Lucy letby

r00fie1 said:
She was convicted of seven murders and the attempted murder of six others.
She was also found guilty of the death of a premature baby [baby "K"] in a further charge.
www.bbc.co.uk

Lucy Letby guilty of trying to kill baby

The baby's family say they have been forced to endure a "long, torturous and emotional journey - twice".
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

Yes plus three others that the CPS have so far not pushed through to court due to lack of evidence… hence 17 in total as per the table
 
Read the Guardian piece, but I'm not persuaded by it.

Aside from the circumstantial evidence, experts engaged by the prosecution are independent, obviously for good reason, and as the piece says more than once they're the only ones with the benefit of seeing all the material available upon which they base their conclusions.

In the absence of an absolutely conclusive piece of evidence, and more so in a case where circumstantial evidence is so relevant, there is always room for conjecture, but having followed the evidence presented at the trial I still feel it's conclusive.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if this case is documented on Netflix (or apple etc) within a year or so.

I didn't want to believe someone could be so cruel and wicked (and as a parent, I don't really want to believe this could happen), so if the jury have got it wrong, then my goodness, this is brutal.

But if the jury are right, and she did commit these horrific crimes, then she deserves everything that comes her way, and more.
 
Marvanelli said:
I wouldn't be surprised if this case is documented on Netflix (or apple etc) within a year or so.

I didn't want to believe someone could be so cruel and wicked (and as a parent, I don't really want to believe this could happen), so if the jury have got it wrong, then my goodness, this is brutal.

But if the jury are right, and she did commit these horrific crimes, then she deserves everything that comes her way, and more.
Click to expand...
1720516297795.png
 
Acklam_Lad said:
The court was shown the below chart... are you saying they were lied to?

View attachment 78514
Click to expand...
I'm not defending Letby but just pointing out that @r00fie1 was making a point about statistics and your chart is the point he was making. That shows 25 child deaths and that Letby was on shift for all of them. That bit is indisputable. The statistical point is that those 25 aren't the total number of deaths on the unit. It looks like she was on shift for 100% of deaths, which anyone would agree, would be pretty damning evidence. However, the total deaths on the ward was higher than 25 and she wasn't on shift for the others and some of the other nurses were. The whole dataset looks something like below (made-up example because I don't have the actual data):

1720516134574.png

The original dataset is just the babies that died while she was on shift so she was obviously going to be present for 100% and nobody else would be but if the whole dataset was presented as I have linked then she was only present for half the deaths and it seems a lot less suspicious and other nurses have also been on shift for a lot of deaths as well.

As I say, I'm not defending her. Just pointing out that statistics aren't always what they appear and people are very easily persuaded by data when they are only presented with some of it. It is cherry picking, and it is often done unintentionally so it is important to know the full context before drawing conclusions from a dataset.
 
Nano said:
I'm not defending Letby but just pointing out that @r00fie1 was making a point about statistics and your chart is the point he was making. That shows 25 child deaths and that Letby was on shift for all of them. That bit is indisputable. The statistical point is that those 25 aren't the total number of deaths on the unit. It looks like she was on shift for 100% of deaths, which anyone would agree, would be pretty damning evidence. However, the total deaths on the ward was higher than 25 and she wasn't on shift for the others and some of the other nurses were. The whole dataset looks something like below (made-up example because I don't have the actual data):

View attachment 78914

The original dataset is just the babies that died while she was on shift so she was obviously going to be present for 100% and nobody else would be but if the whole dataset was presented as I have linked then she was only present for half the deaths and it seems a lot less suspicious and other nurses have also been on shift for a lot of deaths as well.

As I say, I'm not defending her. Just pointing out that statistics aren't always what they appear and people are very easily persuaded by data when they are only presented with some of it. It is cherry picking, and it is often done unintentionally so it is important to know the full context before drawing conclusions from a dataset.
Click to expand...
The risk here is that we focus on one specific point, without the overall context of the evidence behind it.

I get that other deaths occured whilst she was not at work (six, IIRC), but of those we don't know how many were explained ie a cause of death established.

Jury's can occasionally get verdicts wrong, but this has also been through the Court of Appeal and three judges, who have not only had the benefit of all of the evidence and material, defence and prosecution, but also an deep understanding of the law and how it should be applied.

Of what I've read so far I can't see the conviction being overturned.
 
Nano said:
I'm not defending Letby but just pointing out that @r00fie1 was making a point about statistics and your chart is the point he was making. That shows 25 child deaths and that Letby was on shift for all of them. That bit is indisputable. The statistical point is that those 25 aren't the total number of deaths on the unit. It looks like she was on shift for 100% of deaths, which anyone would agree, would be pretty damning evidence. However, the total deaths on the ward was higher than 25 and she wasn't on shift for the others and some of the other nurses were. The whole dataset looks something like below (made-up example because I don't have the actual data):

View attachment 78914

The original dataset is just the babies that died while she was on shift so she was obviously going to be present for 100% and nobody else would be but if the whole dataset was presented as I have linked then she was only present for half the deaths and it seems a lot less suspicious and other nurses have also been on shift for a lot of deaths as well.

As I say, I'm not defending her. Just pointing out that statistics aren't always what they appear and people are very easily persuaded by data when they are only presented with some of it. It is cherry picking, and it is often done unintentionally so it is important to know the full context before drawing conclusions from a dataset.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone is defending her - how can we?

There is lots of technical stuff we can’t understand here and either the doubts will go away or they will be pursued.

I might be being bicky about your point about her being on duty for 100% of deaths = damning evidence.
It is certainly evidence but much more is needed.

The schools of thought are this is either Letby or a failure of duty of care by the Hospital Trust.
 
1finny said:
The schools of thought are this is either Letby or a failure of duty of care by the Hospital Trust.
Click to expand...
I suspect it is both. That Letby did kill at least some of those children, but that because of the shortcomings of the Hospital Trust she was able to do so. Because this may also be part of the mismanagement of the whole NHS under the previous Government this might explain why there is/was little appetite to investigate the full circumstances and events that led to this number of deaths/murders.
 
1finny said:
I don’t think anyone is defending her - how can we?

There is lots of technical stuff we can’t understand here and either the doubts will go away or they will be pursued.

I might be being bicky about your point about her being on duty for 100% of deaths = damning evidence.
It is certainly evidence but much more is needed.

The schools of thought are this is either Letby or a failure of duty of care by the Hospital Trust.
Click to expand...
I was just pointing out that my point was neutral. It wasn't a defence or an attack just an explanation because it seemed like the other posters were debating a point without being able to explain themselves to the other.

RE: the on duty for 100% of deaths being damning evidence then I meant that in the context of a jury (or anyone really) being presented the data. We are typically not very good at interpreting data, especially when we don't have any understanding of the dataset as a whole.

Jonny Ingbar said:
Jury's can occasionally get verdicts wrong, but this has also been through the Court of Appeal and three judges, who have not only had the benefit of all of the evidence and material, defence and prosecution, but also an deep understanding of the law and how it should be applied.

Of what I've read so far I can't see the conviction being overturned.
Click to expand...
Some things aren't considered by the judges and the court of appeal. Their job isn't to re-try the case but to make sure the correct procedures were followed. If data was taken as fact by the jury (and it was fact but a small set of data from a larger dataset) then I'm not sure that would be grounds for anything being overturned anyway because the defence had access to all the data and didn't use it in their defence. They didn't present false data or anything like that which would warrant a re-trial. They presented factual data but it could be argued it wasn't the complete story (and that is the defence's job to do that and they had the opportunity). That doesn't mean the decision was right, nor that the appeal was wrong to uphold the decision.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
Jury's can occasionally get verdicts wrong, but this has also been through the Court of Appeal and three judges, who have not only had the benefit of all of the evidence and material, defence and prosecution, but also an deep understanding of the law and how it should be applied.
Click to expand...
I might be nit-picking, but TWO juries have now found her guilty, in two separate trials.

It's just a small point I know. I can see why this case is being discussed and looked at by lots of journalists.
 
Nano said:
I was just pointing out that my point was neutral. It wasn't a defence or an attack just an explanation because it seemed like the other posters were debating a point without being able to explain themselves to the other.

RE: the on duty for 100% of deaths being damning evidence then I meant that in the context of a jury (or anyone really) being presented the data. We are typically not very good at interpreting data, especially when we don't have any understanding of the dataset as a whole.


Some things aren't considered by the judges and the court of appeal. Their job isn't to re-try the case but to make sure the correct procedures were followed. If data was taken as fact by the jury (and it was fact but a small set of data from a larger dataset) then I'm not sure that would be grounds for anything being overturned anyway because the defence had access to all the data and didn't use it in their defence. They didn't present false data or anything like that which would warrant a re-trial. They presented factual data but it could be argued it wasn't the complete story (and that is the defence's job to do that and they had the opportunity). That doesn't mean the decision was right, nor that the appeal was wrong to uphold the decision.
Click to expand...
I get that, I understand the process intimately.

The appeal court will deal with whatever grounds defence counsel had been given message to appeal.

But it stands that any miscarriage is less likely to be that, if it has been to the appeal court.

It's not an absolutely test of course.

In think in cases such as this the evidence is so complex and the amount of information before the court so great, trying to have an insightful view is incredibly difficult.
 
Steer said:
I might be nit-picking, but TWO juries have now found her guilty, in two separate trials.

It's just a small point I know. I can see why this case is being discussed and looked at by lots of journalists.
Click to expand...
What was the 2 jury trials?
 
Whoever killed all these babies - its all pretty damning on the NHS managment in Chester for not preventing a lot of the deaths.

The consultants involved in the cases seem to think Letby was a major cause as they reported about her. If she is innocent what does it say about all the specialist consultants?
 
Redwurzel said:
Whoever killed all these babies - its all pretty damning on the NHS managment in Chester for not preventing a lot of the deaths.

The consultants involved in the cases seem to think Letby was a major cause as they reported about her. If she is innocent what does it say about all the specialist consultants?
Click to expand...
There is a conflict of interest as far as the unit consultants go. Doesn't mean they are being dishonest, of course.
 
Redwurzel said:
Whoever killed all these babies - its all pretty damning on the NHS managment in Chester for not preventing a lot of the deaths.

The consultants involved in the cases seem to think Letby was a major cause as they reported about her. If she is innocent what does it say about all the specialist consultants?
Click to expand...

You are assuming someone killed the babies. The post mortems said they died of natural causes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top