Anyone else doubting Lucy Letby's guilt?

[Nickersnackersnockers]

Don't know if I am allowed to share a link so please Google 'Science on Trial Lucy Letby'.

It's written by a scientist with no association to LL who is asking questions that were not addressed in court.

I am very disturbed by the article. Don't start slinging mud at me, make a large coffee, go read it, come back, and tell me what you think!

The number of hours spent deliberating doesn't really tell us anything. On the juries I was on the first one was about as an open and shut, caught red handed, clear, straightforward, simple, fairly minor case as you could hope to find and we deliberated for about four hours (about the same amount of time the trial took) - 10 of us voted guilty upon us walking into the jury room. The four hours were spent going over everything to try and get the two jurors who had doubts (largely that they would hate to get it wrong and ruin an innocent man's life) to shift from their I'm not sure position. No one actually thought he was not guilty, they were just unsure.
The second case was long, complex, had multiple charges and we convicted on some and acquited on others. We debates for several days on that that, but as a percentage of time that the trail took (weeks) it was lower than the open and shut case. We actually reached agreement on most of the charges we found the defendant guilty of fairly early on. The long on going debates were going back over the cases where we acquitted because while some of us had a clear view (not on guilt per say but on strength of evidence) we were far more divided than we were on the charges where we convicted.
20+ years on I still feel guilty that those victims who's case we acquitted on will feel they weren't believed. But I'd feel worse if the monster we locked up had ended up back on the streets because he appealed on a technicality on a charge where the evidence had a few flaws.

There no one who would dispute his findings.

I was always slightly dubious about Dr Evans because there's so much about him online that gives hood and bad reviews.

However I heard an interview with him about how he approached this and that there were more deaths he was suspicious of but couldn't give evidence of murder for and he investigated from the point of "what could have been cause of death". He didn't go looking for air embolus. In fact not all deaths and collapses were found to be air embolus. He also looked at other possible causes of the air embolus where evidence pointed this way.

I am sure his evidence was sound by the end and backed up by the fact the defence could find no medical expert to dispute this and offer an alternative explanation.

Out of curiosity I had a read of the science on trial article, it basically says that because the children weren't checked to see if they died from an infectious disease then they couldn't rule out that they didn't die from that (that's just one of many 'what if' they seem to be trying to explore).

One of things they do say is that the child deaths went down while Lucy Letby was there and then went up in the two years afterwards, which piqued my interest because how can that possibly be without being questioned on the defence? I checked the data and they 'seem' to be using the wrong data, if you look at the image attached, that does happen in Chester East (yellow line), but Chester West, where the Countess of Chester hospital actually is, (grey line) there seems to be a massive spike in 2015/2016.

So it's no surprise to learn they seem to be bending the data to suit their agenda.

I was also confused by the death rate increasing in the following two years. How was that explored?

It has been repeatedly claimed that the number of deaths at CoCH increased in 2015 and 2016, and the implication was that these two years were unique in the number of infant deaths. However, the original announcement made regarding the investigation into infant deaths at the Countess of Chester Hospital contained no statement surrounding an increased incidence of mortality. In the years following 2015 and 2016, the rates of perinatal death continued to increase.

• DCS Nigel Wenham stated on or around 18 May 2017 that: “Cheshire constabulary has launched an investigation which will focus on the deaths of eight babies that occurred between that period [2015-2016] where medical practitioners have expressed concern”
• The cumulative infant mortality rate at the Countess of Chester Hospital for 2015 and 2016 was lower than the national average.
• There is an unusual trend in the pattern of stillbirths and perinatal deaths.
• The number of perinatal deaths in 2017 and 2018 was higher than in 2015 and 2016, but Lucy Letby was not on the ward in these years.

The above is what is in the science on trial 'report'.

The link below is where the image came from in my previous post, it's from the Pan-Cheshire Child Death Overview Panel:

Cheshire Child Death Overview Panel Annual Report 2017-18 (cescp.org.uk)

Science on Trial seem to be taking the data from Cheshire East, but that's not where the Countess of Chester Hospital is, it's in Cheshire West. It's no surprise that they've taken the data that best suits their agenda.. it would get laughed out of court before it gets anywhere near it though.

I'm not 'getting pissy' or indeed dismissing proven miscarriages of justice. I'm pointing out the logical fallacy of "the scientific evidence in X trial might be shaky because it was in Y trial". Normally doubts about convictions take the form of investigating specific points of the evidence and suggesting other explanations or pointing out the flaws. This thread is 80% "ooh look at this case from years ago / a different country - that's a bit like Lucy Letby isn't it..."

Given that the hospital did everything they could to protect LL and prevent an investigation into her behaviour when concerns were raised by whistleblowers, I'm finding the 'government conspiracy' angle a little hard to swallow.

(I hadn’t heard this claim about perinatal deaths before. I think it is widely recognised that neotnatal deaths at the hopsital decreased after Lucy Letby was suspended, but a likely explanation for this is that the hospital facility was downgraded such that it could no longer care for the most vulnerable babies).

in terms of your comparison of the statistics here, it’s important to note that perinatal deaths is not the same as child deaths. Perinatal deaths include deaths leading up to birth (I.e. stillbirth) during birth and in the few weeks after birth.

Totally valid point, but my data doesn’t serve any purpose with regards to LL being guilty or not, apart from to say that “science on trial” have stated the perinatal deaths being lower during her time there and increasing afterwards as a fact, when if you check the ACTUAL data, they seem to have taken the figures from the wrong area to prove their point, it's completely false.

The increase in deaths they state as fact is from Cheshire East (yellow line), but the Countess of Chester hospital is in Cheshire West (grey line) .. Cheshire West shows a very pronounced spike during LL time there, then a drastic reduction after she was removed, which is completely at odds with what they have stated in their report.

They have no credibility in my mind if they can't even fact check properly, they're just picking the data which best suits them.

science on trial” have stated the perinatal deaths being lower during her time there and increasing afterwards as a fact, when if you check the ACTUAL data, they seem to have taken the figures from the wrong area to prove their point, it's completely false

But the data you are using to make this claim (of falsehood) is not comparable. Science on trial made a claim about perinatal deaths, you are quoting statistics about child deaths. They are not (counting the) same thing.

To judge the veracity of the statements made by science on trial you need to look at statistics on perinatal deaths (not child deaths).

Well actually you'd be better off looking at neonatal deaths

No

If you want to verify the claim made by Science on Trial that “In the years following 2015 and 2016, the rates of perinatal death continued to increase” you need to look at statistics on perinatal deaths.

If you want to evaluate likelihood that LL is guilty the most relevant statistics are those that specifically count neonatal deaths. My understanding is that there was a drop in neonatal deaths after she was suspended and that this is not in dispute. One explanation for this drop is that LL was no longer around to murder babies. Another explanation is that the hospital was downgraded such that it could no longer care for the most vulnerable neonates.

I did not suggest the time spent by the jury was “excessive.” I suggested the amount of time spent indicates to me that it wasn’t as clear cut that Letby was guilty as you are making out. 110hrs of deliberation indicates a lot of back and forth discussion and deliberation.

This is the heart of the problem, though. She was not on shift when every baby died. She was on shift when every baby identified as a suspicious death died, but that is a highly subjective judgement, made in retrospect. The analysis was not blinded as to which nurses were on shift and the doctors doing the analysis may have been unconsciously influenced by their suspicions of Letby. Most of the deaths were not considered suspicious at the time or in isolation.

I think Letby is highly likely guilty, but there have been a number of major miscarriages of justice caused by extrapolations of statistics - not just de Berg but also Sally Clark and Angela Cannings, for example. It is very easy to find a pattern in stats when you are looking for one.

Possibly the most ludicrous post I have ever read on MN. Would that be the same CQC which rated Letby's hospital as good, despite being told by staff that it was covering up baby murders?

annoyingly, I can't find the figures for 2015-2016 as there doesn't seem to be a report available, but the following 3 years are available:

child deaths by age 0-27 days for the years 2016-17, 17-18, 18-19:
Chester East 10,10,9
Chester West (Countess of Chester) 9, 4, 6

So the reports show the figures DID go down after, it doesn't matter WHY they did, it just matters that Science on Trial are quoting bullshit figures. If you'd like me to link the reports I can do, it's all there for anyone to see.

Lucy Letby was moved out on 30 June and then the hospital stopped accepting babies between 27 and 32 weeks and increased the staff to baby ratio on 7 July. So just looking at raw # deaths and place from one year to the next isn’t going to tell you why the trend started going down. It could be no Letby on the staff or it could be the dramatic changes which are fundamentally designed to reduce risk of death that caused the down trend.

Here you go:

child deaths by age 0-27 days for the years 2016-17, 17-18, 18-19:
Chester East 10,10,9
Chester West (Countess of Chester) 9, 4, 6

I'm not clear that you understand what that a jury must satisfy itself beyond reasonable doubt means.

There are very few murders in which the perpetrator is caught holding a smoking gun.

It is clear that there was a lot of evidence for the jury to consider to satisfy itself that there was not reasonable doubt, in the case of the charges for which it returned a guilty verdict.

If you don't think that 110 hours is an issue then why did you raise it on this thread? You implication is that this is a lot of hours which may imply innocence is frankly ridiculous.

but it doesn't matter WHY the deaths went down, it could be all manner of reasons in fairness like PP have stated, if we're all in agreement that the deaths did go down afterwards, Science on Trial are stating as facts that deaths actually went up after she was removed.. they just didn't, so what other 'facts' are they fudging?

child deaths by age 0-27 days for the years 2016-17, 17-18, 18-19:
Chester East 10,10,9
Chester West (Countess of Chester) 9, 4, 6

The statistics you are quoting are not counting perinatal deaths. You are looking at apples to verify a statement made about pears. I don’t know how many more ways to say this.

Except she didn't murder the most vulnerable neonates. Only 1 was born under 33 weeks and even that baby was 100 days old by the time she was murdered

I do understand. I have been on a jury for a murder trial, so I have some experience as to what goes on behind closed doors during jury deliberations. Your impressions as to that seem to be a bit idealised.

110hrs indicates to me that there were likely doubts among some members of the jury that had to be addressed through long hours of discussions.

I sort of believed she could be innocent and I can accept that maybe the police built the case around LL rather than around all of the infant deaths in The Countess.

What I think proves her guilt in my mind is the searching of parents on Facebook and the papers found under LL bed - I can accept that you may accidentally take home the odd bit of paper, but the sheer amount of paperwork found, to me, shows her guilt.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

So say we all agree the number of neonate deaths went down in that one NICU where Letby worked. But because the most vulnerable babies were being sent to another NICU, starting only a week after Letby was removed just looking at deaths in the same NICU won’t tell you the effect of just removing Letby. It shows the effect of three things happening: Letby removed plus higher staff to baby ratio plus no premature babies of 27-30weeks gestation.

Science on Trial might be looking at the number of deaths among the same population- the 27-32 weeks premature neonates in the Chester area.

So this would be the 30week and up babies that still went to the same NICU plus the 27-30 week babies that went to the other NICU.

They’d have to do some research to account for the impact in reducing deaths by implementing a higher staff to baby ratio.