Lucy Letby

[woolley]

3 hours ago, Gladys said:

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. 

The problem is with the existing lack of evidence.

[wrighty]

I'm troubled by this conviction. I've not heard all the evidence like the jury have, but I also doubt that the average jury has the brainpower to process the complexities of a medical murder case laden with statistical 'facts'. Apologies if that comes across as arrogant on my part, but it is how it is. 
 

From the parents' perspective someone had to be guilty. A more plausible explanation, in the absence of motive, is that very premature babies died on an understaffed and over stretched unit from natural causes. These deaths stopped once the unit was downgraded and the sickest babies were sent elsewhere. This coincided with Letby's removal. 

[The Voice of Reason]

15 minutes ago, wrighty said:

I'm troubled by this conviction. I've not heard all the evidence like the jury have, but I also doubt that the average jury has the brainpower to process the complexities of a medical murder case laden with statistical 'facts'. Apologies if that comes across as arrogant on my part, but it is how it is. 
 

But there’s lots of murder cases, not just medical ones where the jury do not have the brainpower ( or expertise) to process the complexities. 

For example somebody is killed on a funfair  ride and a trial  ensues.  No jury member knows how these rides work, how often they should be serviced and the technology behind them.

Surely that’s why experts are introduced into these trials to explain these complexities to the lay person.

Otherwise what do you have? A jury selected because of their medical expertise, which is not representative of the public as a whole.

And from what I see those with medical expertise can have diametrically opposing views from each other. All considering themselves to be right.

Edited August 10 by The Voice of Reason
Addition of second para

[John Wright]

The problem is experts don’t agree, they don’t understand their role, and far too often, when looking at statistical likelihood, they overstate, not having the sort of background that wrighty has.

Add to that the fact that giving evidence against the consensus can wreck your career.

And often the experts for the prosecution change their interpretation more than once between first report and appearing in front of the jury.

All too often in cases like Letby, or the dozens of shaken baby cases where there were wrongful convictions based on expert testimony, it comes down to an expert saying that having excluded X, Y, Z the only explanation is murder. That excludes the death being inexplicable, or the organisation being stressed and not functioning.

You've only got to look at the recent Anderson v HMAG for the IoM judgement in the Privy Council, where a Manx murder verdict from 2016 has been overturned, to see that neither expert, nor prosecution advocate or defence advocate, nor the Deemster, nor the Court of Appeal Judges, understood what the experts could say and what was admissible to show substantial impairment in a diminished responsibility case.

https://www.jcpc.uk/cases/docs/jcpc-2019-0044-judgment.pdf 

This is a really good read of the pitfalls

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/08/shaken-baby-syndrome-war-over-convictions?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[Gladys]

35 minutes ago, John Wright said:

The problem is experts don’t agree, they don’t understand their role, and far too often, when looking at statistical likelihood, they overstate, not having the sort of background that wrighty has.

Add to that the fact that giving evidence against the consensus can wreck your career.

And often the experts for the prosecution change their interpretation more than once between first report and appearing in front of the jury.

All too often in cases like Letby, or the dozens of shaken baby cases where there were wrongful convictions based on expert testimony, it comes down to an expert saying that having excluded X, Y, Z the only explanation is murder. That excludes the death being inexplicable, or the organisation being stressed and not functioning.

You've only got to look at the recent Anderson v HMAG for the IoM judgement in the Privy Council, where a Manx murder verdict from 2016 has been overturned, to see that neither expert, nor prosecution advocate or defence advocate, nor the Deemster, nor the Court of Appeal Judges, understood what the experts could say and what was admissible to show substantial impairment in a diminished responsibility case.

https://www.jcpc.uk/cases/docs/jcpc-2019-0044-judgment.pdf 

This is a really good read of the pitfalls

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/08/shaken-baby-syndrome-war-over-convictions?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Dr Squier was featured in the documentary.

[P.K.]

11 hours ago, woolley said:

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.

The fact remains that there were three deaths within 14 days. You can dress it up all you like with comments like this: "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." and the fact that three babies died within 14 days stays exactly the same. The reasons Letby was there, like saving for a house, is also totally irrelevant. The fact remains it was on her watch.

Statistical anomoly or what? Over time her colleagues started to be concerned about Letby and it was no small thing to raise concerns about her but they still wènt ahead with it and met with "management" resistance. Yet still persisted.

Yes she was never caught in the act so all the evidence is circumstantial. But the bottom line is would you want a newborn of yours under her care?

Didn't think so...

[Gladys]

10 hours ago, P.K. said:

 But the bottom line is would you want a newborn of yours under her care?

Didn't think so...

Depends if she was guilty or not.

Was it proved beyond reasonable doubt and do the issues raised in the documentary cast a reasonable doubt on the verdict? 

[thommo2010]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Depends if she was guilty or not.

Was it proved beyond reasonable doubt and do the issues raised in the documentary cast a reasonable doubt on the verdict? 

Well she was guilty that is a fact. 

[Chinahand]

She has been found guilty in law. There are many examples were such findings have been reversed. 

That is the issue we are discussing. 

[Chinahand]

Also when deciding to employ someone you do not need evidence proved to a beyond a reasonably doubt. 

I think they're not suitable is perfectly sufficient. 

Ms Letby should never be anywhere near someone else's baby ever again. 

Guilty verdict or no guilty verdict. 

[Gladys]

22 minutes ago, thommo2010 said:

Well she was guilty that is a fact. 

She was found guilty by a court, whether all the necessary evidence was presented to prove her guilt beyond  a reasonable doubt is the issue. 

As we have seen from the Post Office inquiry, hundreds of sub-postmasters and staff were found guilty of theft and false accounting.  It now appears the basis of many of those convictions was based on withheld evidence, dubious investigation and prosecuting practices.  It is regarded as the biggest miscarriage of British justice. 

There is a massive difference between the PO and the Lucy Letby cases, as the PO was victim, investigator and prosecutor.  However, there is also a very big similarity and that is big public institutions being involved.  In the PO's case, from the inquiry, protecting the brand (and probably senior management) was put way above truth and honesty and the interests of its 'partners'.  Let's hope that the NHS Trust involved was not motivated in the same way. 

 

[thommo2010]

44 minutes ago, Gladys said:

She was found guilty by a court, whether all the necessary evidence was presented to prove her guilt beyond  a reasonable doubt is the issue. 

As we have seen from the Post Office inquiry, hundreds of sub-postmasters and staff were found guilty of theft and false accounting.  It now appears the basis of many of those convictions was based on withheld evidence, dubious investigation and prosecuting practices.  It is regarded as the biggest miscarriage of British justice. 

There is a massive difference between the PO and the Lucy Letby cases, as the PO was victim, investigator and prosecutor.  However, there is also a very big similarity and that is big public institutions being involved.  In the PO's case, from the inquiry, protecting the brand (and probably senior management) was put way above truth and honesty and the interests of its 'partners'.  Let's hope that the NHS Trust involved was not motivated in the same way. 

 

She was found guilty in court by people listening to it for 10 months. 

 

I am more than happy they came to the right decision. TV programmes are made for entertainment and to get people talking

[woolley]

11 minutes ago, thommo2010 said:

She was found guilty in court by people listening to it for 10 months. 

 

I am more than happy they came to the right decision. TV programmes are made for entertainment and to get people talking

Listening to what for 10 months?

It's nothing to do with a television programme that only surfaced less than a week ago. Do some research.

[woolley]

1 hour ago, thommo2010 said:

Well she was guilty that is a fact. 

No it isn't. The system decided she is, but that is quite a different matter.

[thommo2010]

2 minutes ago, woolley said:

Listening to what for 10 months?

It's nothing to do with a television programme that only surfaced less than a week ago. Do some research.

You know the jury. 

 

Why would I do research? I neither care enough about it or am I in a position to do anything about it. Like I said the people that matter listened to the evidence and found her guilty and not guilty on other charges so until new evidence comes to light she is a baby killer who deserves 0 sympathy.