Lucy Letby - Baby Serial Killer

I haven't read the article yet, but is the argument basically statistics?

There was a case in Australia in the 90s/00s where a woman went to prison because her four babies died from cot death. The argument being that there must have been some foul play. It was overturned when it was argued, that although there was a remote possibility she could have just been that monstrously unlucky, there was a possibility nonetheless and actually no evidence of foul play was ever proven.

The Letby case taking place in a hospital over less time and with more victims is obviously quite different. I personally think she must be guilty, but that 0.00000000377272 probability of her being innocent will always exist.
 
I'm inclined to agree with @cwej's book of stats. Even if one of the other nurses was on shift for all 6 of the omitted deaths, Lucy Letby would still have been present far more and way above the average.

Some of the arguments used to counter her methods are also a bit flimsy:
Other prosecution expert witnesses largely agreed with Evans’s opinion on this. But the idea that injecting air into the stomach via a nasogastric tube could cause collapse leading to death was described as nonsensical or “rubbish”, “ridiculous”, “implausible” and “fantastical”, by eight separate expert clinicians who spoke to the Guardian, seven of them specialising in neonatology.

Several said it was not practically feasible. Nasogastric tubes are tiny; it would take several refills using the 10ml syringes on neonatal units to inject a significant quantity of air. Furthermore, it would leak out or the baby would burp or vomit it up, or pass it as wind, they said.

Evans said: “It was a phenomenon I had never encountered previously.” He added that without the full clinical records, others could not comment objectively.
Click to expand...

Who's doing trials on how much air you can inject into a neonate and the side effects of doing so?! They're comparing what might happen if the air was injected accidentally versus doing it intentionally. Yes, they're very small tubes, and yes the department probably only had 10ml syringes. That doesn't mean the equipment is immune from misuse if someone intends to use it to cause harm or that the recipient would respond in the usual way.
 
Tisch said:
I haven't read the article yet, but is the argument basically statistics?

There was a case in Australia in the 90s/00s where a woman went to prison because her four babies died from cot death. The argument being that there must have been some foul play. It was overturned when it was argued, that although there was a remote possibility she could have just been that monstrously unlucky, there was a possibility nonetheless and actually no evidence of foul play was ever proven.

The Letby case taking place in a hospital over less time and with more victims is obviously quite different. I personally think she must be guilty, but that 0.00000000377272 probability of her being innocent will always exist.
Click to expand...

There was one in the UK - the Angela Cannings case - but that was with just 2 children - it was thrown out on retrial because there was zero other evidence.

There is a massive difference between the two situations - first of all the probability of having a second child die of sudden death syndrome increases if you've already had one in the same family so that statistics of just multiplying the two probabilities together are false. Secondly, the probabilities are even lower in this case. Thirdly, the fact that the baby is cared for by different people on different shifts, but tend to survive under other people's care, but not under her care, implies either foul play (or very poor nursing). Finally, there is some other evidence, however circumstantial it might be - there weren't letters written by Cannings about killing babies, found around her house.
 
Tisch said:
There was a case in Australia in the 90s/00s where a woman went to prison because her four babies died from cot death. The argument being that there must have been some foul play. It was overturned when it was argued, that although there was a remote possibility she could have just been that monstrously unlucky, there was a possibility nonetheless and actually no evidence of foul play was ever proven.
Click to expand...
Does cot death have a genetic component? If it does, then it can't be that unlikely surely
 
cwej said:
Sorry the statistics thing really doesn't add up even if they did omit 6 baby deaths (which they really shouldn't have done - that's the sort of thing that is surely grounds for a mistrial) - but even if they'd included the fact that 6 more babies died that she wasn't there for she was present for 25 out of 31.

If we assume she works a 50 hours week, she's present on the ward 0.29 of the time so expected to be on shift 9 out of 31 deaths. She was on shift 25 out of 31.

Assuming that everyone is equally likely to be on shift when a baby dies, the chances of her being on shift for 25 of the deaths is: 0.00000000377272 (0%) or 1 in 265000000, if the people on shift were independent of the baby's deaths. Either she was a terrible terrible nurse or a murderer.
Click to expand...
Confused Cat GIF
 
But seriously thanks @cwej

there is a LOT to digest about all of this, even now. I’m very conscious that if I tap into the “…but how could she?” mindset a part of me feels like my judgement becomes clouded by the fact that she is a middle class white woman who liked Disney and salsa. It feels problematic.

But there are so many questions?
 
Tisch said:
I really can't remember the details, it was over a decade ago I read about it. But I think essentially, yes, but the trial was so het up on her surely not being unlucky four times. I think new medical research came to light after the conviction.

Edit: this is her https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Folbigg#:~:text=She_was_pardoned_in_2023,appeal_a_few_months_later.?wprov=sfla1
Click to expand...

I think I listened to a podcast on this one. There was some rare genetic mutation in this case I'm sure.
 
The Lucy Letby is innocent truthers have gone too far. Now they're throwing parties for her:

 
IMG_8416.jpeg


However my stats have been debunked by the oracle that is Nadine Dorries.
 
Is she going to get off with this?

I am still sickened to my stomach by the whole thing and can’t see how she didn’t do it. Did she not even have confession notes in her house? :zombie:
 
she doesn't even have a retrial yet. but one could happen if the expert panel recommends it on the basis of their findings.

it's so hard to understand how it's possible that she didn't do it and clearly she is a disturbed individual.

but if "some of the most experienced and distinguished paediatric specialists in the world" have looked at all the evidence and said it's possible or even likely that all seventeen of the babies died due to neglect, late treatment or no treatment, as opposed to murder (eg. the claimed injections of insulin) - doesn't that suggest there is merit in a retrial?

as for the "confession notes" they could just have been evidence of a severe mental breakdown / delusional disorder rather than actual guilt.

here's the Guardian piece about it today -

www.theguardian.com

No medical evidence to support Lucy Letby’s conviction, expert panel says

Letby’s lawyer claims report demolishes case against her and provides ‘overwhelming evidence’ her conviction is unsafe
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Jark said:
but if "some of the most experienced and distinguished paediatric specialists in the world" have looked at all the evidence and said it's possible or even likely that all seventeen of the babies died due to neglect, late treatment or no treatment, as opposed to murder (eg. the claimed injections of insulin) - doesn't that suggest there is merit in a retrial?
Click to expand...
It’s not entirely clear where this ‘expert panel’ has come from. They are certainly nothing to do with the ongoing inquiry or British legal or medical systems, which might suggest that they have been employed by Letby’s lawyers. I’d love to know who is still paying for her legal representation.

In any case, you wouldn’t usually get a retrial because there are some more people who think you didn’t do it. A retrial would require some new evidence and more opinions aren’t really evidence, especially when there are plenty of eminent doctors who still think she is guilty. The time to put all of your experts against all of the prosecutions experts would be at the original trial, which her defence team did at the time, and the jury decided that she was guilty. You can’t demand another trial every time you find some more experts or the whole system would fall apart.

As to a manslaughter conviction if there was substandard care, that would require it to specifically be her substandard care, which they’ll never be able to prove. There might be some sort of prosecution for corporate manslaughter against the NHS Trust, but I’d imagine that would be tough to prove as well.
 
Last edited:
Jark said:
she doesn't even have a retrial yet. but one could happen if the expert panel recommends it on the basis of their findings.

it's so hard to understand how it's possible that she didn't do it and clearly she is a disturbed individual.

but if "some of the most experienced and distinguished paediatric specialists in the world" have looked at all the evidence and said it's possible or even likely that all seventeen of the babies died due to neglect, late treatment or no treatment, as opposed to murder (eg. the claimed injections of insulin) - doesn't that suggest there is merit in a retrial?

as for the "confession notes" they could just have been evidence of a severe mental breakdown / delusional disorder rather than actual guilt.

here's the Guardian piece about it today -

www.theguardian.com

No medical evidence to support Lucy Letby’s conviction, expert panel says

Letby’s lawyer claims report demolishes case against her and provides ‘overwhelming evidence’ her conviction is unsafe
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
If that was the case I’d be advocating to shut down that maternity ward.
 
A case with this much media and public attention is probably more likely to get a retrial than anything else IF these medical experts do find new evidence pointing to her being not guilty. I would hope that a case of this sensitive nature would have had ALL of the supporting information to put it to bed after the first trial though and they weren’t just looking for someone to pin the blame on. As if all those poor families haven’t been through enough, Letby’s included.
 
I know darlings and it's not as if the Countess is PARTICULARLY GROTTY (it's not great though although to their credit they do recognise someone who's about to EXPIRE in A&E)

LL lived just around the corner from OLD MA & PA MR SHIRL
 
Lucy Letby, writing in her Winnie the Pooh notebook: I really enjoyed killing all those babies I killed. I can't wait to kill more babies tomorrow.

True Crime listeners: is this a secret code? I think an owl did it. What if the babies had bad vibes or were unpleasant to be around?
 
dmlaw said:
It’s not entirely clear where this ‘expert panel’ has come from. They are certainly nothing to do with the ongoing inquiry or British legal or medical systems, which might suggest that they have been employed by Letby’s lawyers. I’d love to know who is still paying for her legal representation.
Click to expand...
The expert panel are working for free apparently

www.bbc.com

Lucy Letby: Why are medical experts disputing evidence?

The nurse is serving 15 whole life sentences after being found guilty of murdering seven babies and trying to kill seven others.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
dmlaw said:
It’s not entirely clear where this ‘expert panel’ has come from.
Click to expand...
One of them was the author of a study which was used by the prosecution. He says the study was misused by the prosecution and thats why he got involved in reviewing the evidence.

I mean while its not PROOF it's a fairly compelling reason to at least take another look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom