Does everyone generally think lucy letby is still guilty following the recent BBC doc?

[-]

shalo62@reddit

I certainly have enough doubts that if I was sat on a jury, I would not be able to convict her.

I hope that at some point the truth comes out.

[-]

ampmz@reddit

Also important to remember that the Jury have seen evidence you haven’t.

[-]

MidnightIcy5192@reddit

It's what they didn't see that clearly shows there is reasonable doubt. A bungled police investigation and defence do not prove guilt.

[-]

more a lack of evidence tbh. Like the other person stated, we have more info now about evidence countering the claims by the prosecution at the time. The jury got told what the prosecution chose to allow them to see. That means that, without being able to research yourself, you're basing an opinion on a constructed narrative of a story. This means that evidence that goes against the prosecution will be missed out if the defence didn't pick up on it.

[-]

[-]

Personalone123@reddit

U missed the point, not hard to understand- the original comment said that they know nurses who believe she's innocent. Just because some professionals believe it, doesn't mean she's innocent

[-]

flijarr@reddit

No, the point was that the guy I replied to tried using one singular person, his brother, to disprove an opinion being a consensus.

Positive_Worker_3467@reddit

I find it terrible there was not one neonatologist at the trial just one retired. non expert. plus every doctor looking at the notes after the. trial has. said the babies died of natural causes and it has already been disproven one of the babies died via murder she was convicted of. she needs a fair retrial

[-]

Jamesfrancis86@reddit

Whatever. She is guilty as charged. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind but a small minority.

[-]

Positive_Worker_3467@reddit

no she isn't 15 people neonatologists in a panel found no medical evidence of murder plus one the babies she is convicted of murdering has been proved to die of natural causes

[-]

radicalirradical@reddit

if that is true, that is pretty scary. People can be convinced by being told "this is just not a normal number, it doesn't happen" and a medical expert so improperly using the sources he cited that the Dr he cited has become one if the experts leading against Letby being guilty.

Math we don't understand and an overconfident old man is all it takes to get us as a society, to rally against her. But being told repeatedly that just because the math looks a certain way doesn't mean it has a conclusion and an international body of experts changes nothing? Doomed species.

[-]

RealisticPassenger41@reddit

she should do time for negligence regardless. parents lose thier kids because negligence qualifies as abuse - she's a PROFESSIONAL. hard to have a river of sympathy here...

[-]

This is a fact that, can not and is not, disputed by the claims of the panel. Insulin poisoning is extremely simple to detect, and it was detected.

Why not do a retrial? There is not sufficient evidence to bring into question the conclusions of the previous trial.

[-]

Large_Comfort5399@reddit

Are you Dewi Evans ?

[-]

AdCompetitive3765@reddit

Did you read the courts decision?

[-]

AdCompetitive3765@reddit

Did not read the transcript of the proceedings.

Did not read the charges made against Letby.

Did not read Letbys testimony.

Did not read the prosecutions case.

Did not read the conclusion of the jury.

Did not read the conclusions of the board you are citing.

Did not read the findings of the court relating to the "board of experts".

Bear in mind that the whole point of a documentary like that one is to present an alternative view of what happened. Not necessarily to dig up the “truth”.

Making a Murderer came out and everyone thought Steven Avery was innocent. Turns out the documentary left out a lot of things because it made a more compelling story of a potentially innocent man.

Juries are still flawed, but she had a 10 month trial. There is no way an hour long documentary can give you all the information a jury had before they reached their verdict on their various charges.

[-]

Reasonable_Island985@reddit

Unlucky_Ratio4741@reddit

Did you take home tons and tons of them, place them neatly in alphabetical order inside a drawer at home, and then lie to the police that you didn’t get rid of them because you didn’t have a paper shredder when you had one right in your house? Lol. I sincerely doubt it.

[-]

Mother_Celery_4915@reddit

Why are you ignoring the fact that I have said several times I believe that it is in fact weird that she did that? I said it’s easy to accidentally take it home, but keeping it organized what strange. But it’s not murder.

[-]

Unlucky_Ratio4741@reddit

If the insulin thing was on accident, then she at least belongs in prison for manslaughter. But the fact that so many other babies died, shows that it was not an accident. And then she wrote in her literal diary that it was not an accident if she was already accused of this crime prior to writing in the diary then her lawyer would have made sure she didn’t write anything stupid like that.

[-]

Mother_Celery_4915@reddit

She also wrote in her diary that she did not do anything wrong. You can’t take one statement and ignore the other.

Correct. There is a reason that the defence STOOD DOWN they own medical expert. That reason has not been revealed by Letby’s team. The failure to field a defence expert is the fundamental reason why she was convicted - the jury only heard from the prosecution experts. Until Letby reveals why she stood down her expert, it’s hard to get onboard with the innocence campaign.

[-]

InevitableAbies4688@reddit

Precisely

[-]

mystic_teal@reddit

she didn't just tell her solicitor that she had joint responsibility for injecting Baby A with air, she told the entire courtroom - although she attempted to minimise her involvement and place the bulk of the responsibility on the nurse actually inserting the line. But as assisting nurse she was responsible to support her senior colleagues Mel Taylor and Dr David Harkness as they made a complete pig's breakfast of the procedure.

p1p68@reddit

No this is wrong, I've been in court watching a very awful case as a support system to the victim. I had in depth knowledge of the case, her barrister was rubbish and could have done so much more. It's not like one assumes.

[-]

AltruisticWishes@reddit

In a high profile case like this, the government wants the defendant to have competent counsel.

And I'm not aware of the government ever providing counsel to the victim.

[-]

p1p68@reddit

Such faith in our legal system. After years of experience, I am more of a cynic

[-]

Thin-Job8886@reddit

This is obvious nonsense. Since conviction practically the only "expert" standing behind the prosecution's theory is Evans himself; while many other world leading ACTUAL experts are on record saying the prosecution'ms medical evidence was garbage

[-]

AltruisticWishes@reddit

No offense, but you obviously don't know anything about this topic.

My comment was clearly about fact witnesses. It looks very bad for her that her attorneys never called any fact witnesses except the one. They didn't call any others because there were no others that would've helped her case, in their very experienced opinion.
99.999% her defense attorneys attempted to call their own experts to testify. The court (judge) didn't allow the experts they attempted to call.

[-]

p1p68@reddit

They have changed. The jury should have been given context of her diary notes. This has nothing to do with witnesses so that particular argument is not needed. Her barrister were awful. Why on earth did they not point out her diary excerps were an exercise by a psychologist treating her. Or that the ward was down graded in speciality after her removal which could have altered the death rate. I'm not saying she's innocent but I am saying this is no safe conviction.

[-]

AltruisticWishes@reddit

Her attorneys offered no evidence of that because it wasn't true. Otherwise they would have introduced evidence of that.

This issue is very clearly a fact issue.

You clearly don't understand the legal process at all. Good luck getting your baby killer off 😂

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

My comment was clearly about fact witnesses. It looks very bad for her that her attorneys never called any fact witnesses except the one. They didn't call any others because there were no others that would've helped her case, in their very experienced opinion.

That's speculation that cannot be squared with what the facts are now, isn't it? Because we now for certain now that a great many experts would have helped her case. Only one of her lawyers was very experienced - her barrister. It's not technically his job to instruct expert witnesses and it's not obvious who advised her not to call Dr Hall or why.
You seem to have just made that up completely.

[-]

AltruisticWishes@reddit

Anything's possible, but, at that level, their clients are generally unlikable. They don't care about that. They care about winning.

My previous comment / question was about fact witnesses not experts

[-]

Everlasting_Raiyu@reddit

Ah I see. Tbh with you I'm not a knowledgable person about the law and all that. I've been reading some of these comments and I can't hold a candle to you people with what you know. All I can say is that I just have this gut feeling that something ain't right. I dunno, maybe I'm completely wrong but I don't feel like this woman is guilty. Maybe I've been duped lol.

[-]

Obvious-Hospital5478@reddit

not been on the v yet

[-]

Rexel450@reddit

Have a read of the safety of conviction section

I think shes innocent. My child was accidentally killed by a doctor and a nurse. I only know what happened at all because the nurse told the truth. The doctor blamed the nurse completely and his only question when interviewed was. "Just out of interest, how was this found out". The nurse has my forgiveness the doctor does not.

I dont believe Lucy letby murdered any babies at all.

[-]

Bubble-bubble3@reddit

I think what confuses me is I’ve seen numerous reports of her own writing in her house that was seized admitting to it, why would she have written those things if she had not killed them? Am I missing something?

[-]

monks187@reddit

Imo she did it, I don't think she'll ever admit it though, women rarely do sadly

[-]

Shield_of_glory@reddit

I’m dubious that she is innocent. The police worked tirelessly for years gathering evidence both physically and from expert witnesses etc, the hospital tried covering the whole thing up because they knew the devastation it would have.

It’s natural to want to not believe that someone could be so cruel to harm babies, more so, babies that are in need of specialist care. Unfortunately, the reality is that evil does exist in this world.

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

It’s natural to want to not believe that someone could be so cruel to harm babies, more so, babies that are in need of specialist care. Unfortunately, the reality is that evil does exist in this world.

I've been interested in this case since furrowing my brow not long after she was first convicted, looking for and not being able to find the end of the chain of inference, so to speak. I felt like I was being led in circles. Since then, we've had:

Dewi Evans changing his mind after the conviction.
Dewi Evans changing his mind on the stand when he realized Letby was alibied for the event he thought was suspicious.
Leaked police notes suggesting an entirely different set of suspicious babies / suspicious events that came to nothing because they couldn't put Letby 'cot side' (their language).
The CPS seeming to direct the police to close the statistical avenue of investigation.
An undisclosed email from Jayaram telling a different story to the one he told in court.
An undisclosed third insulin baby with similar test results to the ones she was convicted of, but who happened to have been seen by a doctor training to be a diabetes specialist and was able to diagnose the problem at the time (as she revealed in a police interview accidentally leaked by Thirlwall).
A lot more of the court transcripts themselves, which reveal that the evidence is if anything weaker than it was reported be at the time.
Nicholas Johnson making brand new allegations in the course of cross-examination.
A panel of experts led by the person who wrote the paper that the CPS relied upon to secure convictions in the air embolism cases.
Significant evidence that would have been useful to the defense blocked by Judge Goss to the extent that Letby was having to declare on the stand that she didn't know the very obvious reason why Jayaram would have it out for her.

I could go on and on and on and on - and your answer is, oh, you're just not emotionally developed enough to face up to the fact that a young woman could do all these murders. If you want to infantilize yourself with your blind trust in our ridiculous justice system, go ahead, but you will not infantilize me in the process.

[-]

MyNightlightBroke@reddit

Nobody tried to infantalize you. Also, don't act like you know everything, either. You are not an active participant in this case. You also watched a documentary and formed an opinion.

[-]

H0w-1nt3r3st1ng@reddit

I’m dubious that she is innocent. The police worked tirelessly for years gathering evidence both physically and from expert witnesses etc, the hospital tried covering the whole thing up because they knew the devastation it would have.

A panel of the world's neo-natal experts disagrees: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0nmoGes3IU

Also, you can work tirelessly, but be completely out of your depth. Though, from this panel interview, it doesn't seem like they worked at all.

[-]

One_Water_2323@reddit

I think the point is not that she isn’t innocent - in law she doesn’t have to prove she DIDN’T do it, the prosecution has to prove that she DID.

She may not be innocent but legally she may be not guilty.

I tend to think she didn’t do it myself, but I have no medical or legal expertise, so my opinion is pretty worthless.

[-]

AdCompetitive3765@reddit

think the point is not that she isn’t innocent - in law she doesn’t have to prove she DIDN’T do it, the prosecution has to prove that she DID.

By the standards of the law they did do this though, the jury found that it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that she was guilty.

[-]

Rexel450@reddit

The police worked tirelessly

That's a first then

[-]

Shield_of_glory@reddit

You don’t think they do? Speak to any police officer you know, or come across. Over worked and under paid. Hierarchy maybe not.

[-]

Ok-Desk-4863@reddit

The recent Stephen Port case is a perfect example of utterly farcical police negligence

[-]

Rexel450@reddit

I know a couple of them.

And in the past I knew a fire arms officer, want software?

he's your man lol

[-]

Thin-Job8886@reddit

I'm very willing to accept that there are people in the world who are so cruel and wicked they would commit such crimes. The point is: in this case, the evidence for her culpability is really very thin indeed. Many strands of the case against her - medical, statistical, the "confession notes" - have been pretty much shredded since she was convicted. Why this didn't happen in the trial itself is a good question but irrelevant to the material fact of whether or not she commited the crimes (indeed, leading medical experts don't even believe any crimes were commited). I think the jury were bamboozled and probably terrified of letting someone walk free who may have killed babies. Fine, but that's not "beyond reasonable doubt."

[-]

Shield_of_glory@reddit

We will agree to disagree.

[-]

prettybonbonz@reddit

Ngl I just thought the most possible answer was that she was bad at her job 😭 I think she's innocent, she seems rather confused the whole time. I feel very bad for her. I don't see any reason as to why she would do this, and if so, why it was done so obviously??? If you work in medical, you would be very sly with murdering people wouldn't you? There's this case of a new Zealand (I think) serial killer who was a doctor and he went years unnoticed even though he killed a substantial amount of patients. I'm not sure though obviously I don't know anything I'm just a person with an opinion. ...

[-]

NeitherMeringue2604@reddit

The deaths were happening when she was on nights and only when she was around. They switched her to days and it stopped happening at night and started happening during the days. If she had time off, it stopped happening.

One of the reasons I see nothing suspicious about her behaviour is because I'm a psychologist. None of the things you point out are red flags.

"she had a fascination with seeing the reactions of the dead babies parents, often hanging around while they grieved while offering no condolences"

That's a mishmash of lies and smears by the prosecution without any real basis. I've also heard it alleged that she was too sad and offered too many condolences, including writing sympathy cards. In other words - no matter how she reacted, it's being criticised.

"even looking them up on facebook, sometimes on milestones (Christmas Day, the anniversaries of the babies deaths)"

This is not abnormal behaviour. Many healthcare practitioners (myself included) have looked up clients because we have wondered how they are, long after seeing them. Lucy was also known to be "chronically online", and she conducted thousands of searches for other people during that time, who had no relation to the case.

"she kept handover sheets ordered by date"

There's an entire thread on the sciencelucyletby sub today unpacking how this isn't even uncommon for nurses.

"she liked to discuss the babies deaths with her colleagues in sms messages, seemingly looking for sympathy"

She was upset by deaths that occurred on her shift. That's normal.

[-]

H0w-1nt3r3st1ng@reddit

All the facts and evidence is there. No actual real expert thinks she’s innocent.

[-]

AdCompetitive3765@reddit

The defence strategy was essentially, "there's nowhere near enough solid evidence here to prove guilt, so we'll sit back on alternative theories as the prosecution isn't forcing us to".

"The prosecution isn't forcing us to sow doubt" This is complete nonsense and not at all how legal defences work. The process is designed to force the defence to do exactly thisl

[-]

andytimms67@reddit

As I said, there is a lot of evidence. Heightening incidents in previous placing and hand written notes by her. handwritten notes were discovered by police during their investigation.“I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them”; “I am evil I did this”; and “today is your birthday and you are not here and I am so sorry for that”. Add to that the earlier incidents occurred overnight, but when Letby was put onto day shifts, the collapses and deaths began occurring in the day. Go figure

[-]

MoonmoonMamman@reddit

The notes also said things like ‘I’ve done nothing wrong’, ‘persecution’, ‘slander’. I said ‘I’m so sorry’ to a colleague whose friend had died last week - that’s not an admission that I killed the friend! She was under immense pressure and had been accused of harming her patients, and she had been advised to write down her very darkest thoughts.

[-]

meandmyflock@reddit

She wrote a sympathy note naming all the triplets when only two had died...

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

Not really, no.

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

Add to that the earlier incidents occurred overnight, but when Letby was put onto day shifts, the collapses and deaths began occurring in the day

The prosecutor made a lot of allegations that he never got round to actually evidencing. This is one of them. See below.

The quality of evidence does not improve with quantity, so there's no logic to this idea at all.

Would be difficult, almost impossible to construct but a hypothesis test would find her almost definitely guilty

Not that hard to construct. You take all notes from the hospital (or a random sample), redact all staff names, then have independent experts (unaffiliated with the hospital) mark incidents they consider suspicious. Then, for each staff member, compute the number of incidents per hour worked, and see where Letby is on that distribution. That still doesn't account for some staff working with more fragile babies -- may need to limit the distribution to staff with mix of babies similar to Letby's.

This wasn't done, and a Royal Statistical Society document explaining how to do this was ignored. I don't know how you can tell what a hypothesis test would find without doing one.

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

Interesting approach to constructing the hypothesis tests. Definitely sounds like the sort of approach required. I think would work actually.

For Letby to be innocent you're probably asking for:

The fatality spike at Chester hospital to have happened by chance or be explained by non-criminal factors.
Two independent insulin tests to have given false readings or someone other than Letby having administered the insulin poisonings.

the basis that killer nurses are even more unlikely

They are. There have been maybe 3 in the last three decades in the UK, out of 30M+ nurses working in that time. It's a 1-in-a-million event. Innocent scenarios must be much more unlikely than that to be confidently dismissed.

At trial, doctor witnesses would dismiss some scenarios because they haven't personally encountered them. Yet they readily accepted a killer-nurse scenario, despite having never seen one, either.

a weird nurse who acts guilty

That's a notoriously unreliable basis for inference. Predicting how people would act if innocent and if guilty is very far from an exact science. If there had been clear proof of murder, it'd be silly to even consider this type of inference.

For what it's worth, none of her close friends have described her as "weird".

admitted in court that poisoning must have occurred

She didn't admit to any wrongdoing, she accepted experts' testimony that the babies were given insulin. She explicitly rejected invitations to speculate on how or why. What exactly would you expect a wrongly accused person in this situation to say?

[-]

DisastrousBuilder966@reddit

The fatality spike at Chester hospital to have happened by chance or be explained by non-criminal factors.

First, a statistician said at Thirlwall that a spike like this is expected somewhere in the UK every year. Most aren't caused by killer nurses. Whatever factor(s) cause others could've caused this one.

Second, there was a spike even if you only count deaths she wasn't charged with. Whatever factor(s) caused those could've caused the rest.

Third, the approach I outlined doesn't depend on analyzing spikes at all. It's about comparing rates of staff presence at flagged events in a time period, not about comparing rates of events in different time periods.

Two independent insulin tests to have given false readings or someone other than Letby having administered the insulin poisonings.

The question isn't about "chance of these specific test results", it "chance of _any_ odd tests results", because they trawled many records for _any_ odd test results (not just insulin). If they'd found an unexplained fast heart rate, they'd have accused Letby of giving adrenaline. In the approach I'd outlined, they'd have done the same trawl for other staff's patients, and it's not unlikely they'd find something arguably odd, given the multitude of possibilities. The biggest possibility for test results to look odd comes from gaps in medical knowledge, especially in areas where there's limited data -- including insulin metabolism in preemies, but also many others. Finding a case or two involving one of many possible gaps, in a trawl of many cases, is not clearly unlikely. Knowledge gaps are way more common than killer nurses.

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

I definitely agree with that. Would be difficult, almost impossible to construct but a hypothesis test would find her almost definitely guilty.

It wouldn't be very difficult to construct with the right data, which obviously we don't have access to but that investigators certainly would have been able to get hold of. Jane Hutton has come out strongly in favour of the defence since the trial, so she clearly doesn't agree with that. In any case, you agree the analysis hasn't been done, and you agree that we're very bad at intuiting this sort of thing without the analysis, so you don't want to then be making strong speculative assertions about it.

Getting convicted of 7 separate murders and 6 attempted murders combined with weird behaviours like admitting guilt in notes, hoarding medical notes, making odd “corrections” to medical notes , facebook searching for the victims’ parents and photographing a sympathy card takes something special.

The argument is that there has been a miscarriage of justice, which would obviously require convictions; the convictions in themselves are not evidence that the convictions were safe.

The handover sheets are evidence of some obsessive-compulsive habits, certainly, and they would be evidence of murder if they related particularly to her alleged victims, but they don't.

There are no 'odd' corrections; they are simply corrections, as are made all over handwritten medical notes all of the time. The prosecution alleged that they had been corrected in nefarious ways but did not evidence that in any way at all. It was interesting to see in Letby's cross that Nicholas Johnson seemed to want us to see the medical notes as both incriminating and doctored so as not to be incriminating depending on whatever point he was making at the time.

Facebook searching for the victims parents would also be quite good circumstantial evidence if she didn't also Facebook search everybody she ever came across. There was nothing special or unique about those searches relative to the amount of time she spent searching acquaintances on Facebook in general. Are you about to suggest that she murdered the children of everyone she searched on Facebook?

Photographing a sympathy card is just that, so you still have a memory of it before you send it off. One of my dearest friends died in a car accident when I was a teenager. I still have the little booklet for her funeral service. I have no idea why. Would that lead you to reckon I must have murdered her? Come on, now.

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

After receiving that number of convictions, in terms of gauging how likely it is that she committed these crimes, it makes more sense to place the burden of proof upon you and challenge your ability to prove her innocence rather than the other way round. I agree with the concepts of confirmations bias / seeing faces in the clouds but that doesn’t mean you always have to perform rigorous statistical testing to reliably infer that something is likely. Might be necessary to determine a precise measure of the probability but not to infer that it’s more than 50% likely.

Having handover notes at home because you left them in your pocket and took them home accidentally is reasonable. What isn’t reasonable is having confidential documents some of which weren’t even related to babies she cared for like blood gas printouts and resuscitation notes. It was genuinely very odd to take them home. In isolation, this can be brushed aside as odd behaviour but the totality of her behaviours is compelling.

She wrote medical notes after collapses commenting on how babies showed signs of deterioration leading up to the collapse , contradicting her colleagues who saw no sign of deterioration. She logged times of events at which she wasn’t even present according to colleagues. It’s easy sitting there and saying it’s just a mistake or whatever but these aren’t typical mistakes or behaviours

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

After receiving that number of convictions, in terms of gauging how likely it is that she committed these crimes, it makes more sense to place the burden of proof upon you and challenge your ability to prove her innocence rather than the other way round.

You can make a case for that, of course, but you can't use the number of convictions to affirm her guilt as it's circular reasoning. Those convictions are what is being challenged and are what you are defending. You can't turn around and say she was convicted correctly because was convicted at all.

That doesn’t mean you always have to perform rigorous statistical testing to reliably infer that something is likely. Might be necessary to determine a precise measure of the probability but not to infer that it’s more than 50% likely.

Yeah, but statisticians have done that work that they can with the figures they have access to and found that that is a very incorrect inference. I'll give you an example. Many of these 'coincidences' were found by partly defining the criteria for a suspicious event as one involving Letby. So the fact that Letby was there at events for which she was there is hardly a shocking revelation is it?

Having handover notes at home because you left them in your pocket and took them home accidentally is reasonable. What isn’t reasonable is having confidential documents some of which weren’t even related to babies she cared for like blood gas printouts and resuscitation notes. It was genuinely very odd to take them home. In isolation, this can be brushed aside as odd behaviour but the totality of her behaviours is compelling.

Not really, no. It would be evidence if they were the handover notes of her victims, but they're just random. It's a hoarding behaviour that suggests a mental health difficulty and it's unprofessional, but it's also very, very common and by no means indicative of a murderous intent.

She wrote medical notes after collapses commenting on how babies showed signs of deterioration leading up to the collapse , contradicting her colleagues who saw no sign of deterioration. She logged times of events at which she wasn’t even present according to colleagues. It’s easy sitting there and saying it’s just a mistake or whatever but these aren’t typical mistakes or behaviour.

I'm not sure where you got this from. The claims of fabrication of medical notes were alleged by the prosecution without evidence. There is certainly no mention I can think of, of the top of my head, of Letby claiming to have been present when she wasn't.

More broadly, it's quite an extraordinary claim that Letby would be so brazen as to inject a large volume of air into a tiny tube directly in front of another nurse is the same person who would try to cover her tracks by changing handwritten medical notes in case there was investigation many years later. Who would she be trying to fool?

Use a bit of common sense, here. If you are committing this kind of crime and if you care about getting caught, you anticipate that the window of risk of that is during and immediately after, and that's where you would put most of your mitigation.

You wouldn't completely fail to mitigate against the immediate chance of getting caught by injuring babies at the busiest times on the ward and instead start messing round with the notes in case it occurs to someone years later that you may have harmed a baby. These are the alleged actions of two very different kinds of criminal.

Anyway, allegations without evidence are not of interest for me, nor should they have been of interest to the court, so I'll hear no more about doctored notes until you produce some, which I know you can't!

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

I can see why it seems circular but it isn’t. It’s just using the power of the court’s judgement to attest her guilt.

If the stats analysis you’re referring to is the rota showing deaths vs when Lucy was present , I’m not referring to that. I don’t even think the rota was a major component of the prosecution’s case.

I believe the prosecution’s case regarding the handover notes is that a lot of notes she held were innocuous but a disproportionate number related to the deaths of babies in her care and many can’t be explained by the accidental pocket theory. It simply didn’t make any sense to take them home, indicating some kind of warped interest in the death of babies.

I’m pretty sure the prosecution’s case regarding her medical notes concerns strange timing of logs of deterioration of babies made after collapses that contradicted her colleague’s accounts. I’ll find actual reports of this.

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

I can see why it seems circular but it isn’t. It’s just using the power of the court’s judgement to attest her guilt.

You're just rephrasing the same thing again. I'm saying that court's judgement is wrong. You cannot counter that simply by restating it.

If the stats analysis you’re referring to is the rota showing deaths vs when Lucy was present , I’m not referring to that. I don’t even think the rota was a major component of the prosecution’s case.

I'm talking about the 'coincidences' you believe are so powerful. That includes the rota, but surrounds the construction of the case and the prosecutorial argument more generally.

I believe the prosecution’s case regarding the handover notes is that a lot of notes she held were innocuous but a disproportionate number related to the deaths of babies in her care

That's not correct. Please avail yourself of the details of the case before you continue. The handover sheets were presented at trial as evidence of Letby's alleged dishonesty. The allegation was that she must have been doing something with them, but no case was actually made as to what that might be, nor could it be made, since so many of the babies to whom those notes pertained had not fallen ill in a way that could plausibly be attributed to Letby.

and many can’t be explained by the accidental pocket theory. It simply didn’t make any sense to take them home, indicating some kind of warped interest in the death of babies.

Handover notes don't pertain to the deaths of babies.

I’m pretty sure the prosecution’s case regarding her medical notes concerns strange timing of logs of deterioration of babies made after collapses that contradicted her colleague’s accounts. I’ll find actual reports of this.

Please do. It was case Johnson tried to make during Letby's cross. At some point it becomes clear even to him that it isn't really very convincing. One of them is the allegation that Letby changed a blood sugar reading to 2.9 to conceal the alleged insulin poisoning. Such a number would have attracted considerable attention, however, because TPN bags naturally cause such a reading to be in any case much higher.

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

You're just rephrasing the same thing again. I'm saying that court's judgement is wrong. You cannot counter that simply by restating it

I'm saying that you saying the court's judgement was wrong on 13 highly serious counts is an outlandish claim. You don't seem to have much respect for the judicial process. What if we were dealing with 100 counts? Would you assume the same stance? Supposing the trial had never taken place, but we had the same information available to us bar the verdict, would your measure of her guilt / innocence be the same?

I'm talking about the 'coincidences' you believe are so powerful. That includes the rota, but surrounds the construction of the case and the prosecutorial argument more generally

So a formal statistical assessment was performed on this? Can you cite this study?

That's not correct. Please avail yourself of the details of the case before you continue. The handover sheets were presented at trial as evidence of Letby's alleged dishonesty. The allegation was that she must have been doing something with them, but no case was actually made as to what that might be, nor could it be made, since so many of the babies to whom those notes pertained had not fallen ill in a way that could plausibly be attributed to Letby.

The prosecution didn't go through all 250 documents individually saying they were all suspicious. They placed extra emphasis on 21 relating to babies that collapsed, most of which under her care. She removed things like resuscitation notes, blood gas printouts, shift summaries relating to babies who collapsed / died. The key point is that she had no reason to take these documents home with her. Some weren't even related to babies under her care. She appears to have been selective about these particular documents. This is indicative of unusual work related behaviour. She clearly had an odd interest in events at her workplace and it is completely reasonable that the prosecution would highlight this as part of a broader portrayal of her character. Letby claimed she had taken them "home by accident and then forgotten about them". That is almost definitely a lie. Why did she lie to mitigate the offence of taking home and not disposing of confidential medical documents?

Handover notes don't pertain to the deaths of babies. People do things that don't sense all the time. We're not perfectly rational. Letby had a Facebook addiction, we know, and had a tendency to hoard paperwork. Both of these are OCD-adjacent traits that might suggest an underlying mental health condition. They certainly don't, taken on the whole, suggest any kind of interest at all in the deaths of babies.

Facebook searching for the parents of dead babies doesn't show an interest at all in the deaths of babies?

Please do. It was a case Johnson tried to make during Letby's cross. At some point it becomes clear even to him that it isn't really very convincing. One of them is the allegation that Letby changed a blood sugar reading to 2.9 to conceal the alleged insulin poisoning. Such a number would have attracted considerable attention, however, because TPN bags naturally cause such a reading to be in any case much higher. So any time a number doesn't fit the prosecutorial theory, there's an allegation about malfeasance made with respect to the notes, but it's never actually very logical or consistent, and no evidence whatsoever was actually presented that she had ever doctored any notes.

It's the pattern of logs she recorded where she repeatedly and retrospectively documented babies deteriorating at times when colleagues stated they were stable. Let's analyse the pattern.

Your "no evidence whatsoever" = "not 100% proof of guilt", which the prosecution would agree with. The pattern of notes is however, is heavily suspicious. We'll analyse some of the patterns later.

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

I'm saying that you saying the court's judgement was wrong on 13 highly serious counts is an outlandish claim.

Are you familiar with the history of miscarriages of justice in the United Kingdom and the role of court's obstinance in many of those cases in failing to right those clear wrongs in a timely manner?

You don't seem to have much respect for the judicial process.

If I think it has resulted in a miscarriage of justice, I will certainly say so.

What if we were dealing with 100 counts? Would you assume the same stance?

I'm not 'assuming a stance,' - I'm very familiar with the case. This specific case and these specific counts. I find them wanting.

Supposing the trial had never taken place, but we had the same information available to us bar the verdict, would your measure of her guilt / innocence be the same?

It's hard to say because we know so much more now than was ever presented at trial. There's a certain horrifying dramaturgy to the fact that Letby had to testify that she did not know, for example, why Ravi Jayaram might have it out for her in the cross for the Baby K retrial, when everybody in that room except the jury knew perfectly well that she knew exactly why and had been barred from mentioning it.

So a formal statistical assessment was performed on this? Can you cite this study?

That's not what I actually said, is it? You can pretty sure I said if you like, or you can scroll up and look. What has been done with the data available is a statistical analysis by John Quigley, for his own purposes, and a broader analysis by Spiegelhalter for Thirlwall enquiry. You should at the very least familiarise yourself with Spiegelhalter's testimony.

The prosecution didn't go through all 250 documents individually saying they were all suspicious.

Correct. They suggested that collecting the documents at all is evidence of her dishonesty.

I'm going to put two of the next things you say side by side:

They placed extra emphasis on 21 relating to babies that collapsed, most of which under her care. She removed things like resuscitation notes, blood gas printouts, shift summaries relating to babies who collapsed / died.

She appears to have been selective about these particular documents.

...and suggest that of course she would appear to have been selective about these particular documents because out of the 250, they are the ones that the prosecution placed extra emphasis on, as you yourself state.

She clearly had an odd interest in events at her workplace and it is completely reasonable that the prosecution would highlight this as part of a broader portrayal of her character.

While I think there is a case to be made that it was unreasonable of the prosecution to do that, I haven't actually made that case, have I? What I've actually said is that they're not really evidence of the allegations the prosecution made; you yourself now concede to that by saying it is a 'broader portrayal of her character,' rather than evidence of the allegations, so I think we can probably move on from it.

Letby claimed she had taken them "home by accident and then forgotten about them". That is almost definitely a lie. Why did she lie to mitigate the offence of taking home and not disposing of confidential medical documents?

If it is a lie, you answered your own question, haven't you? To mitigate the office of taking home and not disposing of confidential medical documents. I would suggest, though, that she may well have accidentally brought them home and then could not, for the reasons I have patiently outlined to you, bring herself to dispose of them.

This is a quite common phenomena exacerbated by the fact that they couldn't go in the general trash. I have loads of depleted AA batteries in a draw that I'm ashamed to say have survived multiple house moves. I just haven't gotten around to getting them to an appropriate disposal place.

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

Are you familiar with the history of miscarriages of justice in the United Kingdom and the role of court's obstinance in many of those cases in failing to right those clear wrongs in a timely manner?

There has never been a miscarriage of justice of the magnitude you're alleging in the United Kingdom. False murder convictions are rare enough, but this is unheard of.

That's not what I actually said, is it? You can pretty sure I said if you like, or you can scroll up and look. What has been done with the data available is a statistical analysis by John Quigley, for his own purposes, and a broader analysis by Spiegelhalter for Thirlwall enquiry. You should at the very least familiarise yourself with Spiegelhalter's testimony.

Your statement was "Yeah, but statisticians have done that work that they can with the figures they have access to and found that that is a very incorrect inference" in response to me saying it's more than 50% likely that Letby is guilty, but a formal statistical analysis wasn't performed outside of the rota analysis.

If it is a lie, you answered your own question, haven't you? To mitigate the office of taking home and not disposing of confidential medical documents. I would suggest, though, that she may well have accidentally brought them home and then could not, for the reasons I have patiently outlined to you, bring herself to dispose of them.

You think Letby was motivated to avoid culpability for the offence of "taking home and not disposing of confidential medical documents" when faced with 7 counts murder and 6 counts of attempted murder?

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

There has never been a miscarriage of justice of the magnitude you're alleging in the United Kingdom. False murder convictions are rare enough, but this is unheard of.

Is this about the number of counts again? I'm not sure what the logic behind this one is. They're not completely separate cases, they in large part rely on one another. Aside from that, there of course miscarriages of justice of magnitude I am alleging in the United Kingdom, and what's more, many of those miscarriages could have been put right many years earlier than they eventually were if not for the behaviour of the courts on these matters. We don't know how many false murder convictions there are; the only ones agreed upon are that eventually get overturned, which I agree is very rare.

Your statement was "Yeah, but statisticians have done that work that they can with the figures they have access to and found that that is a very incorrect inference" in response to me saying it's more than 50% likely that Letby is guilty, but a formal statistical analysis wasn't performed outside of the rota analysis.

No, formal statistical analysis was not performed at all because they sacked Jane Hutton on the advice of the CPS. We've been over this already. I've pointed you to two analyses, however, that have been carried out. You will avail yourself of at least the Speigelhalter please if you want to continue this line of argument.

You think Letby was motivated to avoid culpability for the offence of "taking home and not disposing of confidential medical documents" when faced with 7 counts of murder and 6 counts of attempted murder?

I think I said rather more than that, didn't I? Why don't we try again in such a way that you address the substance of what I say rather than rephrase a snippet as a belittling question?

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

Having demonstrated your ignorance on this matter, I'd ask you to now go and study the Birmingham Six, please, who were sentenced to 21 life sentences each for the Birmingham Pub Bombings in 1975. How your so confident making these sorts of assertions without bothering to make even a quick google search, I do not know.

The Birmingham Six received lighter sentences than Letby. Was it a bigger miscarriage, assuming Letby is innocent? I'm suggesting it isn't. Mark Mcdonald agrees with me at least. Lucy Letby case could be ‘biggest miscarriage of justice in UK history’, lawyer says | The Independent

Shall we just agree it'd be the biggest in the last 49 years?

No, formal statistical analysis was not performed at all because they sacked Jane Hutton on the advice of the CPS. We've been over this already. I've pointed you to two analyses, however, that have been carried out. You will avail yourself of at least the Speigelhalter please if you want to continue this line of argument, please, otherwise we're going to go in circles on little more than woefully inadequate intuitions

We seem to agree that statisticians haven't formally proven it's less than 50% likely Letby is guilty.

I think I said rather more than that, didn't I? Why don't we try again in such a way that you address the substance of what I say rather than rephrase a snippet as a belittling question?

I'll try to answer it anyway. Yes, I do think that's possible, because her answer to that question either way wouldn't particularly have incriminated her or helped her defence unless it was proven that she had lied.

So you agree that if it can be demonstrated that she lied it could harm her defence?

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

Shall we just agree it'd be the biggest in the last 49 years?

Your point was one you made from incredulity; it couldn't be a miscarriage of justice because of its magnitude. I've shown you a case that we definitely know was a miscarriage of justice and was of a similar magnitude. That's the end of the matter, as far as I'm concerned. I don't consider it important which is the bigger by some small margin on some small metric. More broadly, you should have known about it.

We seem to agree that statisticians haven't formally proven it's less than 50% likely Letby is guilty.

I think you need to trace this conversation back to its origins to clarify the purpose of our exchange there. You had asserted that an intuitive impression of these coincidences was sufficient to arrive at a conclusion. I told you why that wasn't the case, and I told you where to look for the analyses that have taken place with the available data that show you why. That's the end of the matter, as far as I'm concerned, until you've read those analyses. I have no idea what you mean by' formally proven' in this context.

So you agree that if it can be demonstrated that she lied it could harm her defence?

I asked you try to again in such a way that you address the substance of what I say rather than rephrase a snippet as a belittling question. You've done the opposite of that, haven't you?

If you want to engage me further on this topic, I suggest you scroll back, read what I originally said to this point in full, and address it in full. I made a mistake in my last reply humouring this sort of thing, so I won't be doing it again.

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

Your point was one you made from incredulity; it couldn't be a miscarriage of justice because of its magnitude. I've shown you a case that we definitely know was a miscarriage of justice and was of a similar magnitude. That's the end of the matter, as far as I'm concerned. I don't consider it important which is the bigger by some small margin on some small metric. More broadly, you should have known about it if you're to have a level of knowledge that matches your level of confidence.

Yes, I'm challenging your disregard for the robustness of the UK justice system. You don't even care about the number of convictions she's received. The claim you're making is demonstrably extreme from the offset. Making the point that the system failed to a similar extent 50 years ago is like saying you shouldn't travel by plane because some have crashed in the past.

I think you need to trace this conversation back to its origins to clarify the purpose of our exchange there. You had asserted that an intuitive impression of these coincidences was sufficient to arrive at a conclusion. I told you why that wasn't the case, and I told you where to look for the analyses that have taken place with the available data that show you why many of these intuitions are in fact false. That's the end of the matter, as far as I'm concerned, until you've read those analyses. I have no idea what you mean by' formally proven' in this context.

That's exactly how I remember it yes. The totality of behaviours, patterns of medical note taking etc. are very compelling in my opinion. Contesting that with "Yeah, but statisticians have done that work that they can with the figures they have access to and found that that is a very incorrect inference" is pretty shallow.

I asked you try to again in such a way that you address the substance of what I say rather than rephrase a snippet as a belittling question. You've done the opposite of that, haven't you?

If you want to engage me further on this topic, I suggest you scroll back, read what I originally said to this point in full, and address it in full. I made a mistake in my last reply humouring this sort of thing, so I won't be doing it again.

Do you agree that if it can be demonstrated that she lied it could harm her defence? You definitely seemed to imply that with "unless it was proven that she had lied".

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

Yes, I'm challenging your disregard for the robustness of the UK justice system. You don't even care about the number of convictions she's received.

That's right. I don't see how it's relevant at all to the safety of those convictions. I think point would be stronger if there had been as many independent trials, but these convictions rely upon one another.

The claim you're making is demonstrably extreme from the offset.

It's only as extreme as any other claim that there has been a serious MoJ.

Making the point that the system failed to a similar extent 50 years ago is like saying you shouldn't travel by plane because some have crashed in the past.

Are you on a wind up? I brought up that case because you had explicitly said that there were no similar cases. It wasn't even a good argument to begin with. I certainly haven't attempted in any way shape or form to argue that my healthy skepticism of the justice system is rooted in this single incident from 50 years ago.

That's exactly how I remember it yes. The totality of behaviours, patterns of medical note taking etc. are very compelling in my opinion. Contesting that with "Yeah, but statisticians have done that work that they can with the figures they have access to and found that that is a very incorrect inference" is pretty shallow.

We've already covered this. I explained to you that we our really bad at doing stats intuitively because we are pattern recognition machines. You agreed with that. There's literally no further we can go on this point until you read the analyses you asked for and I dutifully supplied.

Do you agree that if it can be demonstrated that she lied it could harm her defence?

If anybody lies (as in, intentionally says something false) in court on more or less any matter, their credibility is usually damaged, yes. I'd ask once more that you address my full point, though, rather than trying to push me in a direction I'm not particularly wanting to go in.

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

That's right. I don't see how it's relevant at all to the safety of those convictions. I think point would be stronger if there had been as many independent trials, but these convictions rely upon one another.

Prejudiced by one another, yes. I wouldn't say "rely" upon one another. She could have been found innocent for some cases and not all, but got convicted on all counts. I think the way you disregard the number of counts is similar to how you disregard the totality of evidence against her.

It's only as extreme as any other claim that there has been a serious MoJ.

I'd argue this is the most extreme. We can cite cases from over 50+ years ago, but it's certainly up there.

Are you on a wind up? I brought up that case because you had explicitly said that there were no similar cases. It wasn't even a good argument to begin with. I certainly haven't attempted in any way shape or form to argue that my healthy skepticism of the justice system is rooted in this single incident from 50 years ago.

I'm illustrating the gravity of claim you're making. The UK justice system is excellent in terms of measuring reasonable doubt and you're making these claims about 13 whole life orders.

We've already covered this. I explained to you that we our really bad at doing stats intuitively because we are pattern recognition machines. You agreed with that. There's literally no further we can go on this point until you read the analyses you asked for and I dutifully supplied

Yes, and then I said you don't need to perform rigorous statistical testing to reliably infer that something is more than 50% likely. Your counter about statisticians having already performed tests was weak.

If anybody lies (as in, intentionally says something false) in court on more or less any matter, their credibility is usually damaged, yes. I'd ask once more that you address my full point, though, rather than trying to push me in a direction I'm not particularly wanting to go in.

I completely agree. Now let's analyse how likely it is that Letby did indeed lie, because I think this is significant if true and I'm glad you agree. I also think it's very likely that she lied. I'll return to this.

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

Prejudiced by one another, yes. I wouldn't say "rely" upon one another.

They do rely upon one another. There's no reason to imagine, for example, that Letby specifically was the poisoner in the insulin cases if you don't suspect of her of the other things, because their theory as how she did it could implicate absolutely anybody.

I think the way you disregard the number of counts is similar to how you disregard the totality of evidence against her.

To some extent yes, because I'm looking at the quality of evidence, rather than the quantity of things presented as evidence. Similarly, I'm not too interested in how many things she was convicted of, I'm more interested in the safety of those convictions.

She could have been found innocent for some cases and not all, but got convicted on all counts.

That's not the case. I'm going to ask you once more to make sure you're in possession of the facts before you make an assertion because this is getting very tiresome.

I'm illustrating the gravity of claim you're making. The UK justice system is excellent in terms of measuring reasonable doubt and you're making these claims about 13 whole life orders.

The UK justice doesn't 'measure' reasonable doubt. Are you saying it consistently gets it right? I don't know that it does, but since it marks its own homework we don't have any way of knowing. It's probably better to look at the facts of the specific case at hand than try to rely on grandiosity and prestige, isn't it? You seem to want to make the case I'm being insufficiently deferent. Is that about the gist of it?

Yes, and then I said you don't need to perform rigorous statistical testing to reliably infer that something is more than 50% likely.

You might, it depends on what you're looking at. Certainly in a case such as this, you absolutely would, which is why that analysis has been insofar as it can be. I'd ask you to look at those analyses because they explain far better than I ever could exactly what needs to be considered, how it needs to be considered, and why. I'd also ask you to reflect on why they sacked Jane Hutton, particularly in light of what she's come out and said since the trial.

I completely agree. Now let's analyse how likely it is that Letby did indeed lie, because I think this is significant if true and I'm glad you agree. I also think it's very likely that she lied. I'll return to this

Well you've already promised to return to quite a few things that you have simply abandoned, ao instead I propose you hunker down, read a lot more about the case, read what the expert panel have come out with as well, and the revelations form the Thirlwall enquiry, and come back to me when you have your ducks in a row.

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

They do rely upon one another. There's no reason to imagine, for example, that Letby specifically was the poisoner in the insulin cases if you don't suspect of her of the other things, because their theory as how she did it could implicate absolutely anybody.

That's not the case. I'm going to ask you once more to make sure you're in possession of the facts before you make an assertion because this is getting very tiresome.

I disagree. The jury could have said they didn't have enough evidence to find her guilty on some counts, particularly those where different methods of killing were alleged.

The UK justice doesn't 'measure' reasonable doubt. Are you saying it consistently gets it right? I don't know that it does, but since it marks its own homework we don't have any way of knowing. It's probably better to look at the facts of the specific case at hand than try to rely on grandiosity and prestige, isn't it? You seem to want to make the case I'm being insufficiently deferent. Is that about the gist of it.

Reasonable doubt is the threshold beyond which someone is convicted of murder , so that's what I mean by measuring reasonable doubt. Do you agree that you're claiming that the UK justice system has made a mistake worse than nearly any other in its history?

Well you've already promised to return to quite a few things that you have simply abandoned, ao instead I propose you hunker down, read a lot more about the case, read what the expert panel have come out with as well, and the revelations form the Thirlwall enquiry, and come back to me when you have your ducks in a row.

"That I've simply abandoned"? I haven't at all. Pretty strange assumption. Not sure why it's so hard to comprehend I might want to respond in detail to more complex points that require more detail later.

I agree that lying in court speaks to a witness' integrity I don't agree that it's significant whether she specifically lied about whether or not she had forgotten she had the forms. I'd be looking for evidence, not an analysis of likelihood.

I'd recommend applying a likelihood based approach. Letby supporters rely on "this isn't certain so we can't say she's guilty". If you actually weigh up the state's points against Letby, it's clear she's probably guilty. Letby supporters will happily stack a mountain of red flags on top of one another and call it a day.

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

I disagree. The jury could have said they didn't have enough evidence to find her guilty on some counts, particularly those where different methods of killing were alleged.

They did in fact say that. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Do you agree that you're claiming that the UK justice system has made a mistake worse than nearly any other in its history?

I think it's made a mistake with greater consequences for a single person than most of its others, yes. The substance of the mistake is the same as any other number of unsafe murder convictions, however. What I'm getting at is that it wouldn't require any more negligence than would any other unsafe murder conviction, essentially.

Reasonable doubt is the threshold beyond which someone is convicted of murder , so that's what I mean by measuring reasonable doubt.

The court does not take a 'measure' of reasonable doubt. The jury is charged with the task of deciding the facts. If they are finding in favour of the prosecution, their decision must in theory be beyond reasonable doubt. Since that's apparently too confusing, the instruction has recently changed to 'you must be sure.'

I'd recommend applying a likelihood based approach. Letby supporters rely on "this isn't certain so we can't say she's guilty". If you actually weigh up the state's points against Letby, it's clear she's probably guilty. Letby supporters will happily stack a mountain of red flags on top of one another and call it a day.

I suspect the jury took the same approach, as the prosecution invited them to. We're just going back to my original point though, that this sort of intuitive approach isn't appropriate for this sort of case. Since you won't even look at the statistical analyses I have provided you with, we'll quickly arrive at the same impasse.

"That I've simply abandoned"? I haven't at all. Pretty strange assumption. Not sure why it's so hard to comprehend I might want to respond in detail to more complex points that require more detail later.

It's been a long time since I was first promised more detail on these doctored notes.

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

The court does not take a 'measure' of reasonable doubt. The jury is charged with the task of deciding the facts. If they are finding in favour of the prosecution, their decision must in theory be beyond reasonable doubt. Since that's apparently too confusing, the instruction has recently changed to 'you must be sure.'

I don't mean measure it quantitatively like actually producing a p-value. I'm basically saying the system is excellent at gauging / determining (measuring) guilt.

I suspect the jury took the same approach, as the prosecution invited them to. We're just going back to my original point though, that this sort of intuitive approach isn't appropriate for this sort of case. Since you won't even look at the statistical analyses I have provided you with, we'll quickly arrive at the same impasse.

I can see why you're opposed to the "intuitive" approach, but if you don't employ that approach, it would actually be quite easy to get away with murder. Just make sure the blame can potentially be pinned on someone else and you're fine.

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

I can see why you're opposed to the "intuitive" approach, but if you don't employ that approach, it would actually be quite easy to get away with murder. Just make sure the blame can potentially be pinned on someone else and you're fine.

Mr Baker said: "In light of what we know now, we might wonder why.”

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

Yeah, so that's just a lawyer playing with numbers. That enquiry is over; we never did hear any more of this.

Okay, basically the 1% figure is 'per nurse per baby' ( https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cevywl7jmm3o ) which is a wild and incomprehensible way of presenting the numbers not used in a clinical setting, while the 40% is allegedly the portion of Lucy's shifts specifically where a dislodgement occurred.

The two figures are not directly comparable. You have to wonder why standard clinical figures have not been used.

You want to be looking at a per ventilator hour figure on average specifically for Liverpool, which is the traditional way of measuring dislodgement. We don't have that. In light of what we know now, we might wonder why!

[-]

DevilsFlange@reddit

You need to get a life. Seriously listen to yourself. Absolute shambles. 🤣

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

You are the one digging through 8-week old comments. Glass houses and all that!

[-]

meandmyflock@reddit

I think they did that in the latest Panorama doc.

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

I think they're going to have change that because there was an obvious basic arithmetic error.

They gave the 1% figure 100 squares representing 10 shifts.

They gave Letby 50 squares representing 50 shifts, instead of 500 squares.

[-]

meandmyflock@reddit

Give it up mate lol

andytimms67@reddit

With international journalists not allowed in the conflict zones to independently verify, we have a situation that’s not apples for apples. One the weight of evidence we can summise that all is not well in Israel but the actual extent of the destruction and loss of life cannot be verified and won’t be until parties not invested in either side can have eyes on it. The perception is what’s going on there is horrific. We have to wait to see just how bad it is.

[-]

WelderGeneral776@reddit

I agree with you. Whilst individual pieces of evidence could possibly be given an alternative explanation, the totality of evidence when added together goes beyond coincidence to me. I think the new solicitor is doing a great PR job but the court of appeal wasn't satisfied with the evidence presented to ask for an appeal.

She certainly wasn't scapegoated, the execs went above and beyond their own HR policies to protect her.

I think the situation here is that we only hear Letby's side, her legal and PR team, her face everywhere. With most other serious crimes, we see the victims side, such as missing murdered or abused children, domestic violence pictures etc. The family absolutely have a right to privacy but I think public opinion would be different if we saw interviews from the parents, and photos of the babies.

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

public opinion would be different if we saw interviews from the parents, and photos of the babies.

You're not more guilty of a crime because your alleged victims are more sympathetic. What a horrible thing to think.

I feel awful for these parents, but justice for their kids is not the same thing as locking away an innocent person.

[-]

Independent-Try4352@reddit

There are also multiple incidents in the same hospital where she wasn't on shift, but these were not presented at the trial.

I can't comment on her guilt or innocence...but unlike Beverley Allitt (who everyone had a negative opinion of - from colleagues to teachers to her ex boyfriend), nothing has come to light regarding Lucy's personal life/mental health/friendships prior.

Someone who gets to the point of killing babies doesn't just come out of a vacuum...there would have been signs, like there were in Beverley's case (so, so many red flags) and I guess you'd expect that because a baby murderer would have to be highly disturbed.

I think people are ignoring the obvious points.

Someone who is not guilty is not so evasive. Yes you have to be smart when questioned by police but she couldn't explain a thing or try to.
TOO many babies going down in the same location. She's guilty.. I don't think a jury needs to have a medical degree to get this one right given the logs and facts they had.

The reason she chose not to answer anything, was to not trap herself on the record or implicate herself. Instead, she took her chances trying to appeal to the defence as a shy , introverted nurse who knew nothing. She gambled and lost.

[-]

Standard-Metal9148@reddit

So how do you explain no deaths, Lucy shows up… a ton of baby deaths… Lucy leaves, deaths stop. You don’t need to work in the field to use common sense and basic math to conclude she killed those babies.

[-]

p1p68@reddit

I have reasonable doubt. Her diary scribbling being a part of her homework from therapy.

The down grading of the ward explaining no deaths since her removal. Ambiguous indeed.

The warning from one judge to the presiding judge over concern of expert witness.

Just because somebody doesn't cry hysterically doesn't make them guilty we all react in unique ways.

Her truly awful defensive team.

Proper-Car2084@reddit

If she was innocent why does she only say no comment when being interrogated instead of being forthright and defending her innocence. Why would they move her suddenly babies stop dying and start dying during her day shift. Why would her notes say murderer, siting anxiety. Theres just too much evidence against her. She had that look of no remorse like a sociopath.

[-]

Boring_Pie8907@reddit

Saying no comment is not an admission of guilt. Everybody has the right to remain silent and she was probably advised to do so by her solicitor. Everything you have just mentioned is circumstantial and I hope you are never called up for Jury duty.

[-]

[-]

heysanatomy1@reddit

I followed 'The Trial Of Lucy Letby' Podcast when it first aired which gave an unbiased and objective account of the trials as they happened.

The thing that stuck with me the most is the fact that Lucy admitted that some of the babies could only have died from unnatural causes and she was the only nurse giving care at the time

[-]

Ecstatic_Log9059@reddit

Or how about , if you get accused of something so serious , you don’t just sit there, when arrested . I know I’d be screaming bloody murder that I’m innocent !

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

gave an unbiased and objective account of the trials as they happened

It has since come out that that podcast had a financial relationship with Operation Hummingbird, the police task force set up to investigate Letby.

The thing that stuck with me the most is the fact that Lucy admitted that some of the babies could only have died from unnatural causes

Can I ask why that struck you? It seems a reasonable thing to think if someone claiming to be an expert is supposed to have said that.

and she was the only nurse giving care at the time

You're talking about the insulin poisonings, in which case she wasn't even on shift half the time she was supposed to have been doing it, which is why they had to come up with an elaborate theory involving giving sets.

[-]

AccomplishedOil254@reddit

It's a weird argument that one isn't it: 'She agreed there was an attack on a baby so she must have been the attacker.'

Such an enormous leap. I find with a lot of people who think Lucy Letby is definitely guilty, their knowledge of the case is sometimes very, very good. They are able to reel off the names of Jr doctors or nurses who were working there and the times of deaths and all manner of facts. It's impressive. But the way they then put those facts together or jump over the logical steps to put together a cogent case is bewildering. Like UFOlogists, they can tell you all about the times and dates of UFO sightings and who the witness was and what they saw but then leap to an extraordinary conclusion.

[-]

Well, no, she flatly agreed that there was a poisoner. There was no if in what she said - this is a small point but without actually looking into the case you're going to keep getting details wrong.

Okay, so... I think it was a naive answer, as would many who question the safety of the convictions, but I don't think anyone is claiming she was overawed by the occasion. She had heard the evidence the experts gave on the insulin, and at that moment, felt that they must be right about what they thought had transpired in the abstract.

Now... what's being put to you, quite straightforwardly I think, is the question of why on earth that would have any baring whatsoever on the likelihood that those experts were right?

What you've said there is that you think even most Letby 'supporters' would agree with that, but we're anticipating a Chase and Shannon study (who are experts in a much more specific way on neonates and insulin than the experts at trial) who have concluded otherwise and will form part of the expert panel reports ultimately submitted to the CoA with any luck.

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

Well, no, she flatly agreed that there was a poisoner. There was no if in what she said - this is a small point but without actually looking into the case you're going to keep getting details wrong.

That poisoning theory was presented to her on the basis of test results and she agree there must have been a poisoner.

Now... what's being put to you, quite straightforwardly I think, is the question of why on earth that would have any baring whatsoever on the likelihood that those experts were right?

According to you she gave a "naive" answer to the question. I'm suggesting that "naivety" is inspired by guilt.

What you've said there is that you think even most Letby 'supporters' would agree with that, but we're anticipating a Chase and Shannon study (who are experts in a much more specific way on neonates and insulin than the experts at trial) who have concluded otherwise and will form part of the expert panel reports ultimately submitted to the CoA with any luck. They will argue that even if the tests are correct, there is a plausible mechanism by which those results can occur without the presence of exogenous insulin when considering the physiology of preterm infants.

Why side with the plausible possibility of the results occurring without the presence of exogenous over the typical cause of those results?

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

I'm suggesting that "naivety" was inspired by guilt.

It could be; it could also simply be that she could not contest the evidence put forward by the prosecution as to whether or not a poisoning had taken place because she doesn't have the relevant expertise to do so. The non-naive thing to do would be to say that she's not in a position to answer.

Why side with the plausible possibility of the results occurring without the presence of exogenous insulin over the typical cause of those results?

Because I think that that would constitute reasonable doubt had it been put to the jury.
Because we already know of another baby Y, who also had these strange tests results and who was diagnosed with a disorder by someone training to be a diabetes specialist. Had they brought that case, they'd have had to introduce her incredibly exculpatory police interview into evidence, which is almost certainly why they didn't. That police interview was accidentally on the Thirlwall document cache for several hours.
Because of the total implausibility of the methods by which Letby is supposed to have done the poisoning, which makes no sense and had to be introduced in the middle of the trial when a witness for the prosecution told the court there had been a bag change.

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

Because I think that that would constitute reasonable doubt had it been put to the jury.

I doubt we're ever going to agree on the threshold for reasonable doubt being met, so maybe we should focus on determining whether it's more / less than 50% likely she's guilty.

Because we already know of another baby Y, who also had these strange tests results and who was diagnosed with a disorder by someone training to be a diabetes specialist. Had they brought that case, they'd have had to introduce her incredibly exculpatory police interview into evidence, which is almost certainly why they didn't as it would have destroyed the other two cases (that kind of evidence is cross-admissible). That police interview was accidentally on the Thirlwall document cache for several hours.

So your theory is that babies F and L might also have suffered congenital hyperinsulinism?

Because of the total implausibility of the methods by which Letby is supposed to have done the poisoning, which makes no sense and had to be introduced in the middle of the trial when a witness for the prosecution told the court there had been a bag change. Prior to that, they had not investigated sufficiently to find that out, which I find quite startling, but speaks to the poor quality of the investigation as a whole. They had to change the theory into this convoluted mess in order to try to get around that witness's plain evidence.

IV line / bag contamination are methods that have been employed by other serial killers. Why do you think this is particularly implausible?

I can see why you think it weakens the prosecution's case that the theory was introduced mid-trial, but surely the insulin test results were enough of a premise to pursue this line of inquiry.

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

I doubt we're ever going to agree on the threshold for reasonable doubt being met, so maybe we should focus on determining whether it's more / less than 50% likely she's guilty.

No. I refuse to be dragged into silly lay statistics.

So your theory is that babies F and L might also have suffered congenital hyperinsulinism?

No, I don't have a theory because I'm not a medical expert. I'm simply explaining that the picture is much more complicated than was presented at trial; In this context, that other possibilities exist because there was one right in front of them at the same hospital in roughly the same time period.

IV line / bag contamination are methods that have been employed by other serial killers. Why do you think this is particularly implausible?

That's not the bit that's implausible. The prosecution's case does not implicate Letby any more than anybody else and would require the person who did it, Letby or not, to have the power to see into the future.

I can see why you think the theory being introduced mid-trial weakens the prosecution's case, but surely the insulin test results were enough of a premise to pursue this line of inquiry.

There's no relationship between being justified in pursuing a line of enquiry and introducing an absurd theory mid trial to get around the fact that a key witness just destroyed the much more plausible one one you wanton with.

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

No. I refuse to be dragged into silly lay statistics.

Trying to determine whether she probably committed the crime is silly?

No, I don't have a theory because I'm not a medical expert. I'm simply explaining that the picture is much more complicated than was presented at trial; In this context, that other possibilities exist because there was one right in front of them at the same hospital in roughly the same time period.

I can see why Baby Y's test was misleading. By chance it suffered from a disorder that would cause that result. It would be very irrational to factor that into Baby F and L's test results beyond the possibility that those two babies suffered from the same disorder.

That's not the bit that's implausible. The prosecution's case does not implicate Letby any more than anybody else and would require the person who did it, Letby or not, to have the power to see into the future.

Why would they need to see into the future? Sorry if I'm missing the obvious.

There's no relationship between being justified in pursuing a line of enquiry and introducing an absurd theory mid trial to get around the fact that a key witness just destroyed the much more plausible one one you went into court with.

Well if the theory of insulin poisoning was completely unfounded then I'd agree it'd look like they were making it up as they went along. They went to court armed with the significant lab results. Discovering the mechanism by which it was administered mid-trial is forgivable in my opinion. I mean, you don't even need to know the mechanism to find her guilty.

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

If you prefer, we can simply the determine the safety the conviction, which doesn't require us to have a view on whether or not she actually did it. What I won't be doing is playing irresponsible numbers games. It's not up for debate.

I think it's intuitively simpler to try and gauge if she probably committed the crime, hence why I suggested trying to determine if it's more than 50% likely. Human beings don't tend to have a natural ability to measure likelihoods between 98 and 99.9% or whatever amounts to beyond reasonable doubt. The pro / anti Letby camps are never going to agree on the conviction being safe whereas as someone who thinks the conviction is unsafe could very much agree that she probably committed the crime.

It wasn't misleading at all, it told the clinician who made the diagnosis exactly what she needed to know. This is why it would have been so damaging to have to disclose her evidence.

Oh yeah, of course. I mean it wasn't indicative of deliberate insulin injection / administering.

Sorry, I don't know what you mean there. Can you rephrase please? The prosecution argued that there was no possible natural explanation for the test result. I'm putting forward the fact that there was at least one.

It does indeed prove there was at least one. My point is that all this Baby Y case does is show that it's possible that there could be a natural explanation for the result. It doesn't do much to reduce the likelihood that the explanation was unnatural. The probability that both babies F and L both suffered from congenital hyperinsulinism are very low.

The original theory was that Letby made a targeted attack on Child F because he was a sibling of another alleged victim. Child F had a custom TPN bag from the pharmacy, which they allege she poisoned. All plausible, since she'd have known it was going to him. Her opportunity, they said, was at the time it was hung because that's when you would break the seal, which you need to do to poison the bag. What's more, it must have been her because only she and one other nurse hung the bag, and that nurse was not present for the alleged poisoning of Child L. So far so good.

It came out in trial that the line tissued and that bag was replaced with another standard bag from the fridge long after Letby had gone off duty. The prosecution attempted to allege that the nurses simply didn't follow protocol and change the bag as they should have, but that wasn't sustainable because it would be such an irregular breach of protocol you can't really entertain it without some serious proof, so NJ sort of teased it and then abandoned it IIRC. Another allegation involved the giving set, that they had changed the bag but not the gubbins that wired it all up and piped it in. The problem with that is similar; it's just not sustainable to go around accusing random nurses of gross negligence in the middle of the murder trial of another nurse who you are trying to suggest is solely responsible.

Finally, they alleged that Letby must have poisoned one of the normal TPN bags as well as the pharmacy one. To maintain that this was a targeted attack, you would have to imagine that Letby knew the line would tissue, so the bag would have to be replaced (how on earth could she know that?) and that she knew exactly which generic TPN bag from a haphazard pile in the fridge would be hung in its place. It was never really remarked on how on earth she managed to poison the bag without tearing off the seal, which is interesting given that they had already alleged that she must be guilty because it isn't possible to do that.

Are you still with me? Obviously, it was never explained how they could know it was Letby if anyone who had access to the fridge at any time before that bag change could have done it; they just skirted over the fact that the new theory couldn't really implicate anyone who was anywhere at a particular time and relied on what they already alleged re: timings with respect to the old theory.

Given the options, here, I'd tend to say that there's no compelling evidence of a poisoning by anybody, let alone by a specific person.

I have completely followed what you've said and agree that's it's difficult to work out how Letby managed to execute the poisoning. The prosecution don't seem to have come up with a compelling narrative for thsi either.

[-]

DisastrousBuilder966@reddit

all this Baby Y case does is show that it's possible that there could be a natural explanation for the result. It doesn't do much to reduce the likelihood that the explanation was unnatural. The probability that both babies F and L both suffered from congenital hyperinsulinism are very low.

That's if the universe of possibilities consists only of congenital hyperinsulinism or attempted murder. But there are also "unknown unknowns" -- possibilities that we haven't thought of. Unknown physiological phenomena, unknown testing confounders, unknown pharmacy or manufacturing errors. When there is lots of comparable data, the chance of these can be bounded, but there isn't in this case.

The insulin results were ignored when they first came in, despite not having an explanation, precisely because odd results happen with some regularity and almost always don't reflect purposed harm. Doctors sensibly assumed that the results reflect some "unknown unknowns", and that assumption is still sensible.

And in the question of "could this arise innocently", "this" is not "insulin tests" but "any odd results", since that's what they looked for. How likely is it to find some odd results in a trawl of many tests results of many types from many cases? This can only be answered with a proper blinded statistical test, and it's not clear that the answer is "less likely than a killer nurse". But the judge refused the defense's request for info on cases examined but not charged, as "irrelevant". That's like claiming "we saw a coin land 'heads' five times in a row" without revealing how many flips were examined.

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

It does indeed prove there was at least one. My point is that all this Baby Y case does is show that it's possible that there could be a natural explanation for the result. It doesn't do much to reduce the likelihood that the explanation was unnatural. The probability that both babies F and L both suffered from congenital hyperinsulinism are very low.

Yeah I don't need to do any of that, I just need to show that it was wrong for the prosecution not to mention other more plausible reasons for the result, particularly in light of the fact they were having difficulty making the logistics their allegation work.

it's difficult to work out how Letby managed to execute the poisoning.

Almost like if you arrive at a conclusion and then try to work backwards from that to figure out how it could fit with the facts, you end up with a hopelessly convoluted theory that contradicts your original allegation.

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

Yeah I don't need to do any of that, I just need to show that it was wrong for the prosecution not to mention other more plausible reasons for the result, particularly in light of the fact they were having difficulty making the logistics their allegation work.

So you're acting like Letby's defence team looking for a route of appeal? That is a possible avenue of appeal I guess. I feel like this is all the pro-Letby campaign amounts to. Digging for reasonable doubt. I'm not particularly against that. I just find it ridiculous that people think she's genuinely innocent.

Almost like if you arrive at a conclusion and then try to work backwards from that to figure out how it could fit with the facts you run into hot water. It's just not feasible, is it?

It's perfectly feasible when you're not required to prove the mechanism by which the act was carried out.

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

So you're acting like Letby's defence team looking for a route of appeal? That is a possible avenue of appeal I guess. I feel like this is all the pro-Letby campaign amounts to. Digging for reasonable doubt. I'm not particularly against that. I just find it ridiculous that people think she's genuinely innocent.

No, I'm explaining to you why there is cause for reasonable doubt that the jury would not have been aware of. Why do you find it 'ridiculous' that people think she's genuinely innocent, given everything I've told you?

It's perfectly feasible when you're not required to prove the mechanism by which the act was carried out.

Sorry, no. This is a legal thing that makes a lot of sense in a lot of cases - for example, where a body has not been recovered. However, the prosecution's entire case revolves around a series of particular events (i.e. with a discrete time and place attached to them) that they deem suspicious. If there is no explanation as to why those events are suspicious and no others, then Letby's presence at them bears no relevance whatsoever and the entire case falls apart.

The conclusion was that she poisoned babies. Not that she poisoned them using a particular mechanism.

And leaving aside the disputed test results, which simply indicate that there may have been a poisoning by someone, what is the evidence that it was specifically her apart from timings derived from an alleged method that you say is irrelevant? I'll help you out with this. There is none at all.

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

Trying to determine whether she probably committed the crime is silly?

If you prefer, we can simply the determine the safety the conviction, which doesn't require us to have a view on whether or not she actually did it. What I won't be doing is playing irresponsible numbers games. It's not up for debate.

I can see why Baby Y's test was misleading. By chance it suffered from a disorder that would cause that result. It would be very irrational to factor that into Baby F and L's test results beyond the possibility that those two babies suffered from the same disorder.

It wasn't misleading at all, it told the clinician who made the diagnosis exactly what she needed to know. This is why it would have been so damaging to have to disclose her evidence.

It would be very irrational to factor that into Baby F and L's test results beyond the possibility that those two babies suffered from the same disorder

Sorry, I don't know what you mean there. Can you rephrase please?

Why would they need to see into the future? Sorry if I'm missing the obvious.

The original theory was that Letby made a targeted attack on Child F because he was a sibling of another alleged victim. Child F had a custom TPN bag from the pharmacy, which they allege she poisoned. All plausible, since she'd have known it was going to him. Her opportunity, they said, was at the time it was hung because that's when you would break the seal. What's more, it must have been her because only she and one other nurse hung the bag, and that nurse was not present for the alleged poisoning of Child L. So far so good.

It came out in trial that the line tissued and that bag was replaced with another standard bag from the fridge long after Letby had gone off duty. The prosecution attempted to allege that the nurses simply didn't follow protocol and change the bag as they should have, but that wasn't sustainable because it would be such an irregular breach of protocol you can't really entertain it without some serious proof, so NJ sort of teased it and then abandoned it IIRC.

Finally, they alleged that Letby must have poisoned one of the normal TPN bags as well as the pharmacy one. To maintain that this was a targeted attack, you would have to imagine that Letby knew the line would tissue and the bag would replaced (how on earth could she know that?) and that she knew exactly which generic TPN bag from a haphazard pile in the fridge would be hung in its place, and how on earth she managed to poison the bag without tearing off the seal (remember that they alleged in the original theory that she must've done it because the moment you tear off that seal to hang it is your only opportunity?).

Are you still with me? Obviously, it was never explained how they could know it was Letby if anyone who had access to the fridge at any time before that bag change could have done it; they just skirted over the fact that the new theory couldn't really implicate anyone who was anywhere at a particular time and relied one what they already alleged re: timings with respect to the old theory.

[-]

DisastrousBuilder966@reddit

What she was agreeing to was that if the insulin test was accurate, someone must have deliberately poisoned the baby.

She said she agreed, based on the tests, that "they had insulin". That includes possibilities of pharmacy errors and medication errors. But again, what does her comment on the tests have to do with anything? It's what an innocent nurse presented with the tests would have said.

I'm sorry. I really can't make heads or tails of what your thought process is and I am trying.

Tell you what. Let's try something. I'll ask a question and all you do is answer yes or no.

In reality or to the best of our knowledge, was William Churchill murdered?

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

I would say no.

[-]

AccomplishedOil254@reddit

Brilliant. Now, if a person asked me "Do you agree Winston Churchill was murdered?"

And I said "Yes, I agree"

Does that mean that: 1. Winston Churchill was, in fact, murdered 2. That I am, in fact, his murderer

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

No
No

[-]

AccomplishedOil254@reddit

Thank you for humouring me. So if LL said "Yes, I agree this baby was murdered."

Does that mean that: 1.The baby was, in fact, murdered 2. That she is, in fact, the murderer

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

It increases the likelihood, definitely.

Why was Letby so cornered by Johnson’s questioning that she had to pretty much concede the baby was poisoned? That surely implies she’s been cornered with sharp logic.

If it is true that a baby was murdered, who are we putting at the top of the league table of suspects. Hmmm wouldn’t the one who wrote “I’m evil, I did this” would it?

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

Why was Letby so cornered by Johnson’s questioning that she had to pretty much concede the baby was poisoned?

Have you actually read the trial transcript? It's not some masterful logical cornering, it's right at the start of the cross where they're having a bit of back and forth on what her view is on figures she had previously disputed in light of the prosecution's case.

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

So it was easy cornering?

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

No, I'm saying that she wasn't cornered, which you would know if you had looked at the transcripts. I don't understand why you're so prepared to just guess at things rather than look into them.

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

So she wasn't cornered, but still conceded that a baby must have been harmed? My interpretation from the dialogue was that she was very awkward and struggling with what was presented to her by Johnson. Was that not your interpretation?

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

My interpretation of what?

Nothing had been presented to her by Johnson at that moment. They're simply establishing her position is right at the start of cross.

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

My interpretation of what?

The reporting of the way she responded to the theory presented to her like when Johnson says "That's why it's a targeted attack, isn't it?" and Letby doesn't answer.

Johnson pressures her again with "What do you say?" and she responds "Not by me it wasn't".

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

You could just read the transcript; the 'admission' is before this - the first time child F is mentioned at all. So there's no pressuring, there's no 'cornering,' there is amazing Johnson special where Letby was bamboozled and caught out in her web of lies or whatever, it's just this:

Q. And the motive for apportioning blame onto you is what, please?

A. I believe to cover failings at the hospital.

Q. Right. Well, just so that you can be thinking about it, in each case I will ask you questions so that you can explain to the jury what the failings were, alright?

A. Okay.

Q. By and large you haven't been asked those questions yet, but I will ask them. I'm not going to ask you now as a general point because it's not sufficiently precise. What I will do, though, is ask you in each case what the failings are. So would you think about that so that you can answer the questions in due course?

A. Yes, I will.

Q. Thank you. Do you agree that Child F was poisoned with insulin?

A. Yes, I agree that he had insulin, yes.

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

hmm, I assumed it was pressured because it was such a dramatic statement. She does seem reluctant to admit it, but realises she has to.

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

Why assume anything? Why not just read it? It's not dramatic at all.

She does seem reluctant to admit it, but realises she has to.

Where are you getting this from?

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

Why not just read absolutely all material available before commenting on anything I suppose? Good point I guess.

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

Or comment with a view to finding things out rather than to argue with your mind made up based on misinformation.

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

I'm pretty happy with the essence of the point I made. I think her admission is indicative of guilt and that she felt compelled to make that admission under the pressure of the case presented to her. It doesn't feel like a game changer when I find out that Johnson didn't perform a masterclass to corner her into making that admission. I still think it was Johnson's skill that let to the admission and even if it wasn't that wouldn't be change the overarching argument I'm making.

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

I still think it was Johnson's skill that let to the admission

This is a faith-based conclusion that runs counter to the facts I have just presented you with. I can't help you if your final conclusion will always simply be to ignore reality.

[-]

When Rowan uses the words 'my interpretation' what they seem to mean is 'the story my brain invented after reading a half a headline'.

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

It does sometimes seem that way, yes.

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

Interesting interpretation.

[-]

AccomplishedOil254@reddit

It increases the likelihood, definitely.

To which of the two questions? Or both?

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

Both. Her saying she thinks the baby was poisoned is a massive statement. We’ve gone from what was once a dramatic claim to the suspect herself being cornered to the point of having to concede that malicious action occurred. If we assume the baby was attacked, then it’s a no brainer that Letby is top of the list of suspects.

[-]

AccomplishedOil254@reddit

I'm still a bit baffled by this thinking. I don't mean that disrespectfully, I just don't see the dots.

What makes your answer in scenario 1 with Winston, different to scenario 2?

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

You've created some kind of cognitive barrier that is blinding you from the obvious.

If the state spent months building a case that Winston Churchill was murdered and you conceded under cross examination that he must have been murdered despite being heavily incentivised and coached to argue the opposite , then of course that would add extra weight to the state's narrative.
If Winston Churchill had died under your care, few other people were in his vicinity at the time of his death, you'd written notes like "I'm evil, I killed him" and written retrospective medical notes after his collapse about his deterioration shortly before his collapse at times when colleagues claim he was perfectly stable then yes, you'd be at the top of the league table of suspects.

If we assume the baby was poisoned, as Letby conceded and you had the chance to win £1m for correctly identifying the baby's killer, you'd be pretty mental not choosing Letby.

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

We do not coach witnesses in the UK.

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

Pretty sure the defence team kind of helps the defendant prepare.

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

Well I wish you would stop being 'pretty sure,' frankly and double check things from time to time. You will now scroll to page 3, section B, paragraph 6 and avail yourself of the law please.

https://www.barcouncilethics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Witness-preparation-guidance-2019.pdf

So the difference is pre-existing assumptions?

LL agreeing that a baby was murdered is only important if we assume she's guilty?

If we don't assume she's guilty then it's not or less important?

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

Babies getting murdered is really unusual. If the state invest substantial resources building a case that this happened and then their prime suspect concedes that it must have happened that does somewhat advance their case without assuming it's true.

[-]

AccomplishedOil254@reddit

In reality, I really don't see that it makes a shred of difference.

That paragraph seems to have fallacies wrapped within assumptions wrapped within other fallacies. I can't even begin to unpick it.

I remember being shocked at how young she was with no previous convictions and a healthy background. No psycho tendencies or anything. How does somebody like that just go on to kill a bunch of innocent babies.

Them I learned it came back down to her injecting the babies with air because of the colour of their skin and how she was the one thing they all had in common. But then the man who invented this theory had come forward to say the skin would only change if it was directly injected into the skin and not the IV which is what ultimately convicted her. They didn’t find any puncture wounds on any of the babies and bear in mind all these babies were sick and premature already.

I don't think we should, but that's far better than blindly believing the conviction was completely safe.

She may well be guilty, but I don't believe the trial ever proved that enough, nor do I think a future one ever would either (in fact rather than opposite i'd think that would be much less likely, the amount of further evidence that's now out there).

[-]

UncleKreepy@reddit

Just watched the Netflix documentary. She's guilty no question.

[-]

Working_coven@reddit

I don’t think she is, and I don’t think people in her field think she is. It’s shocking how they turned everything around on her

[-]

purplemonkeydesigns@reddit

My initial thoughts are she looks like a super easy target to hone in on. I feel really sorry for her and her family. Someone evil would not be as empathetic to her mother seeing her being arrested and wanting to hug her cat before going. Sorry but every single step of the way she seems innocent to me and a scapegoat.

[-]

TheDukeOfTempsford@reddit

In my opinion Letby is clearly not guilty. Dewi Evans is a moron who tailors his evidence to whatever those that employ him require, just look into his past shenanigans for proof of this. A judge not associated with the Letby case got in touch withe the judge presiding over the Letby case to warn him that Dewi Evans testimony was not to e trusted. Those babies died because of systemic failure, low staffing levels, sewage issues and a whole host of other problems with the ward Letby worked on... the supposed written confessions on the post it notes: she was encouraged by a councillor to write down her inner thoughts AND if you scrutinise the whole of what she wrote there are other scribblings that seem to suggest she isn't guilty, the post it notes ARE NOT an admission of guilt, they are the scribblings of a very stressed young woman going through counselling.

Letby, I strongly believe, is someone not best suited to the awful type of situation she was thrust into by the Police and authorities, a bit like a rabbit caught in the headlights, and unable to defend herself properly, her defence also did an awful job of defending her, this and the shoddy "evidence" of Dewi Evans and others has had the effect of an innocent girl being thrown into jail forever, with no chance of parole. This is one of the worst miscarriages of justice ever.. there was no motive, no CCTV or direct witness to any wrongdoing, just retrospective massaging of statistics to arrive at a very dubious conclusion.

Impossible_Fall_79@reddit

I understand the medicine and statistics and am therefore 99.99999999% certain she is innocent and were no murders, just sick babies and bad medical care.

[-]

ProposalSuch2055@reddit

I think the vast majority of people who are capable of critical thought and followed the trail in some detail believe she is innocent.

[-]

Common-Spend5000@reddit

I'd consider myself someone who qualifies as both capable of critical thought and followed the trial and the aftermath in reasonable detail. I'm reasonably good with mathematics and statistics as well.

I don't believe she is innocent, I'll never know that either way 100%, and it's not really the point either.

But on the balance of probabilities it's staggering she was found guilty against the evidence the prosecution presented.

The case against her, after ten months, was still way too weak and only succeeded on emotional pulls, bamboozlement of statistics, circumstantial evidence compounded conveniently and selectively, and on gut feelings done in herd mentality.

And the Thirlwall inquiry is in some weird parallel universe with its head in the sand, continuing as it is in its present form.

The conviction is unsafe. Either she is innocent or the prosecution framed a guilty person due to a lack of real hard evidence. The further evidence there is the more it tends to show the opposite.

I don't think anything new will ever come to light by now that leads to her to more likely being guilty - bar some sort of confession, and even then in that scenario some confession will probably have more inconsistencies and contradictions against the evidence presented to date from the prosecution standpoint, where it would either bring even more doubt onto either its veracity, or show that the prosecution was wrong in the hows but just got lucky. Too much of the prosecution evidence is contradictory regardless, and can't be wholly true, even if she was guilty.

Either way, she should walk free. Probably be offered anonymity afterwards too if she wants it.

[-]

Salt-Refrigerator270@reddit

Does anyone else here think this is classic Halo Effect at work? Sure sounds like it to me, but I wasn't there in court.

[-]

siobhanscats16@reddit

Anyone remember a case some years back, when a respected doctor was jailed for murdering her three babies?

It turned out they had died from a rare genetic condition. I often think of that.

[-]

Willing_Street3747@reddit

nearly as bad as the Postal workers

[-]

Pure-Kaleidoscope207@reddit

It may well not be the worst miscarriage of justice in modern times - it's just that this case has had a lot of media attention.

We don't have a justice system, we have a legal system that is occasionally just.

Think of all the cases where a jury finds someone not guilty, and they really aren't. Then imagine they got unlucky that day and had a jury that was more 'no smoke without fire' and found them guilty...

[-]

NegotiationNice569@reddit

It is the worst miscarriage ever beacuse they clearly is no crime. Usually there is s clear crime and a wrong person convicted. In this case there is no crime, thats why this stinks so badly. When you cant even prove murder occurred how do you prove somebody did it.

[-]

Traditional-Spot5127@reddit

Maybe it is a conspiracy. Maybe it is that Lucy Letby didnt back the torture and misfits and 'pervs' so she was set up and made to look like she committed the murders when really the deaths were just down to poor care.

The prosecution made case against her based on pulling her character through the mud. Like bullying they manufctured her to seem like a monster. It is the biggest miscarriage of justice in a long while.

[-]

ClareofallTrades@reddit

I usually have a very good sense of someone’s innocence or guilt and I usually see it instantly in their eyes, I’ve always thought she was innocent. As for her being still and unresponsive in court, I’d have probably been the same, too scared to show any emotion lest that be a sign of guilt or any other negative label that likely someone would pin on me. As for so many deaths on her shifts, when you become more aware, you see the spiritual side of life, you can see patterns like this, God is always holding a mirror up to us to show us issues within ourselves or to bring things to our awareness. For example if we are holding all our pain inside, we may attract painful situations..to help trigger our emotions..if someone has a disease they might not know they have, they might attract people into their lives with that disease, it all can sound a bit farfetched if you’re not so aware of life, but we’ve all seen or heard of incidences where an abused child has later in life attracted abusive partners or a mother who may have miscarried, keeps attracting people with newborns etc so for all we know she just attracted those situations to show her something. It does not necessarily mean she must have done it..

[-]

gdearsley50@reddit

Remember Paul Foot’s book Who Killed Hanratty? ….the A6 “murderer”. Foot won prizes for his work. Years later they dug up Hanratty’s body and DNA proved he was guilty!!

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

The difference.

You just saying Winston Churchill was murdered doesn’t carry much weight. If you were stood in court being cross examined by the state who have spent months building a case that Churchill was murdered and you’re heavily incentivised to argue against this claim, but still have to agree with it under heavy pressure from the logical strength of the state’s narrative, that would add considerable weight to the case that he was murdered
If Winston Churchill was under your care at the time of his death and few other people was in his vicinity at this time and you’d written notes like “I did it, I killed him” and written suspicious retrospective medical notes about his deterioration prior to dying despite him having seemed completely stable 1 hour before his collapse, then you will be somewhere near the top of the likely suspects.

Imagine you have the opportunity to win £1m if you correctly identify the baby’s killer, assuming as Letby conceded under cross examination that he / she was poisoned. Are you really not going to choose Letby? You’d be insane not to.

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

For number one, stop and think carefully about why that in your view 'would add considerable weight to the case that he was murdered.' If you're operating from a presumption of innocence, the agreement from the stand is simply coming from that of a lay person with no special expertise as to the validity of the expert evidence put forward nor any special knowledge of the crime.

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

I disagree. Lucy Letby is an excellent witness. Why does she have to be an expert witness to be useful?

[-]

PerkeNdencen@reddit

On this specific point? Because only an expert could plausibly speak to the validity of the tests at hand. Why would Letby, or any other nurse, be able to do this?

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

Okay. I appreciate your point and agree her statement was not scientifically credible.

I think if we view this from a humanistic perspective, it's quite telling that Letby entertained and actually accepted the idea of a baby being deliberately harmed. You can argue she only agreed because of the expert statement presented to her, but if I'm innocent in her shoes, I'm still not accepting should a heavy allegation.

[-]

RowanB86@reddit

I can see why it seems circular but it isn’t. It’s just using the power of the court’s judgement to attest her guilt.

If the stats analysis you’re referring to is the rota showing deaths vs when Lucy was present , I’m not referring to that. I don’t even think the rota was a major component of the prosecution’s case.

I believe the prosecution’s case regarding the handover notes is that a lot of notes she held were innocuous but a disproportionate number related to the deaths of babies in her care and many can’t be explained by the accidental pocket theory. It simply didn’t make any sense to take them home, indicating some kind of warped interest in the death of babies.

Smoking guns were claimed but haven’t seen one.

I didn't watch it and have no personal view on whether or not she is guitly as charged.

What I do know is that her trial was a shambolic affair that exposed everything that is wrong with the British justice system. There was no smoking gun - nothing but bits of circumstantial evidence linking here. On a factual basis, there was NO way she could be convicted.

But it was a jury trial and juries are swayed by emotions - she was basically convicted for being slightly behaviourally odd.

I can relate - as a child I used to have a habit of laughing when accused of something - it was the way stress played out in me - unusual, but far from unknown. This was sufficient to brand me guilty so I ended up in trouble for all kinds of things I didn't actually do.

I can't recall the exact details now with Letby, but I remember how everyday there was a headline about something she was supposed to have said or done, and with all of it, my thoughts were "So?".

But in this world, when judged by peers, being a bit weird is all it takes.

[-]

meandmyflock@reddit

Not a doubt in my mind she's guilty. Please watch the panorama doc on Monday night. She ain't getting out. Babies don't just collapse the minute other staff members leave. It was always that ghoul there when any incident happened. No nurse is that unlucky. And she was obsessed with getting in the room with the sickest babies, obsessed with being given a dying baby, obsessed with hanging round grieving parents to the point she had to be asked to leave the room. Stalked them on facebook, hoarded hundreds of handover sheets, fished a discarded note some other nurse had thrown away out of a BIN and kept it as a trophy. Why in the world do people think she's innocent?

[-]

Caldwelk66@reddit

The documentary didn't really claim that it was an objective truth finder. It just sought to highlight the various inconsistencies in the prosecution case that under normal circumstances would at least rule out her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There were too many problems with the evidence and the Police seemed more intent on finding evidence to support their view that she was guilty rather than investigate who or what was responsible. There were even more issues not mentioned in the documentary such as the reports of bacteria in the taps of the baby unit at the time. The parents of the deceased babies deserve to know the truth about what really happened.

[-]

Not watched the doc but have been reading private eye on it. There’s certainly an awful lot of question marks and potentially suspect evidence in the original convictions. As to whether she’s guilty of the charges I don’t think any of us can say based on a documentary and some print journalism, but it definitely seems like the convictions are worthy of very serious official reexamination.

[-]

Psychological-Plum10@reddit

Innocent.

[-]

Old-Newspaper125@reddit

Tragic MoJ in my opinion.

"In another instance, Dr Dewi Evans had also changed his mind on a theory on how Baby C, one of the victims, had died.

It was said she had pumped air into its stomach but he later publicly went against this. He then said he would write a new report, after the murder conviction*, and said she had instead injected air into the baby’s veins."*

Eavns also claimed an x-ray proved she'd harmed a baby - one problem, she was off work and had never even met the baby at that point

Evans initially finding 28 suspicious incidents - 10 of those were dropped when it was revealed Lucy was not on shift

It's also since been revealed, the only eyewitness, who claimed she did nothing to help a desaturating baby. Had actually sent an email say Letby had called for help.

The panel of 14 international experts finding no foul play. Natural causes of death and poor care from the hospital, taking vulnerable babies they said they were not capable of caring for (ward later downgraded).

[-]

Old-Newspaper125@reddit

another issue, with Dr J's claims about a tube dislodgement (taken from r/LucyLetbyTrials )

"The doctor who said that it’s impossible for an ETT (endotracheal tube), to dislodge spontaneously in a neonate and that it could only occur by a deliberate act, because small ventilated premature babies don’t move was either of zero experience and talking out of his backside, or lying. Small prems are being moved all the time - meds, nappies, bedding changes, turning for pressure area examination, cleaning, swabs, iv site inspections, cannula placements, etc all the time. One of the first things you do when their Oxygen saturations fall is to listen to the chest and then get a chest xray, to exclude, amongst other things, the ETT having moved. This doctor was 100% wrong. Ps I’m a retired doctor and previously worked on NICU/SCBU looking after 25 weeker’s. The trial was a sham and the quality of evidence presented by the prosecution was tragically laughable."

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Please help keep AskUK welcoming!

When repling to submission/post please make genuine efforts to answer the question given. Please no jokes, judgements, etc.
Don't be a dick to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
This is a strictly no-politics subreddit!

Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.