New Lucy Letby details

[Mrsdoyler]

Did you see today in the news that LucyLetby originally failed her nursing training.

Reason: Lack of empathy

And yet two juries who heard all of the evidence found it compelling.

I genuinely cannot fathom how people who have even slightly followed the problems raised with the evidence and trial by highly qualified experts in their fields can think this is a safe conviction.

I quite see that following the trial alone will have given the impression there is strong evidence, because so many important things weren’t emphasised or even mentioned at the time. The jury did not have the full facts.

Poor legal representation is grounds for appeal.

Well, the evidence they heard the CPS has now admitted was flawed.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/lucy-letby-crown-prosecution-service-incorrect-door-swipe-evidence-b1177026.html

This is just a lie surgeons tell themselves to avoid having to work on their bedside manner BTW

Hmm I thought it was the prosecution who decided not to use the expert on statistics? According to this article anyway.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/10/lucy-letby-police-cps-handling-case-raises-new-concerns-about-convictions

She didn't fail on "lack of empathy" but that she came across as cold and/or awkward.
And she got to do the placement again and passed. And then worked as a nurse for several years before her arrest.

This "review" so far seems to consist of chucking hearsay to the media to whip people up into a frenzy.

You’rr all out in force tonight aren’t you. The defence had access to these experts and chose not to use them.

Most of the 'solid evidence' was based on a few consultants opinions

I’m not sure how the statistics thing has even come up now, it didn’t really play a part in the trial at all.

The questions were were these babies murdered and if so, did she do it. They didn’t really use statistical analysis other than to say she was there for every death (and I think, although may be wrong) that it’s come up in the inquest that she was also there at all the deaths that weren’t on the indictment. I’ve read what the statisticians have said but I just don’t see the relevance based on what the actual trial issues were.

I could easily believe this.

I worked as a MH support worker. One of my patients was in hospital for a physical reason, and we always had a member of our own staff with him. Support workers were not trained in medication and weren't even allowed to give out paracetamol at my usual work place. Not only did the nurse on the ward ask me to give him his medication, but could I also make sure the 2 other men on the ward took theirs.
I refused.

Also worked with an agency nurse who signed that one of our patients had taken all his meds that day when he had been AWOL for 3 days!

Again, 40,000 pages of evidence would suggest slightly more than a few opinions.

Why would they need 40,000 pages. They didn't have a solid single piece of evidence that was definite. So it's all based on likelihood and possibilities/probabilities.

He may be a ‘superb surgeon’ but having no empathy certainly does not make him a team player, a good communicator, a good colleague or even a good doctor. Of course surgeons need to be able to detach, but they also need to be able to work effectively as part of a complex team, using emotional intelligence both with patients and colleague’s
He may have superb surgical skills, but this doesn’t alone make anyone a ‘first class medic’.

Ok so discount the door swipe data - how was it she was seen multiple times doing nothing around babies collapsing (sometimes with alarms silenced), seen with a baby covered in blood (then lied about the timings), we’ve got babies with high insulin and low c-peptide (which even she admitted meant insulin had been administered deliberately), babies with symptoms of air embolisms - and the only person on shift for every single one of those occasions was her.

I honestly can’t see why people twist themselves in knots to argue her innocence - sometimes the simplest argument is the correct one: these babies each had evidence of being deliberately harmed, the jury were satisfied that the only person who could’ve caused the harm was Lucy. The door swipe data doesn’t change that. Random statistics don’t change that.

I don’t for a moment think the hospital or the consultants have covered themselves in glory here tbh, this should’ve been investigated years before it was, but all the signs point to deliberate harm inflicted by her.

You’re not wrong of course, but genuinely, did you read the article about it? It’s clear she was taking a salacious relish in anything to do with decline or deaths that happened around her. It doesn’t seem to have been out of anxiety or tension.

I know that none of us can know for certain exactly what happened and that there is danger in the ‘I always said she was odd’ line, but so many things seem to have pointed that way, and the jurors who saw a whole lot more evidence than we ever will convicted her, so I do think this is significant.

That’s part of the flawed evidence, Letby wasn’t there for every death.

From the article, the expert statistician said this:

”She informed the police that a proper statistical inquiry would not concentrate on one member of staff from the outset, but instead required full research into all possible explanations for any increase in babies collapsing including their medical conditions and prematurity, as well as the performance of the unit. Reviews commissioned by the hospital had found medical explanations for nearly all of the deaths, criticised the standard of care on the unit and noted a lack of senior doctors.”

So I think the relevance is that this proper statistical investigation was not done and instead they did exactly what she highlights as bad practice, i.e. concentrating on one member of staff from the start. The implication being that the investigation was biased towards finding Letby as the cause from the start.

I also imagine many members of the jury would have found the chart very compelling. I found it compelling when I first heard about it. I thought no further evidence was needed. But I had no idea of the wider context and the jury didn’t either.

So statistics could have heavily influenced the outcome, even if they didn’t officially form an integral part of the case presented at trial.

It sure is.

I don't know if she is guilty or innocent.

But if it was me, either way, in court for murder, I would be fairly dead eyed and not at my sparkling best either.

Because it’s not like a stabbing, there’s not an immediately obvious cause of death, cctv, fingerprints on a murder weapon. Medical murders like this don’t have the same “gotcha” moment as a typical murder, by their very nature. If you can’t see that then I’m not really sure what else to say tbh 🤷🏼‍♀️

Yes. Obviously anyone can have a bad day, but if it is persistent you won’t pass your course, and the NMC regularly strike nurses and midwives off for poor attitudes.

There was a baby - I think K - who died subsequently. They dropped that charge. The point is they investigated every death in that time frame - some of them had reliable medical explanations. Some of them were unexplained. Naturally medically explainable deaths won’t be on the indictment, regardless of whether she was present or not. The unexpected deaths however are the ones she was there for all of them (except I think K, who died after being transferred to another hospital).

Here.
“A staffing rota also showed she had been on duty for every suspicious death or collapse between June 2015 and June 2016. The rota was a key part of the case – a striking visual symbol of the case against her. But a number of statisticians have publicly questioned its usefulness.

One is Peter Green, a professor of statistics and a former President of the Royal Statistical Society. "The chart appears to be very convincing, but there are a number of issues with it," he said. "A big thing is that it only describes 25 of the bad events which happened in this period. It doesn’t include any of the events that happened when Lucy was not on duty."

There were at least six other deaths and numerous collapses.

Prof Green said the chart also does not reflect the fact that Letby was working extra shifts.
"It’s a natural human thing. We all see patterns that are not there," he said.
"The danger is that this evidence can be very compelling to the non-professional, and over interpreted."

Another crucial part of the prosecution's case were blood samples from babies who had collapsed with low blood sugar.
They showed exceptionally high levels of insulin and low levels of a substance called C-peptide.
That combination is only generally seen when the body takes in synthetic insulin, leading to the charge that Letby had deliberately poisoned the babies by adding it to their nursery feed bags.
An expert in paediatric diabetes told the nurse's trial fluctuations in the readings were unusual.
Prof Alan Wayne Jones, an expert in forensic toxicology, is one of those who has challenged the results.
He pointed out that the test used measures the body’s reaction to insulin rather than the substance itself.
"The problem is that the method of analysis used [in these two cases] was probably perfectly good from a clinical point of view, but not a forensic toxicology point of view," he said.
"That test cannot differentiate between synthetic insulin and insulin produced by the pancreas."

It's that circular argument again. The Lucy admirers (whom I can only assume are connected to her in some way - no normal person thinks like they do) say she was such a good and dedicated nurse, she couldn't be a murderer it makes no sense.

Then people provide evidence that actually she was incompetent, nasty and cold-hearted (parents complaining about her, training failed, overdoses, dislodged tubes) and they then say, 'Well making mistakes and not being nice doesn't mean she's a murderer'. Just a case of shifting sands, shouting a lot and hoping that someone is paying attention.

Well they ain't. She's staying in jail forever.