Lucy Letby - Specifically those who think she is guilty…

[BEAchDays2]

I’ve just been reading massive amounts of posts of Facebook following the new doc out about LL. (Blame a long train journey!) and it got me thinking, those who still think she is guilty what are your reasons?

It does feel like the tide has turned generally. I haven’t watched the new doc yet, likewise has anyone seen it, and is it worth it?

Yes, it's an unfortunate truth that public attention is often an important tool for remedying MOJs. We don't have a system that can be trusted to reliably and speedily do so if left to itself. Hence the impact of the Post Office TV series, for example. We don't know that the series of experts who've come forward to assist in the appeal and question the reliability of the convictions would've done so had the strategy not been to keep the case so high profile, and part of that has been him talking about his own beliefs. Any analysis needs to at least consider this as a relevant factor, especially as his job isn't actually going to be representing her in any further court proceedings.

I will note that many nurses (including the more outspoken retired ones with less to lose) do not think she's guilty. That's who her peers are. Of course many employed nurses have been too scared to speak up / bullied into silence because they know what happens to nurses who do speak up in the NHS.

You really do not understand statistics or probability, do you?

That’s who her peers are

Ok so let’s have police officers deciding allegations against police officers. Happy with that? Does this principle of attaching more weight to the opinions of people who are like the defendant apply to everyone or only nice middle class types? Perhaps shoplifters should have their cases decided by poor drug addicts?

I don't understand the thought process here.

You think a colleague is innocent and have been scapegoated for murder by their employer.

You also work for same employer, thefore,they could conceivably scapegoat you for murder in the future.

So rather than speak up you are "scared" into silence ou continue to work dor said employer? That makes no sense. Speaking up would be a smarter move as it would be documented evidence that would help any future defence you may need.

The opinion of retired nurses, nurses from other hospitals are irrelevant. Working conditions differ from hospital to hospital and from different periods of time. Only those working in the hosptial in question at the time have a possibly meaningful opinion.

Speaking up wasn't likely to get them scapegoated though. Much more likely that they'd feel they were risking losing their jobs or promotions.

Speaking up definitely wouldn't be a smarter move if, for example, you'd seen someone win a grievance against the consultants (documented evidence) and then they're the one accused of murder. And the grievance wasn't allowed as evidence in court. Definitely would be better to keep your head below the parapet then.

Yes, there are so many cases of nurses losing promotions, being demoted, being suspended when they challenge poor management in the NHS.

The hospital downgraded and stopped taking such fragile babies when Lucy Letby was taken off the ward, so obviously there were fewer incidents after that.

But obvs both of those things can be true at the same time - the latter does not dispel the former.

That last sentence of yours that I've quoted very obviously doesn't in any way mean Letby wasn't killing or harming babies before being taken off the ward does it.

That's interesting @DancingonmyOwn88 as I listened to The Trial podcast at the time too and my thoughts at the time were - I'm really glad I'm not on that jury as I've got loads of questions.

Based on what I heard from the podcast I didn't feel confident in saying Not Guilty but really didnt feel confident saying Guilty either. So much of the coincidental evidence reminded me of Prof Meadows' now debunked evidence in the trial of Sally Clarke. I guess basically I felt they hadn't convinced me, beyond reasonable doubt, that she murdered any babies. It's interesting that we listened to the same podcast but reached such different views.

The more I've heard since the trial, the more that feeling is compounded for me. I've not watched the recent documentary though. There's been quite a few and a lot of them can't begin to cover the issues in enough depth as they're so short.

sorry if someone has mentioned this already, but the Amanda Knox interview on heretics is brilliant about this. She now supports people where there has been an obvious miscarriage of justice - she’s seems extremely sharp and doesn’t take on every case - but this one she has. She is utterly convinced there was no crime. She said that many women are accused when there is no crime at all - often mothers where a child has died from natural causes and they get the blame. She talks about the psychology behind why we do that - why we need someone to blame - and normally a woman! She talks about her case (which of course there was an actual crime) but the way she lost all those years on the basis of zero evidence. It never ceases to amaze me how people are so ready to trust the power that be. I don’t. I’ve followed enough cases to know they get it wrong all the time - and when they do they want to over it up for as long as they can get away with. This case they are going to try desperately to bury but I truly believe it’s going to be the biggest miscarriage of justice we’ve seen in a long long time.

That last sentence of yours that I've quoted very obviously doesn't in any way mean Letby wasn't killing or harming babies before being taken off the ward

The question isn't whether it proves her innocence, but whether it proves (or even tends to prove) her guilt. Since the drop in mortality would be expected whether or not she's guilty, it doesn't tend to prove either innocence or guilt.

Yes exactly. And yet it was there being quoted as though it is in some way a relevance to her being innocent. As you've just said yourself, it doesn't prove or disprove anything.

It does remains a fact though that the unit recorded 8 infant deaths in 2015* and 5 in the first half of 2016, compared to a historical baseline of 1 to 3 deaths annually between 2010 and 2014.

*Lucy Letby completed a specialist training course in early 2015 which meant she was then one of very few staff on the ward qualified to care for the sickest babies in the high-dependency and intensive care nurseries.

Firefly1987
Honestly wish that chart never existed at this point, they placed her cot side for every collapse bar the insulin so it wasn't really needed anyway.

Who is "they" and how did they place her cot side?

It is a fact, yes. And the change in frequency of deaths is remarkable.

But given that Letby being moved coincided with the unit taking only much lower acuity babies, and increasing consultant cover, the drop in deaths alone tells us nothing at all about their causes.

All the band 6 and above nurses were suitably qualified. Letby was one of two suitably qualified band 5 (cheaper) nurses, who took as many extra shifts as she could.

it was there being quoted as though it is in some way a relevance to her being innocent

It was being quoted in reply to your post that the drop in deaths after Letby was moved makes for "horrible reading", i.e. tends to prove her guilt. @Oftenaddled was explaining why it does not.

she was then one of very few staff on the ward qualified to care for the sickest

Which made her more likely to be on shift during deaths/collapses, even if she did not cause them.

...dodgy statistical inferences
If she's guilty they're not dodgy are they?

Inferences are dodgy or not on their own. The inference "She has grey eyes, therefore she must be 36 years old" is dodgy even if she is in fact 36 years old.

No I don't care about statistics in the least.

He's wrong anyway, they talked about it in the new Liz Hull+Caroline Cheetham podcast. The vascular surgeon said in air embolism you'd either see air in the heart OR in other places (can't recall where, the major vessels maybe) and air WAS found in these other places. So he obviously doesn't know the case very well.

The claim that incidents followed Lucy Letby from night shifts to day shifts is manifestly untrue - the first analyses of unexplained collapses in the same document, before her name was revealed to Evans, shows that for a start.

Where?

The hospital downgraded and stopped taking such fragile babies when Lucy Letby was taken off the ward, so obviously there were fewer incidents after that.

That was addressed, I even quoted why it wouldn't have made any difference for 6 of the babies.

And yet you appeal to them constantly.

@DistantEarlyWarning it's not statistics it's common sense at this point. I can't help it if most of the statisticians don't believe nurse serial killers exist. Maybe they'll all resign when they realise she was guilty all along. They ought to tbh.

Yes, I have a feeling that post is going to be quoted back at her at some point...

Lots of examples: for one, where Evans references the nighttime collapses of babies, O, P and Q.

As I pointed out, the hospital would not have accepted multiples or children with conplex obstetric history after the downgrade, whatever their gestation, so the argument that six children died after 32 weeks' gestation but none since downgrade made in the consultants' original report was based on misleading evidence.

Hull and Cheetham were talking about the air in the great vessels which is a common postmortem finding in neonates, not about air in the heart or the other parts of the vascular system identified with venous air embolism. I think we can all agree that whatever Evans's or Ferguson's qualifications, Liz Hull and Caroline Cheetham are not medics.