Lucy Letby

[P.K.]

1 minute ago, woolley said:

Make no difference if I had, so..........

Sounds like you're at a "difficult" age...

[Chinahand]

I just don't know what to make of these things.

TV documentaries lasting an hour or so, podcasts lasting 10 one hour episodes or what ever, these can only provide the most superficial gloss on a court case which lasted months.

I do basically trust juries - they are inherently cautious. They've sat through all the evidence, not the summarised story, dramatized for TV, or clicks.

Of course juries can get it wrong, and I really respect the patient and difficult work of Criminal Cases Review Commission and similar charities. We definitely need those safeguards.

And the skills of good journalists who can present in massively condensed form the nub of the issue to convince people to campaign when a miscarriage occurs. 

Maybe Lucy Letby is innocent and in future years this case will be a cause celebre. 

I'm cautious and sceptical. A jury I am certain soberly - how else can you process the deaths of multiple babies - took their duties seriously.

And I think the statistics are, just like with Shipman, well beyond you would expect for coincidence or within the range of expectation for a poorly performing unit.

She's been found guilty in an inherently cautious process. She has now been sentenced, and the long and detailed processes to examine if it is a miscarriage will go on.

I'm satisfied in the societal judgement that this process will go on while she is imprisoned for deeds found to have occurred beyond a reasonable doubt and am very cautious that TV shows can in really give us insights sufficient to dismiss how the jury deliberated.

 

[Chinahand]

Double post ... definitely a problem with the new software. Happens too often.

 

Edited August 8 by Chinahand

[woolley]

11 hours ago, P.K. said:

Sounds like you're at a "difficult" age...

I've never been anything else.

[woolley]

@Chinahand It isn't just the television programme or a few conspiracy nutters in this case. It's a groundswell that's coming directly from health professionals, and with the publicity now possible after the lifting of restrictions at the end of the trial, many of them are realising that they are very uncomfortable with the evidence.

They are changing their views from horror at Letby's actions (that we all felt) to there but for the grace of God go many of us. A jury can only be guided by experts in complex matters. They can only consider what they are shown. They can be led or misled. This case appears to have been started by the suspicions of a few and the evidence, such as it is, being entirely circumstantial, has been built around that scenario. I really don't believe it can stand for very long.

[woolley]

11 hours ago, Chinahand said:

Double post ... definitely a problem with the new software. Happens too often.

 

Done it ever since I've been here.

[P.K.]

The stats certainly point to something going on:

"The trial at Manchester crown court heard how Letby was found to have been on duty during three unexplained deaths of babies and a life-threatening collapse over 14 days in June 2015. This was the same number of babies as would die in an average year on the unit."

From this tale of cover-ups and woe:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/19/doctors-were-forced-to-apologise-for-raising-alarm-over-lucy-letby-and-baby-deaths

[woolley]

12 minutes ago, P.K. said:

The stats certainly point to something going on:

"The trial at Manchester crown court heard how Letby was found to have been on duty during three unexplained deaths of babies and a life-threatening collapse over 14 days in June 2015. This was the same number of babies as would die in an average year on the unit."

From this tale of cover-ups and woe:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/19/doctors-were-forced-to-apologise-for-raising-alarm-over-lucy-letby-and-baby-deaths

You need to update the material you are reading.

This was an old hospital unit built back in the 1970s. It was under strain, outdated, under-equipped and understaffed. It was dealing with high risk neonates it probably shouldn't have been. Letby was their most highly trained nurse, and she was therefore charged with looking after the sickliest babies who were in the most danger of dying. The situation was a perfect storm, and she was in the eye of it. The use of the term "unexplained deaths" is inappropriate and emotive in a cohort that has a propensity to deteriorate and die for no reason that is immediately apparent.

The evidence made it look like babies died there only on her watch, which wasn't the case. Additionally, she took on regular extra hours because she was saving to buy a house, so she was going to be on duty more than most.

Acknowledged statistics experts have rubbished the evidence presented in the trial as a textbook case of how not to use statistics in criminal justice. Much has been made of the fact that after Letby had been taken off nursing duties on the ward, death rates returned to a lower level.  Compelling. However, at the same time, the unit was downgraded so that going forward it was not dealing with any neonates at such high risk, so of course the mortality levels improved. Not so compelling then.

She was never caught indulging in any malpractice. Police never found any research she had done about the procedures she was accused of using to commit murder. There is no medical evidence at all. At post-mortems the deaths were found to be by natural causes. The conviction is not safe.

Inadvertently, you have pinpointed everything that stinks about this whole affair. "The stats certainly point to something going on." And that is the entire prosecution case when distilled. Everything else, all 7000 pages of circumstantial evidence, has been assembled to substantiate those eight words and scapegoat one woman for wider systemic failure at the cost of her life spent in jail and in mental torment.

[Mr. Sausages]

Start off trying to be her pen pal.

[thommo2010]

The trial lasted for 10 months, a jury listened to a load of evidence and found her guilty on some charges and importantly not guilty on other charges so they made informed choices they didn't just say guilty to everything. Without CCTV or eye witnesses to the crime you are never going to be able to definitely say if someone did or didn't do something, most cases that go to court are built on what would be called circumstantial evidence.  

[woolley]

3 minutes ago, thommo2010 said:

The trial lasted for 10 months, a jury listened to a load of evidence and found her guilty on some charges and importantly not guilty on other charges so they made informed choices they didn't just say guilty to everything. Without CCTV or eye witnesses to the crime you are never going to be able to definitely say if someone did or didn't do something, most cases that go to court are built on what would be called circumstantial evidence.  

The word "informed" is what's wrong with this.

[Gladys]

There was no medical expert willing to give evidence for the defence.  Two conclusions: they were not going to go against the medical establishment  fearing for their own career; or they were unable to provide the evidence confirming natural causes. 

It is a hard one and the documentary did raise many questions.  

Hasn't she tried to appeal several times? 

[thommo2010]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

There was no medical expert willing to give evidence for the defence.  Two conclusions: they were not going to go against the medical establishment  fearing for their own career; or they were unable to provide the evidence confirming natural causes. 

It is a hard one and the documentary did raise many questions.  

Hasn't she tried to appeal several times? 

There are documentaries on Luke Mitchell who was convicted of killing his girlfriend when he was 15 around 20 years ago. People are campaigning that he is innocent but again a jury listened to months of evidence and came to a verdict. 

 

Society these days seem to think there is more to stories, look at that Jay Slater case, the obvious answer was what the outcome was but during the missing period there were all sorts of theories when it was obvious what had happened to him 

[Gladys]

12 minutes ago, thommo2010 said:

There are documentaries on Luke Mitchell who was convicted of killing his girlfriend when he was 15 around 20 years ago. People are campaigning that he is innocent but again a jury listened to months of evidence and came to a verdict. 

 

Society these days seem to think there is more to stories, look at that Jay Slater case, the obvious answer was what the outcome was but during the missing period there were all sorts of theories when it was obvious what had happened to him 

I suppose the point in these cases is whether all evidence was presented to the jury.  One argument in the Lucy Letby documentary was that as no medical expert was willing to testify in her defence, the jury was not provided with all evidence.  

We do need to have confidence in the fairness and accuracy of the judicial system and that is why there can be appeals and retrials.

Society is entitled to expect accuracy and fairness.  If credible new evidence is found throwing doubt on a conviction, then it is right it is reviewed.   

In Lucy Letby's case, as I said, it is a hard one and I don't know if there is sufficient new evidence to throw doubt on her conviction.  However, it is not unknown for there to be unsafe convictions. 

[woolley]

5 hours ago, Gladys said:

There was no medical expert willing to give evidence for the defence.  Two conclusions: they were not going to go against the medical establishment  fearing for their own career; or they were unable to provide the evidence confirming natural causes. 

It is a hard one and the documentary did raise many questions.  

Hasn't she tried to appeal several times? 

From the Guardian article linked in the first post: (my bolding)

"Several people who voiced their concerns also recognised that they did not sit through the proceedings and did not have access to the extensive case notes used by the expert witnesses – though, during the long trial, detailed accounts of the medical histories of each baby emerged.

They were also aware that several of their questions about evidence had been raised by Letby’s defence in her trial and as core elements of her applications to appeal. Last week, the appeal court – the second highest in the land – published a detailed account of why three judges had strongly rejected all of them. And yet many continued to be sceptical.

Hall is one of those. He provided expert opinion for the defence. He saw the CoC case notes, wrote a detailed report and was at the trial every day bar a couple of half days. His opinion was not heard by the jury as he was not called to give testimony. He does not know why.

He told the Guardian that he was deeply troubled by the case: “With regard to the medical evidence, I don’t think the prosecution proved she was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I don’t think she had a fair trial because no medical expert witness was called for the defence to challenge the prosecution expert medical evidence.”

At least one nurse who wanted to vouch for Letby was warned off doing so by dark noises about the effect on her own career.

The pathologists' reports found natural causes, but its difficult to "confirm". Just as it is difficult to confirm Letby's guilt, let alone prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

 

 

Edited August 10 by woolley