Lucy Letby thread

[Words]

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

Yep, tge posts from the pro guilty are increasingly barking! And showing how lacking in critical thinking tge posts are.

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.

Where is your source for them taking on higher risk babies btw? Because if you don't have one (or it's from Shoo Lee or some other grifter) I'm going to assume your thought process is circular-"I can't possibly accept Lucy Letby was killing babies but they were all collapsing and dying so they must've been higher risk" am I right?

You are not right about that, no.

The main source is the hospital's data presentation for 2015-16, posted on Thirlwall.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/evidence/inq0001888-draft-paper-from-the-countess-of-chester-hospital-titled-position-paper-neonatal-unit-mortality-2013-2016/

Grifter 😂😂

Thirlwall debunked that, but I'm sure you already know.

https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/wiki/index/quickfacts/#wiki_how_many_deaths_happened_at_the_countess_of_chester_hospital.3F

How did CoCH compare to other NNUs?
This was investigated for the Thirlwall Inquiry, and the results were reported in INQ0102303, whose cover page read:
Mortality at Countess of Chester Hospital was significantly higher than in all other LNUs.
Nursing staffing in Chester NNU was above the national average.
The percentage of shifts staffed to BAPM standards was higher than other LNUs in the network and higher than the national average.
Chester was providing a similar amount of high dependency and intensive care days as other LNUs in the network.
High dependency and intensive care days did not change appreciably in 2015 and 2016 compared to previous years
In other words, CoCH was better staffed than other NNUs, and was not caring for sicker babies than other NNUs, or in comparison to itself in previous years.
In the January 2015 through June 2016 period, CoCH saw 13 deaths, while five other comparable NNUs saw an average of 1 death each over the same period, and no more than two deaths in any single NNU.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0102303_02-04.pdf

If you actually read the link @Oftenaddled posted, you will notice the discrepancy was explained. Data was recorded across different systems, not just BadgerNet.

The report by RCPCH also covers how the unit started taking on more acute cases.

minhalexander.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/rcpch_invited_review_nov_16_final_-for_dissemination-_08_02_17_1_30pm.pdf

Some confusion there. This document certainly doesn't debunk Chester's own data on acuity. It doesn't contain any data on acuity or on changes in acuity.

It was not prepared for the Thirlwall Inquiry. You can see in the hearing where it was discussed that it was sent by the consultants to the police when they were building their case against Lucy Letby.

Since it has no data on acuity, all we have is the bland statement that there was no "appreciable" change in acuity. Who knows what Dr Brearey meant by appreciable, here. But if you are taking the year from January 2015 instead of April 2015, perhaps that could be accurate. But it's after April 2015 that we see a rise in acuity and that we start to see more deaths.

Strange that Thirlwall didn't publish the full document. As it stands it makes a claim that isn't quite relevant and is not, if applied to the indictment period, supported by published data.

@Frequency and you're choosing not to believe the results of Thirlwall because?

Thirlwall did not present any data on this issue except in the document I uploaded.

Why are you saying Thirlwall debunked this? Her barristers may ask any questions or make any inferences they like, but that is not debunking. Her report has not been published yet. She has uploaded a document purporting to cover this issue, apparently compiled by Chester's consultants, who consistently show a weak understanding of statistics. She hasn't included the whole report or the relevant data, and and she hasn't claimed it debunks anything. We simply don't know what it says on this question, if data was provided at all.

This report was not compiled for Thirlwall. It was part of the material the consultants sent the police. You can read about it at page 165 here

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Thirlwall-Inquiry-20-November-2024.pdf

@Firefly1987 Go look at the post from @Oftenaddled at 20:19

Read it all, especially all the parts about the children, their presentation and hospital stays. Each and everyone of them were very, very poorly children. How can you not see that?? These weren't healthy newborns. That on it's own should make you question the evidence and trial and if there were any murders at all

I've never thought the argument that other hospitals had worse staffing levels is very helpful either. It needs closer examination. You could have 90% of proper staffing on by day and 60% by night, and you'd be doing better than a hospital with 74% all the time. You could staff 90% of shifts perfectly and still be dangerously understaffed the other 10. You could have the numbers but not the competences. What is clear is that when Lucy Letby was working night shifts, the unit did not have appropriate staffing for the vast majority of occasions where we have that information from the trial.

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.

You can call it a "blind spot", but it comes from seeing firsthand how often in science "gut feeling" does not work. Perfectly "common sense" hypotheses, supported by promising initial data and much less facially implausible than a serial killer nurse, often turn out to be wrong after more careful study. Gut feeling works for generating ideas, but not for proving them.

I'm currently working on validating a new clinical genetic test. This means proving to the lab directors and then state regulators that the test works. They won't accept incomplete data or handwavy statistical claims. We just had to throw out a large dataset and start from scratch because the samples weren't processed the exact same way as they'll be in production. What may look like "technicalities" make it simply impossible to draw any valid statistical conclusion.
My "gut feeling" that the test works doesn't change that.

Most things in everyday life aren't high-stakes, so gut feeling is fine for them. But not for medical tests, or criminal trials.

So explain why the majority of people who followed the trial KNOW she's guilty and those that came to it when they first heard it might be a MOJ are convinced of her innocence?

Well your choice if you'd rather listen to the posters who conveniently "have all the answers" rather like politicians. Than someone who isn't so eloquent but is actually telling the truth.

I don't think we have any information on how the majority of people who followed the trial feel about it these days.

On what are you basing this opinion?

What?
Can you not follow the discussion?

Practically no one on this thread followed the trial for a start. So they already came to it from a biased perspective. These are people that are already interested in MOJs and NHS negligence etc. they wouldn't have cared before they thought that was a possibility. They read one biased article and suddenly they're convinced.

I do think it's clear a lot of people who followed the trial early on still believe Lucy Letby is guilty, @Firefly1987 , but I think part of the reason is that they have built communities where that view can't be challenged. As I've said before, I do think it's to your credit that you don't stick to these communities. But a lot had come out since the trial, and it seems only sensible to hope that that information will be fully tested in court as soon as possible

So what is it you learned from following the trial that you think I don't know? I didn't particularly follow it closely at the time, although I also did not read an article, I watched a press conference, and then I read some medical research because what this Canadian bloke on the telly was saying could not possibly be true, so maybe you don't mean me. I then read up on what the prosecution claimed to have happened and read some more medical research papers.

FWIW, turns out the medical research I read matched what the Canadian bloke said. I couldn't find any research papers that supported death by excess wind, but if you know of any, I'd be interested in reading them.

You followed the trial on tattle.

Not sure how you can say that not following it from the start means they came at it from a biased perspective, many came at it from an open-minded perspective.

What do you mean 'these are people already interested in MOJs and NHS negligence', what are you basing that on exactly? Some are interested in those things for sure but I'm also sure that a wide variety of other people were interested in it, we know that many are obsessed with 'true crime' and many love to do 'deep dives' on things like this.

The New Yorker article may have piqued peoples interests 2 years ago but I don't think it was that one article that convinced people the verdict might be unsafe, it was everything else on top of that that's come out over the past 2 years.

These are people that are already interested in MOJs and NHS negligence etc

Good point. And it illustrates how, in statistics, raw counts can mislead. Raw counts of opinions on this thread would suggest that most people doubt Letby's guilt. But, as you note, this sample may not be representative of the larger public.

Don’t try to tell me what I think and why I think it.

I followed the trial, as in read most of what the Chester Standard published. I assumed she was guilty and thought that the things that sounded unfeasible had been mis-reported.

I didn’t read the Rachel Aziz article until recently.

The Shoo Lee press conference piqued my interest again and after reading around it, changed my mind.

If anyone can prove there were any murders I might chamge my mind back again.

One thing that could explain the difference is what the defence argued at the start of the trial, when they asked to take turns presenting their case on each piece of evidence rather than the jury hearing the prosecution's case for 10 months before ever hearing a word from the defence. Once someone has made their mind up, it is very difficult to get them to change it. I still do not understand how anyone could think the verdict is safe, but I do get why. Humans being reluctant to change their minds once their minds are made up is a well-researched phenomenon.

People who took an interest after the trial heard/read both sides at the same time. This doesn't explain why most of those people leaned towards the verdict being unsafe, but it does explain why the difference in opinions is so stark.

What would explain why many who took an interest after the trial lean towards the verdict being unsafe is that the evidence the prosecution presented is weak compared to what has come out since, and we were able to look at both sides without bias.

Nothing has indicated she will be freed any time soon. And investigations into her possible involvement in baby deaths at other hospitals can't help.