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!

Except she didn't murder the most vulnerable neonates

Actually it was repeatedly claimed by the prosecution that she targeted the most vulnerable (e.g. multiples)

Vulnerability isn’t only classified by gestational age (although gestational age is one obvious, objective factor that determines vulnerability). I read one very detailed analysis that went through the vulnerability factors of each of the babies LL was convicted for murdering , and showed that all but one would have likely been transferred to a different hospital if they had been born after the hospital was downgraded (I am trying to locate this analysis and will send it I find it- wish I had bookmarked it at the time).

Finally, again it is relevant that the statistical trends count all baby deaths, whereas LL was accused and convicted of murdering just a fraction of these.

Actually I think the 100 day old baby might have survived

Thanks for posting this. It's good to have an insight from someone who's sat through a trial as a juror.

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.

Except only 2 of the neonatal deaths that occurred 2015-16 were of neonates below 27 weeks. The rest were above 32 weeks.

So being downgraded would mean you'd have to compare the deaths of the same age neonates. If you do - the death rate drops after 2016 when she wasn't murdering the poor souls.

FGS, you know nothing about me and my area of work.

You tell me you have been a jury member on a criminal trial and that I have 'idealised' opinions on what a jury actually does. I have some experience of criminal law from a legal perspective. I am going to take your statement that you have been on a jury at face value but I am concerned about the directions on evidence that you must have been given by the judge in the murder trial that you claim to have been on if you think that the length of deliberations have a bearing on potential innocence.

I agree with you that the jury had lots of evidence to consider in order to determine beyond reasonable doubt that LL was guilty. Yet don't share you belief that this is some sign that she might be innocent.

It is a good thing that this jury followed the express and clear instructions on how to deal with evidence given by Mr Justice Goss because this means a miscarriage of justice is less likely.

Your position appears to be that it makes it more likely that there was not good enough evidence when the opposite is true.

Agreed, it is in stark contrast to the posts of the other person who says they were a juror on a murder trial.

Why would the figures not include perinatal deaths, the reports states from birth (disregarding gestation period) to 28 days to collate those figures, you could argue that includes perinatal AND neonatal deaths, but it definitely includes perinatal deaths as part of the data, either way the deaths go down after 2016 not up.

You were the one who stated they no longer care for the most vulnerable neonates

The triplets, 2 of whom she murdered were due to be discharged . 33+ weekers don't suddenly collapse in such high numbers with no warning twins or not

I feel sorry for Ben Myers KC - a highly respected barrister that some MNers think they can dispute the prosecutions evidence better than he could!

Perhaps he didn't argue these statistics MNers think Lou T to innocence because he couldn't and couldn't find an expert who could either?

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow Talk about wildly missing the point.

I think you are confusing perinatal and neonatal deaths.

Perinatal deaths = “infant deaths that occur at less than 7 days of age and fetal deaths with a stated or presumed period of gestation of 28 weeks or more.”

the statistics you are looking at are deaths after birth from 0-28 days

See response above.

Vulnerability isn’t only classified by gestational age. I read one very detailed analysis that went through the vulnerability factors of each of the babies LL was convicted for murdering , and showed that all but one would have likely been transferred to a different hospital if they had been born after the hospital was downgraded am trying to locate this analysis and will send it I find it- wish I had bookmarked it at the time.

im not sure this is the one I originally saw, but here is another detailed analysis:

https://reddit.com/r/scienceLucyLetby/s/YEEGBrTtWk

Right Oh.
So I cannot mildly say your impressions of what jury members get up to behind closed doors seem a bit idealised without you going all FGS you know nothing about me but it’s ok for you to be breathtakingly rude to me and tell me:
you didn't listen to the judge's directions and the verdict in your trial might be unsafe. And LOL And if you think rationally about it, And haven't you actually thought this through?

So I suppose I can say the same to you then- FGS you know nothing about me or the trial I sat on as a jury member, how dare you say I ‘didn’t listen to the judge’ when you were not even there. And LOL is hardly appropriate when we are talking about deaths of innocent babies and families destroyed. And yes, I am a rational person who thinks things though, no need to smugly imply only your opinion is rational and thought out.

So take a look at how you are interacting with me before going all FGS at me.

”am concerned about the directions on evidence that you must have been given by the judge in the murder trial that you claim to have been on if you think that the length of deliberations have a bearing on potential innocence.”
and
”Yet don't share you belief that this is some sign that she might be innocent.”

Again, as I have said to you before. I do not think length of deliberations have a bearing on potential innocence or are a sign she might be innocent. I have not implied that no matter how many times you want to suggest otherwise.

I will repeat again that 110hrs of deliberations indicates to me long hours of discussions amongst the jury which most probably included reconciling doubts. Which means some members of the jury had doubts. A pp has also posted regarding her experience on a jury and on one of them she reported that jury members had doubts as I also experienced. This is not uncommon so I’m baffled why you think it is a contentious matter to state it is likely some jury members had doubts.

“Your position appears to be that it makes it more likely that there was not good enough evidence when the opposite is true.”
That is not my position nor have I commented on whether there is any correlation between length of deliberations and quality of evidence. It is my opinion that the long length of deliberations could be correlated with the presence of doubt in some jury members.

Brill, a link to reddit. The gestational ages don't seem to match with more recent information either

And that point is?

If you’re implying that we should give an iota of weight to your views because you work for the CQC - an organisation that rated a hospital well-led after being told it was covering up a serial killer of babies - then you must be deranged. If you’re not implying that, what do you mean?

The CQC is the only organisation that comes out of this whole scandal looking worse than the hospital trust. You’re the regulator, you pontificate about safety, yet when you were told babies were being murdered, you ignored it.

To convict a person of a crime the burden is beyond reasonable doubt. The jury satisfied itself that she was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That is enough for the conviction to be safe.

You have a clear motive on this thread you posted this -

The evidence is mostly circumstantial. It’s no doubt some of the deaths were infanticide and not natural, but there wasn’t any evidence beyond circumstantial to link Letby to all the deaths.

You say that you have sat on the jury in a murder trial and that you understand about evidence and understand about judges directions but appear to think that the lack of anything other than circumstantial evidence is enough to make this jury's verdict unsafe, otherwise you would not be posting in the way you have about the number of hours it took on this thread. Your other posts have been about statistics of miscarriages of justice. Your agenda is to make others doubt this verdict.

You ignore that the vast majority of convictions are based on circumstantial evidence simply because so few people are caught in the act or confess. That's the nature of evidence. If you were sat on the jury in a murder trial which did not need to deliberate for so long that is not evidence that this jury has made an error. Unless you sat on the jury where there were multiple murder and attempted murder charges you have no idea what it was like to be on that jury.

So ultimately you appear to have an issue with our legal system which allows for guilty verdicts to be delivered on the basis of circumstantial evidence if the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that's great, carry on. Most people don't share your concerns.

Well the analysis on Reddit is detailed, specific and each point is substantiated by sources, including reporting from the trial.

Your claim (on mumsnet) The gestational ages don't seem to match with more recent information either is vague, general and (thus far) lacking any such substantiation.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2023/aug/18/lucy-letby-timeline-attacks-babies-when-alarm-raised#:~:text=8%20June%202015,of%20Letby%20coming%20on%20duty.

It's true vulnerability isn't directly linked to gestational age at birth.

But vulnerability decreases if there aren't other complications and/or medical issues.

Some of these babies were weeks old. There was no reason for them to suddenly collapse (it would have identified previously) and for some to then die.

Babies are much easier to resuscitate than adults because they usually differ respiratory collapse rather than cardiac.

I know a 23 weeker. After birth when they were born breathing for themselves they had lots of interventions to support them but there was no reason to believe they wouldn't survive as they'd shown their body functioned as viable. They are a teenager now. Even infections etc didn't cause collapse as they were treated. If a baby has heart and lung health they won't suddenly collapse unexpectedly.

I've not read anywhere that these babies didn't have heart and lung health. 1 had bowel problems but that shouldn't cause sudden collapse as it would be monitored.

Thats why the consultants were surprised at these sudden collapses and deaths and babies who didn't respond to resuscitation. Because it's not the norm.

To be clear, which babies specifically are you disputing the gestational age at birth? Is it just baby A? Or others?
although this Guardian article you reference says “6 weeks early” other reporting on the case says that baby A was born by c section at 31 weeks.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65176260.amp

A pp has also posted regarding her experience on a jury and on one of them she reported that jury members had doubts as I also experienced. This is not uncommon so I’m baffled why you think it is a contentious matter to state it is likely some jury members had doubts.

With the open and shut case we started our deliberations with a vote 10 voted guilty, 0 not guilty and 2 not sure. They were both very sweet, kind people who needed every possible other option ruled out before they were comfortable convicting someone. I suspect they are like a PP who described herself as a people pleaser.
On the big case we had a few hours of chat and discussion going over some of the major evidence before we took at vote. I don't think anyone didn't think he was guilty but we fell into two camps the he is clearly as guilty as sin and should be sent down for everything group and the while we don't doubt he is guilty and almost certainly commited all of the crimes the evidence is very strong in enough to put him away for a very long time and much weaker in others and we don't want him to be able able waste time and tax payer money and potentially walk free by casting doubt on convictions because some of them were much weaker cases. So the hours and hours of debate weren't guilt v innocence but all v some.
I fairly quickly put the horrors we heard in that courtroom behind me but I imagine I will never get over having to see the faces of some victims who cases we acquitted on when the verdicts were read out.

I still think we did the right thing but I wish we had the opportunity to tell them that it wasn't that we think they lied.

Is it possible that “6 weeks early” is relative to the definition of “full term” at 37 weeks? (After all, the majority of twins are delivered around 36 weeks).

There is absolutely no way a 23 weeker wasn’t ventilated from birth or that its survival wasn’t touch-and-go. Only about 40% survive and half of those have long-term severe complications.

Premature neonates are different from older children, or even term babies, in terms of deterioration and resuscitation. A lot can go wrong unexpectedly, which is why these deaths were individually considered natural at the time, even by the independent reviewer (though, as the prosecution rightly pointed out, the scope of the review was too narrow). It’s the pattern and frequency that was odd.

What are her supporters saying is wrong with the verdict? Is it claimed that these deaths occurred naturally and that there was nothing suspicious about them? Or do they believe it was murder but that someone else was responsible?