Lucy Letby - have you changed your mind pt. 5

[Typicalwave]

New thread

Part 4 here - https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5400564-lucy-letby-have-you-changed-your-mind-thread-4?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

Originally started by @kittybythelighthouse

@Oftenaddled

It's true that there's never going to be much you can do with four events out of eleven shifts to prove guilt, but a like for like comparison of the four extubations with other events at Liverpool would quite possibly prove that the four were not such an anomaly.

How is that not what they did? They compared it to all the other staff's shifts and it happened less than once per hundred shifts. That literally proves an anomaly. Why were the babies Lucy was looking after suddenly different?

Yeah because they're not privy to that information-they're not the police. We simply do not know what more the police have on her yet.

I'd expect them to be treated the same as other crimes.
Even if the investigators think someone is guilty, when they don't have strong enough proof they just aren't put forward to trial.

It's a common thing yet you talk about it like it's unimaginable to do that.

We don't know if the babies Lucy Letby was looking after were typical or not. It is unlikely, though, that across only eleven shifts you would look after children typical of a whole intake

So, for example, let's imagine that Lucy Letby spent half of her eleven shifts caring for a three-week old, low birth weight child with a vomiting bug and seizures. This child would be very likely to extubate compared with a two day old without these characteristics.

Unless half of all babies on the unit always are three weekers, low birth weight, with seizures and vomiting bug, we aren't comparing like with like.

We just do not know what characteristics the small number of children Lucy Letby cared for might have had to make extubation more likely.

Quite. And no reason to think Lucy Letby is accused of killing babies at Liverpool, as things stand.

We don't know if LL even was anywhere near the babies at the times the tubes were dislodged.

No I just think there's more than enough proof. In fact I think if anything there's TOO much proof for people to get their heads around. It makes it easier for people to wave it away because you could never begin to go through all the evidence heard at trial. So we get people looking at every piece of evidence separately-which the prosecution were very clear for the jury not to do. If you had been on the jury I hope you would at that point ask to be excused because you have made it clear you are unable to do that.

That’s not what you said

You claimed Hall had said the expert panel would ‘hurt her case’

Please either be prepared to stand by your words or chose them carefully.

What I want is a reasonabld standard of proof - there want one here.

There’s literally no evidence of deliberate harm.

In rape cases theres frequently plenty of evidence - and yet many walk away Scott free or it doesn't even make it to court.

There is a serious issue going in with cases o a medical nature

This case should have never ever made ig to court.

Of all your theories this is really up there...........😂

There really was not that much evidence and it's extremely easy to get my head around it.

If you found it all so overwhelming maybe that's why your brain can't comprehend all of the new rebuttals that are coming out......

If that was the jury instruction then I would indeed have asked to be excused, then it would probably have been a mistrial seeing as they were already down to 11 😂

Of all your theories this is really up there...........😂

There really was not that much evidence and it's extremely easy to get my head around it.

If you found it all so overwhelming maybe that's why your brain can't comprehend all of the new rebuttals that are coming out......

If that was the jury instruction then I would indeed have asked to be excused, then it would probably have been a mistrial seeing as they were already down to 11 😂

Wow.

But it wasn't 4 out of 11, was it? Letby worked 11 shifts, but if, for example, 5 babies were ventilated on each shift, that's 55 ventilator days. So it would be 4 out of 55.

And if Letby (an inexperienced nurse in a Level 3 setting), was the nurse securing the tubes, it's possible that they weren't secured to the standard that an experienced practitioner would do it.

Excellent points.

Panorama haven't clarified how they worked the ‘new’ edited figures out and it still very much looks like comparing apples to oranges.

Here’s the transcripts SUDE ny side of the two Panorama versions - and I wouod agree with you @Anotherdayanotherdollar- it’s ambiguous if THEYVE done the maths in the same way

https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1mrpaxn/transcript_of_new_version_of_panorama_who_to/

So we get people looking at every piece of evidence separately-which the prosecution were very clear for the jury not to do

Firefly - the whole point of an adversarial trial system is for the prosecution to put the case in the most damning way they can. So it would suit them for the evidence to be looked at in the round rather than piece by piece because if you look at it piece by piece it disintegrates pretty quickly.

Yes. If the prosecution said that, the jury would be expected to weigh up the value of the advice, not to follow it as an order. As a jury member I think I'd have wondered why they didn't want me thinking too hard about the details! Why did they spend so long presenting their details if they didn't matter?

Jury members are not supposed to have minds of their own, they should follow the prosecution’s directions (thought it was supposed to be the judge who directed things, but hey ho), and they should treat what the prosecution asserts in examination and cross examination as factual evidence…

None of the new rebuttals stack up at all. Mike Hall has said most of what they came up with was already covered at trial and dismissed.

I mean if you were on the jury they would just get someone else instead. Providing you were honest from the beginning that you were never going to be prepared to find her guilty. Can't imagine laughing about the idea of the trial falling apart and those parents never even getting the chance for justice though.

Why would it suit the prosecution if she's innocent? Sems like you're admitting it does actually look bad for her overall. It's circumstantial evidence. You don't look at it separately because that doesn't create the whole picture.

You were complaining about Mike Hall being 'appalled' the other day when he said it was appalling that LL didn't have the opportunity to hear her case presented.

If you were on the jury and were honest you wouldn't be allowed to be a juror either 😂

To be clear, I don't find anything about the case funny, it's you that I'm laughing at because you just can't go a single post without coming up with stupid theories because for the millionth time you just can't accept that other people were not convinced by the evidence. How many more times does it need to be explained to you? You say you're really interested in the psychology of all of this, but you don't even understand basic psychology of normal people and normal situations and seem to think that everyone must reach the same conclusion as you or else their mind is somehow warped by biases or they're too stupid to wade through all the 'mountains' of evidence you say was there.

Seems like you're twisting peoples words and making out they're saying something that they're not.

Yup.

She DID have the opportunity! The decision not to call Mike Hall was down to HER. If she doesn't think he'd have helped her case should she have been forced to call him? Then when she still got found guilty Mike Hall would be blamed for being a bad defence expert. Which I wouldn't mind tbh, considering he's so adamant he should've been called. She also got her time on the stand to profess her innocence.

If you were on the jury and were honest you wouldn't be allowed to be a juror either 😂

I can understand circumstantial evidence so yes I would! There are people on this thread already pre-empting the new evidence being a whole bunch of nothing. Is that keeping an open mind to her possible guilt?

You say you're really interested in the psychology of all of this, but you don't even understand basic psychology of normal people and normal situations and seem to think that everyone must reach the same conclusion as you or else their mind is somehow warped by biases or they're too stupid to wade through all the 'mountains' of evidence you say was there.

I don't think you're stupid I think you're overly concerned with the medical evidence and picking that apart whilst ignoring the rest of it. It's often very intelligent people who do that but it does mean you ignore other aspects of the case. You could probably do that for any healthcare serial killer which is why it's SO important not to rely solely on medical evidence when you can always find experts to dispute it.

Nope I don't do that. But maybe that poster could come back and explain why putting it all together would make it look more "damning" than looking at each individual piece of evidence if she's innocent?

@Firefly1987

For the tenth time, she had the final decision but will have been heavily advised.

You definitely wouldn't be and if you were deliberating as a juror and weren't engaging in good faith and just kept repeating 'you only think this because she's blonde/white/whatever' you could also be removed as a juror. You can't just tell people why they think stuff over and over.

Yes it's keeping an open-mind because we're basing that on how poor the evidence was in the first trial. If the evidence in the new trial was more damning I know I personally would be very open to changing my mind, and I think pretty much everyone is the same.

I don't think you're stupid I think you're overly concerned with the medical evidence and picking that apart whilst ignoring the rest of it. It's often very intelligent people who do that but it does mean you ignore other aspects of the case.

I'm not ignoring them. I'm not convinced by them. Even when they're all put together. To you they are damning, to me they are not. To you you think certain things such as asking if they had the feed bags was damning, to me that's a perfectly normal question to ask, I said in a previous thread I had to make police statements before and asked them 'did you check this?','do you have that'? It is a normal thing to ask when you're trying to help with the investigation or trying to show them that you have nothing to hide.

You could probably do that for any healthcare serial killer which is why it's SO important not to rely solely on medical evidence when you can always find experts to dispute it.

As I said repeatedly I am a firm believer in Blackstones ratio that it's better that 10 guilty go free rather than one innocent be locked up, so personally I will never agree that if you can't get the standard of evidence I would normally expect to see that they should be locked up on a lower standard just because it wasn't possible to get more concrete evidence.