[News] Lucy Letby

[dsr-burnley]

It wasn’t contact but being on shift when the babies died. Of the deaths presented she was on shift for all of them (or at least I thought she was but @The Clamp says otherwise) - if they were indeed the only suspicious deaths then you get those stats.

The point is that she wasn't on shift every time a baby died. She was on shift for the ones they presented to the court, but they ignored the deaths that she was off shift.

 

[Brian Fantana]

My thing on this is why would a therapist suggest to write notes blaming herself - they wouldn’t surely. They may have said write your feelings down but she chose to do some really weird letters. I have little info on the case either but definitely lean towards guilty from what I’ve seen and heard FWIW.

It depends exactly what she was being treated for. From my own experience of going through extensive therapy for OCD, I can tell you that a lot of the 'tasks' that I was given to do between sessions would look very strange indeed without the context of the treatment being known.

I'm not suggesting at all that the therapist made her write what she did, but merely making the overall point that *some* treatment for MH conditions can look a bit odd when viewed in isolation.

 

[ChickenDipper]

It depends exactly what she was being treated for. From my own experience of going through extensive therapy for OCD, I can tell you that a lot of the 'tasks' that I was given to do between sessions would look very strange indeed without the context of the treatment being known.

I'm not suggesting at all that the therapist made her write what she did, but merely making the overall point that *some* treatment for MH conditions can look a bit odd when viewed in isolation.

I’m sure in a case like this and a massive trial, the therapist would have been contacted or given evidence surely? Seems a lot of unanswered questions, although maybe it was said in court - I’ve not followed it and only got snippet statements from here which are often hearsay!

 

[The Optimist]

It depends exactly what she was being treated for. From my own experience of going through extensive therapy for OCD, I can tell you that a lot of the 'tasks' that I was given to do between sessions would look very strange indeed without the context of the treatment being known.

I'm not suggesting at all that the therapist made her write what she did, but merely making the overall point that *some* treatment for MH conditions can look a bit odd when viewed in isolation.

I’ve seen cognitive behaviour therapy for OCD and yes without context some of the tasks would have seemed very strange from the outside.

Also, some people with OCD can become convinced they’ve done something terrible when the terrible thing hasn’t even happened.

The point of the above is that without fully understanding what therapy and mental health problems Lucy Letby was being treated for it’s difficult to draw any conclusions.

 

[pb21]

The point is that she wasn't on shift every time a baby died. She was on shift for the ones they presented to the court, but they ignored the deaths that she was off shift.

Presumably because there was no evidence that anything untoward occurred in those cases?

Were theses other cases she wasn't on shift for essentially the same as the cases she was convicted off, literally that is the only difference?

 

[The Optimist]

The point is that she wasn't on shift every time a baby died. She was on shift for the ones they presented to the court, but they ignored the deaths that she was off shift.

The things is some deaths would be expected and this could hide someone harming babies as some of the natural deaths would occur when that person was not on shift.

To make the statistics meaningful and safe you would need the people deciding which deaths were suspicious or not to have no information on who was or wasn’t present. If they picked out 8 suspicious deaths and Letby was the only one present then you’d have some meaningful evidence.

Given the complexities of determining whether a death was natural or not you’d almost expect say 10 deaths to be flagged as suspicious and Letby to be present at 8. Not a single non-Letby death being identified as potentially suspicious suggests the way they picked them is flawed.

 

[Brian Fantana]

I’ve seen cognitive behaviour therapy for OCD and yes without context some of the tasks would have seemed very strange from the outside.

Also, some people with OCD can become convinced they’ve done something terrible when the terrible thing hasn’t even happened.

The point of the above is that without fully understanding what therapy and mental health problems Lucy Letby was being treated for it’s difficult to draw any conclusions.

Absolutely agreed.

 

[keaton]

Apparently the chances of her being on shift every time one of the babies died was something like 16m to 1. If she is innocent then that's one hell of a coincidence and a major miscarriage.

But there were more unexplained/suspicious deaths that she wasn't on duty for. They just weren't part of the case

 

[The Optimist]

Presumably because there was no evidence that anything untoward occurred in those cases?

Were theses other cases she wasn't on shift for essentially the same as the cases she was convicted off, literally that is the only difference?

It’s worth remembering that all the deaths were originally recorded as natural and then when questions were raised over the high number of deaths the causes of the deaths were reviewed. The crucial question is was Letby a suspect at this point and did those reviewing the deaths know which ones she was present at? If so, then the stats are flawed. If not, then the stats could be relied on.

 

[pb21]

It’s worth remembering that all the deaths were originally recorded as natural and then when questions were raised over the high number of deaths the causes of the deaths were reviewed. The crucial question is was Letby a suspect at this point and did those reviewing the deaths know which ones she was present at? If so, then the stats are flawed. If not, then the stats could be relied on.

Is this known?

 

[keaton]

Special Report: The Lessons of the Lucy Letby Case

After Lucy Letby was convicted in August 2023 of murdering seven babies, a number of experts contacted Eye columnist MD because they

www.private-eye.co.uk

 

[The Optimist]

Is this known?

I don’t know.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

I looked at all the court reporting that I could follow during her long trial, and I was looking for the piece of evidence that would nail the prosecution. It never came.
Without having been present of course, I have never been convinced of her guilt.

 

[The Optimist]

Special Report: The Lessons of the Lucy Letby Case

After Lucy Letby was convicted in August 2023 of murdering seven babies, a number of experts contacted Eye columnist MD because they

www.private-eye.co.uk

I’ve only read the first two of 13 parts from that link so far, but the way the statistics were used and presented is all too similar to past miscarriages of justice.

I can’t remember if it was Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science or a similar book that had some interesting chapters on these sorts of miscarriages of justice and the role of medical statistics.

 

[highflyer]

I don't know, any more than anyone else here, what the truth is. But when Private Eye are raising questions (and as far as I am aware they have not come down either way but just said things are really not clear cut) then it's worth listening carefully. They have been miles ahead of the pack, many many times (eg post office scandal, Robert maxwell and plenty of others).

 

[1066familyman]

his time in jail will be worse than death.

Edit:

I misread what you really meant.

 

[57gary]

People absolutely have presented compelling arguments for her innocence;

Lucy Letby murder convictions: what did the expert panel find?

Group concludes babies died due to natural causes or errors in medical care, saying there was no evidence of deliberate harm

www.theguardian.com

Could Lucy Letby be innocent? David Davis vs Christopher Snowdon​

Youtube interview with Christopher Snowdon who wrote the Spiked Online article

 

[beorhthelm]

It’s worth remembering that all the deaths were originally recorded as natural and then when questions were raised over the high number of deaths the causes of the deaths were reviewed. The crucial question is was Letby a suspect at this point and did those reviewing the deaths know which ones she was present at? If so, then the stats are flawed. If not, then the stats could be relied on.

the crucial question is why people started looking at the deaths to lead to anyone being suspected in the first place. the post match stats analysis saying half the deaths are ignored is missing the point that 1 person present for ~40% of deaths is, at the very least, extraordinarily unlikely. and present for several other anomolies in child care. and no one else suspected for those others cases. it is all rather circumstantial, and lacking real evidence, the case revolved around that. bottom line is there was murder, negligence, or a statistical freak. a lot of very expert people investigated and thought it was at very least one of the first two, the post match analysis seems to have fixed on the latter.

 

[1066familyman]

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.

Reasonsbly sure?. He's clearly 100% convinced!

Like everyone else on here, I have no idea if she's guilty or not.

That is a strange read however, using some very biased and emotive language. I suppose it wasn't intended to be balanced, but as a result, I'm not sure it gives all that much insight into the case tbh.

 

[junior]

More importantly...