[News] Lucy Letby

[TimWatt]

Not only was she probably not guilty - given no direct evidence, faulty statistical and suspect 'expert' testimony and a defence barrister that did not call their own expert witness - there was probably no actual murder or deliberate harm.
All the babies deaths that were the subject of the trial were only on the ward in question due to their vulnerable health in the first place, but also many might not have been best treated there as it was not set up to deal with some of the most vulnerable/unhealthy. There also, if the international expert panel is to be trusted, appears too have been managerial issues to do with standards of care and undue blame of those on the front line rather than over standards of care.
Separately, a blame culture put undue pressure on to find fault from the tabloids, of it seems, a misogynistic nature, which might of been a factor in that the first trial found her case unproven and a second trial was only held to address that... So multiple errors showing much may be wrong with the justice system.

 

[tedebear]

I have read some writings about the jury sort of being presented a "if she didn't do it then how did it happen" point of view...Doesn't make me feel comfortable convicting someone on that basis, but that question should have been answered. Always made me wonder if she is a scape goat for poor care at that hospital... But it all just smells fishy. We'll end up with cameras on all neonatal wards as a result of this, well we should do anyhow.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

And Axel Rudakubana is the counterweight.

Minors don’t get executed. The law was changed in 1933.

 

[METALMICKY]

So as long as we get it 50% right eh!

Indeed. Because everyone loves an ' oops we got that wrong ' formally known as a posthumous pardon.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

And Axel Rudakubana is the counterweight.

his time in jail will be worse than death.

 

[keaton]

If she isn't guilty, what happened instead?

Not that her defence should have to suggest that, but is it a case of a case of extremely bad luck or something else?

A lot of very vulnerable babies at an underfunded and understaffed unit that shouldn't have been dealing with that sort of cases died due a variety of factors. That's what happened to all the similar cases that occurred at the unit when she wasn't on duty apparently

 

[Dorset Seagull]

If she isn't guilty, what happened instead?

Not that her defence should have to suggest that, but is it a case of a case of extremely bad luck or something else?

I read a long piece on the case a while back and as far as I can remember the gist was that most/all of the babies on that ward were transferred there because they had problems that the hospitals they were at couldn't deal with. So it seems that by default these were babies that were experiencing serious issues and therefore vulnerable anyway so a high mortality rate would not have been unusual.

I remember after reading about it that the conviction was certainly open to further scrutiny

 

[Clive Walker]

I remember when the case was ongoing and the panarama doc was being shown that I had an overwhelming feeling that locking someone up for ever due to circumstantial evidence seemed a big leap. Nobody I spoke to felt the same so I shut my mouth.

 

[The Optimist]

I felt uneasy about this case from quite early on. It wasn’t really about the specifics of this case, just that there’s been lots of past cases based on statistical evidence that has subsequently been shown to be wrong/ misleading.

 

[The Optimist]

I remember when the case was ongoing and the panarama doc was being shown that I had an overwhelming feeling that locking someone up for ever due to circumstantial evidence seemed a big leap. Nobody I spoke to felt the same so I shut my mouth.

I think the problem is the emotional reaction to how a nurse could murder babies overrides the need to slow down and consider if that’s what actually happened.

 

[The Clamp]

NHS cover up for the appalling state of infant care in our hospitals.

Let y is a scapegoat and I’ve said it for a while now.

She didn’t murder any babies.

 

[The Optimist]

I felt uneasy about this case from quite early on. It wasn’t really about the specifics of this case, just that there’s been lots of past cases based on statistical evidence that has subsequently been shown to be wrong/ misleading.

This being an example:

Lucia de Berk case - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

NHS cover up for the appalling state of ind st care in our hospitals.

Let y is a scapegoat and I’ve said it for a while now.

She didn’t murder any babies.

I've no idea, if she did or she didn't.

But there does seem to be a lot of reasonable doubt over it.

Read an article which suggested the same as you, one of the babies that died suffered from injury after a doctors error, so the scapegoat point of view does have some support.

 

[The Clamp]

A panel of internationally renowned medical experts and doctors held an investigation last month which went through each case of infant death that Letby was accused of slaying.

They found in each case that Letby could not have killed the infants.

The NHS has been trying to scare Letby and her defence team into not appealing.


It’s an absolutely appalling miscarriage of justice. Heads will roll if this is ever officially investigated.

 

[thedonkeycentrehalf]

How does that work then?
The sooner we get an A.I. jury the better.

Assuming this is a fishing exercise but even so, AI still follows the most basic of IT principles - garbage in, garbage out. Just like the human jury, if you don't give it all the information it won't necessarily come up with the right answer.

 

[dsr-burnley]

The essential problem is that statistical process has been abused and there were no experts on hand to point it out. (And by "experts", pretty much anyone with a statistics degree would do.)

There were 18 deaths investigated. They found that Letby was present at 8 of the deaths, so they discarded the other 10 cases and then said "Letby was the only one present at the 8 deaths, it must have been her". (As an aside, the system that records who was present at any given time has been found to be faulty.)

As for the causes of death, the initial causes of death were thought to be natural causes. It's only when they concluded Letby was guilty that they re-examined the cases, most of them after the body had been cremated, and found various ways that it might have happened. There was little or no physical evidence that the babies were murdered.

Basically, they seem to have decided Letby was guilty and then produced skewed evidence to prove it.

 

[pb21]

I read a very good article in Spiked online. It ended with something along the lines of: if she appears in court again, it will be to face fresh charges.
I have no doubt about her guilt. But I guess it’s never with 100% certainty.

I think this one:

The devil’s advocates

Lucy Letby’s supporters have not produced any compelling evidence for a miscarriage of justice.

www.spiked-online.com

Certainly the author of the article is reasonably sure of her guilt.

 

[pb21]

There were 18 deaths investigated. They found that Letby was present at 8 of the deaths, so they discarded the other 10 cases and then said "Letby was the only one present at the 8 deaths, it must have been her".

Were the original 18 investigated as potential crimes, with 8 ruled out as natural, leaving 10 murdered babies, which Letby was present at all of?

 

[ChickenDipper]

Didn’t they find notes and writings in her possession naming the babies that died ans some sort of weird stuff? My memory is hazy, but many seem to be thinking she’s not guilty on this thread.

Edit - yes - this makes her look absolutely guilty:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65311400

 

[Grassman]

I think this one:

The devil’s advocates

Lucy Letby’s supporters have not produced any compelling evidence for a miscarriage of justice.

www.spiked-online.com

Certainly the author of the article is reasonably sure of her guilt.

That’s it, thanks! Wasn’t able to link it….