Lucy Letby thread

[Words]

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

It was actually 2 other nurses who were in the room when the mother found the baby left like that.

Yes it was the special division of the CPS who decided the cases weren't strong enough, not the Chesire CPS who were the branch who decided the first batch was strong enough.

Important to note that in the event of an appeal that it will again be the special division who decides, not the Chesire CPS.

Pretty devastating they couldn't get her on more charges. I expect they were simply too hard to prove. She herself admitted seeing her fair share of deaths at Liverpool-they must just follow her around wherever she goes. At a higher acuity hospital like Liverpool perhaps just small things would be enough to kill a child that sick. Probably removing tubes and things like that. Almost impossible to prove now and she wouldn't have had access to cause anything like an air embolism. What are your thoughts?

Where was Letby then? She was the designated nurse. Busy attacking children in other rooms?

I don't know where she was.
I do know that that poor baby shouldn't have been in that hospital though as they clearly did not have the expertise to care for her.

Does anyone remember which baby it was where the COCH kept ringing the other hospital to try to get them to transfer the baby over?

Really odd that you’d accuse me of trying to shut down discussion, on a discussion forum, where we’re discussing evidence.

I quite agree that this case has rested too heavily on misuse of “common sense” statistics (like Sally Clarke, Angela Cannings and Trupti Patel’s cases), so discussion of statistics and their use is necessary.

You are the one constantly appealing to statistics while simultaneously claiming that statistics are irrelevant, or something.

Ultimately, I do not think it’s right that someone should be convicted where there is reasonable doubt of guilt, and certainly where there’s reasonable doubt that any murders happened.

Blackstone’s ratio says "It is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer", and I agree with this. You disagree, which is your right, but you can’t expect not to be challenged on it.

Poor care (assuming there was poor care - stoma bags do become unstuck and nurses need to go to get replacements) does not equal deliberate harm.

And anyway, there’s no evidence Letby was involved in what happened, or how long the episode took. It all may have happened while she was on her break.

Sorry I hadn't seen you already said this when I commented.

I'm surprised that that poster specifically pointed to that development after saying that it doesn't look like she's going to be released soon, because that development also suggests to me that they would be unlikely to rush to defend the charges.

Her family were certainly very relieved that their baby was going back to Alder Hey as they saw very different standards of care and were very concerned about her having to go back to COCH and refused.

I do wonder if there would be this outpouring of suspicion about the conviction if she was black instead of a pretty white girl,

Is she guilty? Yes at the moment.
is her conviction safe? I’m not sure.

However. Where were all these statisticians when she was on trial. Why were they not called? Or is it because they may have been destroyed on cross.

Yes, that was baby G. Chester had financial incentives to hurry babies back from more specialist hospitals, unfortunately.

It's worth being aware that the judge forbade the defence to discuss or query how the charges were selected at the trial. I'm not sure how you would have made the statistical case without doing this.

Of course she would have seen deaths at Liverpool. That hospital had on average more than one death a week. That's why nurses were sent there to train to work with ICU babies and on resuscitations.

Re baby G, the mother said:

.".. we were told our daughter was well enough to be taken to the Countess of Chester Hospital. We were told that the Countess of Chester Hospital had been calling up to ask the Arrowe Park doctors transfer our daughter to the Countess of Chester Hospital, but until then the
Arrowe Park doctors didn't think she was ready. I don't know why the Countess of Chester Hospital was so eager for our daughter to be transferred there, especially asshe was doing very well at Arrowe Park Hospital. I would have been more than happy for her to have stayed at Arrowe Park".

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Thirlwall-Inquiry-18-September-2024.pdf , 74

It is pretty astonishing in retrospect that such sick babies were at CCOH in such number. I'm from the north west and remember being surprised when it all came out that Chester were handling so many complex cases. You'd expect them to be in the bigger units in Liverpool.

I read somewhere (I think it was an internal memo in Thirlwall) that they did consider downgrading the unit quite early on, but the consultants were concerned about missing out on experience and losing or not building as many skills.

Clearly, that's the most important thing when dealing with very sick babies, not keeping them alive by any means necessary, but the potential boost to your CV

It's not an uncommon sentiment @Frequency

It's frequently seen in medical staff - eagerness to do a certain procedure or surgery - in the end junior (resident) drs are in training and the more experiences they get, the happier they are. It has in the past led to a 'have a go' attitude that has definitely not had the patient's best interests at heart (especially when under anaesthetic)

No wonder when Lucy Letby was her nurse.

There was a statistician for the defence apparently but she was never called. It's a shame none of the experts (bar a plumber) were called then we'd probably not even be here having this conversation as it'd be so obvious she was guilty when even her defence experts couldn't make her look the least bit innocent.

I wonder if Ben Meyers thinks he's done too good a job creating doubt (at least with the public who don't know all the facts) and it's resulted in this circus.

The family quite clearly referred to issues with the overall care at COCH NNU several times.

When the defence wasn't allowed to discuss non indictment children or the construction of the case, and the judge refused to accept Myers's request for the prosecution to explain how the cases were chosen, the contribution a statistician could have made was limited.

Amanda Knox described a conversation with this statistician and said that she told Knox she believed Lucy Letby was being bullied by the consultants. I think that's all we have ever been told about her.

Do we know why the defence was effectively barred from presenting a decent defence?

There was so much evidence that they were not allowed to mention that was absolutely relevant to the case, and I can't find any real reason why it was excluded.

What I find really weird is how witnesses were granted anonymity. Not the parents and children - fair enough. But nurses, doctors and even two of the consultants who accused Lucy Letby? The registrar who treated several of the children? Because his own children had GCSEs?

It's apparently unprecedented outside cases where state security is in question. What message can it have sent the jury? What does it tell us about the judge's starting point - why did he allow it?

When the defence wasn't allowed to discuss non indictment children or the construction of the case, and the judge refused to accept Myers's request for the prosecution to explain how the cases were chosen, the contribution a statistician could have made was limited.

So was the prosecutions who weren't allowed to bring up other babies who died which she was also there for. Because of that we have people thinking there were 10 deaths when she wasn't on shift.

Amanda Knox described a conversation with this statistician and said that she told Knox she believed Lucy Letby was being bullied by the consultants. I think that's all we have ever been told about her.

Why don't statisticians ever actually stick to stats? How on earth did she come to know that LL was being bullied by the consultants? And why is it up to her to give her opinion on something not stats related?
Funnily enough I'm fine with serial baby murderer's being bullied off the unit though.