hone our logical processes. Even irrelevant numbers are better than no numbers, as we should apparently know.

Given that some here are now claiming it would be incredibly bad luck to work in more than one failing maternity/neonatal unit, I though it a good idea to point out that half of all maternity and neonate units in England and Wales have been found to be unsafe (what ARE the chances of working in more than one of them if one worked in two units over a five year period?)

We’ve had in the last 4 years 2 inquiries headed by Donna Ockenden into the state of maternity and neonatal services: Shrewsbury and Telford - where 201 babies and 9 women died because of inadequate and negligent care: “It failed to investigate, failed to learn and failed to improve, and therefore often failed to safeguard mothers and their babies at one of the most important times in their lives” - Donna Ockenden, Letter to the Secretary of State of Health and Social Care, 30th March 2022).

And into maternity and neonate services in Nottinghamshire ‘A Freedom of Information request by Nottinghamshire Live disclosed 302 cases of brain injuries to babies, 582 cases of severe maternal harm, and 657 cases of baby and maternal deaths. It appears that the highest number of incidents occurred in 2013, with 165 reported, and 140 incidents were recorded as recently as 2021.
Sadly, Donna Ockenden has reported that her preliminary findings have shown the same stories of cover-ups, staff shortages, and inadequate staff training being repeated, and that despite ongoing review, serious allegations against the Trust continue, including bullying, discrimination, racism, and a culture of cover-ups Ms Ockenden has noted that while some improvements are being made, progress is slower than desired.’ - From a FOI request of interim findings. That report will release its final findings next month.

Hot on the heels of the two Ockenden reports, the government announced that a national inquiry into maternity and neonate services across will go ahead. Baroness Amos will be heading the operation.

Just as an aside, at Shrewsbury, Ockenden found 73 cases per year between 2000 and 2019 wgere serious harm or death occurred as a result of hospital failings. 73 per year

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/national-maternity-investigation-launched-to-drive-improvements

(what ARE the chances of working in more than one of them if one worked in two units over a five year period?)

I need to wait until we hear from oldbutnewdad before I can even think about that!

He’s right, particularly in a case that is being played out in the media to an unprecedented degree, where everyone, including the police, prosecution experts and a prosecution witness (ie Jayaram) are (were) briefing the media directly.

If he had not engaged with the media, the prosecution case would be dominating the media narrative just as it did during the trial.

Needless to say this is far from ideal, and personally I think reform is necessary to ensure that this and many other aspects of the case are not repeated.

I didn’t include the report on services in East Kent, conducted by Dr Kirkland CBE, published in 2022 on services between 2009-2020 wgere 200 families were found to have experienced avoidable harm and death. And the report of Morcambe bay, again by Dr Kirkup, published in March 2015 (I bet CoCH were very keen to avoid a visit by Dr Kirkup) covering services between 2004-2013.

It would seem so. But @firefly1987hasnt responded yet, maybe I have jumped the shark and wildly interpretated her meaning

For gods sake don’t summon the pretend maths demon back to give us another Home Bargains Ted Talk. 😭

Guilty. Though I can see why lots of people are questioning this due to the lack of substantial evidence in the public domain and much of what was presented was seriously flawed.

I would have said innocent based on what I have read and seen, but the jury found her guilty nonetheless.

I can only assume there must be swathes of irrefutable forensic evidence, CCTV and (credible) eye witness accounts that the jury were privy to, that for whatever reason was not made public. Perhaps because it undermined the confidentiality of colleagues and or the families involved, I don’t know.

So you think she’s guilty even though you don’t think that any of the evidence stacks up, because you think there must be tons of hard evidence that we don’t know about - do I have that right?

If so, I can relieve you of that right away. It was a public trial with public attendance every day. Nothing has been held back. Members of the public, journalists, and legal observers were present every day. They all saw and heard the evidence the jury saw. There were no closed court sessions. There is no hidden hard evidence that she’s guilty. The evidence that we’ve seen is the evidence.

Juries do get it wrong sometimes. In fact we’ve been shown things that were kept from them, not vice versa. Also, they didn’t all agree.

@Kittybythelighthouse

Yes thats right, innocent based on what I seen but how on earth was she found guilty with what we know about? The only thing that makes sense is if there WAS something we don’t know about? And if there isn’t then clearly innocent.

Home Bargains is way too good as a comparison. TED talk down the grotty pub more like.

There is not something that we don’t know about. There’s no mechanism by which “smoking gun” evidence proving guilt beyond doubt could have been shown to the jury yet kept completely unknown to the wider public in a case like this. If something like that had existed, it would have been reported once restrictions lifted.

Open justice is more important than any one individual’s privacy. It would be an extremely worrying precedent to set if such a thing had occurred, but we know that it did not.

We’ve all encountered the type! High on self regard. Low on self awareness.

@Kittybythelighthouse

“Open justice is more important than any one individual’s privacy. It would be an extremely worrying precedent to set if such a thing had occurred, but we know that it did not.”

It is, which either way something has gone very wrong in the justice system. Think what I’m trying to do is play devils advocate and say the only way she’s guilty is if something HAD been kept from the public.

This.
It Is highly unlikely that she is innocent, if you really look at the evidence.
The difficulty is that the evidence can only really be understood by neonatal experts.
The evidence used to convict her was obviously flawed but from what I’ve read, the new evidence may be equally flawed. I don’t believe the new experts all believe she is innocent, I think their motive is likely that the evidence used made it impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she had committed all those murders.

If the evidence can only be understood by neonatal experts, why on earth would you believe Dewi Evans, a long-retired paediatrician, over a panel of world-class neonatal experts?

I acknowledge your comments but there are also really poor clinical staff across all disciplines -

Which bit of the evidence convinces you behind a reasonable doubt? If you think it was flawed, doesnt that mean that you weren’t and continue not to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt?

And if evidence in complex cases can only really be understood by experts, then doesnt that mean the system we use now, randoms off the street, is dangerous?

Article explaining why the use of ‘peers’ and ‘experts’ is problematic in medical criminal cases

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2025/02/07/lucy-letby-case-the-problems-with-expert-evidence/?

“So, when experts venture beyond their remit, jurors may accept these statements uncritically, unaware that such testimony may lack the depth required in such complex medical cases. This issue is particularly concerning in circumstantial prosecutions where the case often hinges more on expert interpretation than on direct evidence, increasing the risk of misunderstanding or misjudgment.”

Just as an aside, it’s not the first time Dewi Evans has operated outside of the remit of ‘expert’, Judge O’Hara had this to say about him in 2015:

https://www.judiciaryni.uk/files/judiciaryni/decisions/Re%20A%20and%20B%20%28Children%20Injury%20Proof%20Suspicion%20Speculation%29.pdf?fbclid=IwQ0xDSwMOwBBleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHur6fJXuI0Mw9L6PmOF11xde2El46BFbdXyJ254pL4_sMeGJ8caKk1Yg8XGD_aem_q-18GkjzxNfA_BGZR4k1kQ

I think it's extremely unlikely she's innocent. Obviously concerns have been raised at other hospitals she worked at. Otherwise why would the police be investigating.

I don’t read this judgment as being particularly critical of Dewi Evans, more of the questions that were asked of him and the other medical expert witness.

In the context of this discussion though, I did think this statement was pertinent - particularly as some posters have been so insistent that the medical evidence (and therefore the opinions of the expert panel) is absolutely all that matters in determining whether deliberate harm was caused to any of the babies.

Police investigated Liverpool because she had worked there, not because concerns were raised.

They asked one of Liverpool's staff to undertake the investigation, despite the fact that he had been involved in some of the care of children whose deaths at Chester they were investigating, despite his prior knowledge of inside detail of the case, despite his close links with Letby's chief accuser at Chester, and despite, as subsequent events now suggest, the fact that he is not competent to undertake and report data analysis.

I really don't understand the police decision to allow Brearey at Chester and his colleague at Liverpool to investigate and report on incidents on the wards they managed.

Did they not understand that some failings at ward level were at least a possible contributor to collapses and deaths? How could they not see the blatant conflict of interest?