Lucy Letby thread

[Words]

Starting this as don’t think we have a new one.

No, that one was due to natural causes, probably caused by CPAP.

You've misunderstood how the prosecution said it works. If there is air in a baby's stomach when Letby is not on shift, it is there by natural causes. If Letby is on shift, the only possible explanation is deliberate harm.

It works the same with the collapses and deaths, if Letby is not on shift, they are expected and the result of illness or prematurity, so we don't have to include those in the stats. If Letby is on shift, the only possible cause is deliberate harm.

Although I think at one point they were trying to argue Letby had snuck onto the ward on her day off, without being seen by anyone to inject air into that baby's stomach. They changed their mind when they realised she was in Ibiza.

That happened with one baby, certainly.

In other cases, there was air in x-rays after CPR, which isn't unusual. You could diagnose air embolism in hundreds of infant deaths a year with these criteria

You could diagnose air embolism in hundreds of infant deaths a year with these criteria

You could? My god, Letby was busier than we ever suspected!

Regarding the role of the CPS. Before it was established in 1986, the police both investigated and made charging decisions. The CPS was set up to make. Harging and prosecuting indepenedent from the police. Decision making is governed by the Code for Crown Prosecutors which has two tests: that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, and that if so, a prosecution is in the public interest. Largely what @frequencywas suggesting above.

As you can see from the CPS’s post trial publicity the decision to charge in the Letby case was made by lawyers in the local CPS area- Mersey-Cheshire, and approved by the chief of that area. The prosecutors would have provided the police with early investigative advice to assist them in their investigation. The final decision to charge would have been taken after the input of senior legal advice in London.

Why this remained a local case and a decision was not taken to transfer it to one of the specialist central casework teams as some have asked, I don’t know.

As far as I am aware these central teams have existed for years, although various renamings and amalgamations have taken place. They were not set up, as has been suggested, as a consequence of the Letby case.

Until they started taking on more acute cases in 2015, they'd have seen about one infant death each every two years. They weren't experts in treating newborns at risk. That's how all this happened.

One death in two years! Sounds like they were pretty good at keeping babies from dying actually. And at the same time you're trying to argue it's within the bounds of normal for one nurse to see, what 13 deaths in a year was it? I've lost count. Yeah right. And they just so happened to follow her from nights to days, happen right before she went on holiday and resume the minute she got back with 2 deaths and one collapse within about 3 days. Some people will believe anything clearly.

None of the babies had infection though, these issues have been ruled out. No one has a picture of these rashes to even say they're not like Lee's sign anyway. Lucy took too long getting a camera.

They did have infections. Almost all of the babies had sepsis.

She was there when baby C died, that's all that matters-but I'm sure we'll just try and deflect and distract people from that.

Do you have a source for that from the trial (not from Shoo Lee)

The hospital started a run of more acute cases (also lower birth weights) from May 2015. They lost one of their seven part-time consultants and another took extended leave in the months that followed. The transfer system declined in quality. The challenges grew, and the hospital seems not to have been up to them.

Let's remember that "spikes" in deaths aren't unique to Chester. They happen in numerous hospitals. Do you assume murder is the only way that can happen?

@Oftenaddled Just excuses. If what you say was the cause it would be an even spread between nurses (accounting for how much they worked, their band etc.) there wouldn't be a massive disparity in collapses and deaths. But apparently it's "just the luck of the draw unfortunately"-so says the serial killer.

Let's remember that "spikes" in deaths aren't unique to Chester. They happen in numerous hospitals. Do you assume murder is the only way that can happen?

No one pointed the finger at one nurse in all the other units, so no obviously not. Some people can tell the difference. I'm not sure why others find it so hard to accept.

And who has done an analysis by nurse, accounting for how much they worked, and which nights the ICU cots were occupied, by band (and qualification)?

As we have discussed before, not enough of this data has been disclosed to make such an analysis possible. But I agree with you that it should be done.

Until then, I'd reiterate - a spike in deaths in itself doesn't mean murder.

@Oftenaddled do you actually work in statistics? I think a lot of people in that line of work seem to have a blind spot when it comes to this case. A very big one.

To add-the data we already have is damning, it would be extremely naïve to think if we had ALL the data ever in existence at that hospital that her stats suddenly become not concerning! I mean I know you live in hope of that, but I expect them to continue the trajectory they're on and implicate her even further.

The data I've described there is very basic stuff. It's not all the data that ever existed at the hospital. A record of which nurse was on shift when and what children were in what cots when would cover it. All of that certainly exists and was part of the police investigation. So there is no need to worry that I'm looking for something extreme or impossible here.

You seem to want to use statistics to prove Lucy Letby is guilty, but then to say no when people say, let's look at the statistics more closely then. That's not really fair, is it? Either we should ignore them completely or we should look at them properly

If what you say was the cause it would be an even spread between nurses (accounting for how much they worked, their band etc.) there wouldn't be a massive disparity in collapses and deaths. But apparently it's "just the luck of the draw unfortunately"-so says the serial killer.

I thought you said this case wasn’t about statistics?

If what you say was the cause it would be an even spread between nurses (accounting for how much they worked, their band etc.) there wouldn't be a massive disparity in collapses and deaths. But apparently it's "just the luck of the draw unfortunately"-so says the serial killer.

one of the most basic misconceptions about statistics out there.
There’s a reason why statisticians have been among the first to speak up about the flaws in this case, and it’s not that they have a ‘blind spot.’

If two people take it in turns to throw a dice there is no magical hand controlling the dice to make sure there is an even spread of outcomes between them.

One death in two years! Sounds like they were pretty good at keeping babies from dying actually.

By the same token, I've had even fewer infant deaths on my watch, none in fact. So applying this principle, I'm more qualified to speak about this issue than either of those doctors, and I think there's a problem here. I don't have the relevant expertise in treating at-risk newborns, but then we've already established that doesn't matter.

Your response indicates that you are confused about the timeline implied by “Until they started taking on more acute cases in 2015, they'd have seen about one infant death each every two years” means.

Up until mid way through 2015 COCH NNU was taking in relatively low acuity babies, with the sicker and more premature ones either not being born there or being transferred shortly after birth. At that time COCH was operating within its competence, and could expect - because of the lower acuity babies and because caring for them was within its skill set. During this time you are right that it “Sounds like they were pretty good at keeping babies from dying actually.”

After mid 2015 they began taking on higher acuity babies.

These babies are at higher risk of death and serious complications simply because of their acuity, so even in a fully competent, well equipped and safe unit there would be more sad outcomes.

The lack of competence (no neonatologists, infrequent consultant ward rounds), and questionable infection control because of their poor environment - as evidenced by the RCPCH review - will have contributed to the COCH death rate being higher than the national average average.

So you can see that your “And at the same time you're trying to argue it's within the bounds of normal for one nurse to see, what 13 deaths in a year was it?” is incorrect? This was not “at the same time” at all - it was after the unit took on all those higher acuity babies that they weren’t equipped to care for. The death rate wasn’t normal (as in close to the national average), but it was not a massive outlier.

And much later, in 2016, the unit downgraded, and got its act together, and the death rates improved again. Funny, that.

And finally (again, because I know you’ll just start jeering again) this is not “proof of innocence” but it sure as hell isn’t proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Is that going to be the go to "gotcha" every time someone mentions the amount of deaths she was there for?

There's even spreads and then there's Lucy's wildly outside of everyone else's' stats.

Well I wonder how Shoo Lee would've kept these babies alive when they suddenly collapsed of air embolism and couldn't be resuscitated no matter how many shots of adrenaline were used?

By doing it correctly, I imagine, unlike the consultants. The babies could not be resuscitated because of mistakes the consultants made during resuscitation, not because of an air blockage. There was no evidence of air embolism. The rashes are not evidence of an air embolism.

@Frequency mistakes such as?

Not everyone else’s statistical analyses, only the prosecution’s which has been thoroughly criticised by expert statisticians including professor emeritus Richard D. Gill.