Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind - thread 3

[Typicalwave]

New thread for those following or wishing to comment - originally started by @kittybythelighthouse.

What you and others seem to want evidence wise is just not going to be possible in a case like this. She worked there, her DNA was going to be all over the victims either way, she had ample time alone to commit her crimes, if someone saw her injecting something they'd assume she was supposed to be doing it. She had access to insulin. She didn't need to google how to kill someone because she was a nurse, etc. etc surely you realise this is not like most serial killer cases where someone is found with a bloody knife and their DNA on the victim?

I would agree with this if any of the post-mortems had been flagged as being suspicious or out of the ordinary at the time. But none of them were. To go from that to multiple novel and speculative murder techniques, none of which were noticed by trained coroners at the time, is just too much of a hurdle for me to leap. And that's without considering the issues with Dewi Evans, whose opinions are so out of step with what we've heard from other experts, and changed both during and after the trial as well! So literally ALL we're left with is a spike in deaths which sadly is not that unusual, and a weak correlation with Letby being on shift (and it is a weak correlation considering her higher number of work hours, the way deaths were recategorised as suspicious vs non-suspicious depending on her presence, and the door swipe data being reversed).

Thank you. I really do try!

Sorry, that's to @Firefly1987

Totally agree.

This thread and the others linked to it focus on the premise that the conviction is unsafe with solid evidence regarding the science and statistics to back that view.

The evidence for guilt is based on notes, demeanor and searches on Facebook.

I wrote a diary daily during the various lockdowns and reading them now makes little sense.

I am also sure by the way that being a reasonably, attractive young white woman is quite the opposite of an advantage when it comes to being falsely accused of a serious crime.

Just as well she wasn't falsely accused then!

Are you sure it's not just that you have trouble believing a young woman could do something so terrible? Something tells me if this was a man we wouldn't have all these proclamations of innocence. Women are just as capable of doing evil things-it might be rarer but when it happens it's often in healthcare and it's often children who are their victims. I'm not sure you can put it down to sexism. Of course the press are going to print stuff about someone on trial for the multiple murder of babies.

Well if someone is not aware of the downgrade of the unit then they know next to nothing about the case!

My point was even IF there was no murderer it's shocking their death rate was still among the highest for all of 2016 when the last half of 2016 had no deaths. It really shows how bad the first half of 2016 was. You can put that all down to the unit downgrade (I don't) but something else was going on. They should never have downgraded the unit. But because they did people will never accept the deaths were down to Lucy.

“But this doesn’t suit your narrative does it?”

I don’t have a narrative. I’ve been really clear from the beginning that I just want a conversation and ideally to find mutual ground/understanding in what can be a polarised debate. There is no hidden motive I promise you.

“You keep repeating how people decided she was guilty from the outset based, but this is simply untrue.”

I haven’t actually, no. I argued (on one occasion) that an assertion that those who followed the trial from the outset are better equipped to speak than those who came along after doubts were raised is untrue. The idea that latecomers bought a “certain pr narrative” and don’t somehow understand the case, doesn’t really follow since we all have access to the same info. The only different experience one could get from following the trial from the beginning is being totally washed in a pro prosecution media narrative for two years.

“Your opinions are not facts”

No, the facts that I bring are facts. My opinions are based on those facts.

“and you do not have any special insights.”

Again, what I have is facts. What my insights are based on is facts. If you can argue against those facts with evidence, rather than baseless opinions of your own, then you are extremely welcome to do so.

“All you do is respond with hostility to those who disagree with you”

I have gone out of my way to be nice to everyone, including you. I’m not sure why you are so hostile tbh. There’s really no need.

“desperate to control the narrative that poor LL is a victim of a great miscarriage of justice.”

Again, no. I have been extremely clear that what I am “desperate” to do is to have a grown up conversation about a matter of great public importance that affects all of our lives. That’s literally it. I have no dark hidden motive.

“If you truly cannot see the echo chamber you and another two posters have created here, then I worry for you.”

A public thread where anyone can post and opposing opinions are being actively welcomed is the very opposite of an echo chamber. People having different opinions to you is not an echo chamber. I worry for you that you can only see enemies and division where you might otherwise find interesting discourse with perfectly nice people, even if you don’t agree with them on everything,

“You seem completely obsessed with this case”

If I’m “obsessed” with anything here it’s with keeping an eye on potentially catastrophic failings in several of our most crucial public institutions. I think everyone should be tbh. I think “obsessed” is a bit strong though!

I’m also on bed rest, so this is one of the things I’ve chosen to focus on. I think it’s important. You’re welcome to engage or not to engage, but it’s unfair to project your own hostility onto others simply because they have a different opinion.

All the best.

The comment I was replying to has disappeared. Ah well. Probably for the best.

What you and others seem to want evidence wise is just not going to be possible in a case like this. She worked there, her DNA was going to be all over the victims either way, she had ample time alone to commit her crimes, if someone saw her injecting something they'd assume she was supposed to be doing it. She had access to insulin. She didn't need to google how to kill someone because she was a nurse, etc. etc surely you realise this is not like most serial killer cases where someone is found with a bloody knife and their DNA on the victim?

@Firefly1987 Well that's the standard that I expect. If it's not possible then it's not possible, that doesn't mean that in cases where it's not possible to get that evidence that I think it's good enough to lock someone up based on a hunch or theories when there is no concrete proof of murder.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2025/aug/20/the-twisted-tale-of-amanda-knox-review-monica-lewinsky-disney-plus

Yes agree. And I never thought Knox was guilty, but the media frenzy following her arrest was explosive.

The death of Meredith Kercher was horrific enough without the sensationalist and lurid headlines.

Here is the article I was trying to find @DoubledTrouble and @PeonyPatch :

Easteal, Patricia, Lorana Bartels, Noni Nelson, and Kate Holland. "How are women who kill portrayed in newspaper media? Connections with social values and the legal system." In Women's Studies International Forum, vol. 51, pp. 31-41. Pergamon, 2015.

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/39155713/556153e208ae86c06b64ab1b-libre.pdf

It points out that, specifically for women accused of killing non family members, the media tends to focus on looks and "prettiness". I wonder if people would even have tried to judge Lucy Letby so much by her appearance or her demeanour if she were a man.

First of all, are newcomers who don’t know everything not allowed to engage in discussion about the case? I think they have every right.

As to the rest, you’re making a statistical argument here and that goes to the heart of this whole case. The doctors made the same mistake in assuming that the death spike was statistically remarkable without actually doing an analysis. They went from there to looking for murders and that’s the whole point. The thing is that the spike wasn’t statistically remarkable. It was a perfectly within range random cluster. One such cluster would be expected somewhere in the UK (statistically speaking) every year. We’d be convicting a lot of Lucy Letbys if we used your measure there.

Unfortunately a hospital has to come top of horrible statistics regarding poor clinical care in maternity and NICU.

From John O’Quigley’s article that I also linked in that comment last night. Will dig out again if you can’t see it.

Yes! There’s a great interview with former COCH Advanced Neonatal Practitioner Michelle Worden about that.

They should never have downgraded the unit?!

You can't be serious. Let's look at some facts here:

The unit has never been permitted to upgrade again, although consultants have been campaigning for that to happen since 2016.

The Royal College of Pediatrics and Children's Health, whose reviewers were aware of the suspicions around Letby, agreed that it had been right to downgrade the unit.

Jane Hawdon, who found multiple failures in care in deaths and collapses - not all of them associated with Letby, agreed that the unit should be downgraded and continued in this view after she was told about the consultants' suspicions of Letby.

You can't think it was wrong to safeguard babies' lives by downgrading the unit. Even if you believe Letby was guilty, downgrading the unit was the only ethical and safe option.

First of all, are newcomers who don’t know everything not allowed to engage in discussion about the case? I think they have every right.

@Kittybythelighthouse sure but it'd be pretty silly of them to declare her innocent or guilty when they don't even know the very basics.

As to the rest, you’re making a statistical argument here and that goes to the heart of this whole case. The doctors made the same mistake in assuming that the death spike was statistically remarkable without actually doing an analysis. They went from there to looking for murders and that’s the whole point. The thing is that the spike wasn’t statistically remarkable. It was a perfectly within range random cluster. One such cluster would be expected somewhere in the UK (statistically speaking) every year. We’d be convicting a lot of Lucy Letbys if we used your measure there.

One random cluster in the WHOLE of the UK? And you think it just so happened to be in the the one hospital LL worked at? Just like how she just so happened to have the only wriggly baby who dislodged their tubes constantly? And to have been in the 2% the insulin tests were inaccurate for? And for there miraculously not to be any deaths whilst she was in Ibiza but there was the minute she got back? And deaths following her from nights to days was just random too? You're really dedicated to your cause aren't you. How about you add ALL those random events together and tell me the likelihood of them all happening to one nurse?

@Firefly1987 your posts are specious at best and I'm being kind in stating that.

Honestly the evidence against her is so thin. That's why no one can put forward sensible arguments as to why they think she is guilty.

@DoubledTrouble clearly the prosecution were able to put forward enough evidence and sensible arguments to convince a jury over the course of a 10 month trial that she is a murderer.

Kitty always said it was far from the worst. And a downgraded unit that had no deaths for the latter half of 2016 should not still be among the highest for deaths! That's how back the first half of 2016 was.

“sure but it'd be pretty silly of them to declare her innocent or guilty when they don't even know the very basics.”

Who said they did think she’s innocent? I didn’t say that so unsure where that’s coming from! I’m talking about general newcomers. Usually they are on the fence if anything.

“One random cluster in the WHOLE of the UK? And you think it just so happened to be in the the one hospital LL worked at?”

Firefly, you’re just showing here that you don’t know how random clusters work. Some hospital has to be the worst in the UK every year, and as I said, according to actual statisticians one such cluster can be expected every year. There have been higher spikes too, with no serial killer nurses needed. I’ve already shown that within the same 12 months as the COCH spike there was a much worse spike at Sherwood Forest. Do you want to argue that we need to hunt for a new Lucy Letby once a year? Because that’s what you’re arguing for here…

If the random cluster had happened somewhere else, it could be another nurse in jail, not Lucy Letby. But most of these clusters are, fortunately, handled more sensibly.

And for there miraculously not to be any deaths whilst she was in Ibiza but there was the minute she got back?

Nothing miraculous about that, how long was she even in Ibiza for? A couple of weeks, there was 2 months in between the charges before and after she went on holiday, did she just restrain herself from her murderous rampage for those few weeks that she was working before the holiday?

@Firefly1987 Do you actually care about poor clinical practices and outcomes when it comes to maternity and NICU services?

Again, I haven’t said it was “far from the worst”. I said it wasn’t the worst in a 12 month period and it wasn’t. I’ve proved that with actual MBRRACE-UK data and I’ll again show the graphic that illustrates it very well. Why do I have to keep repeating this point?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/31/lucy-letby-spike-baby-deaths-explicable/