Nurse arrested for murdering babies

[Ayahuasca]

I've already read it and the reasons why that private-eye report isn't the win you think it is have been covered previously in the thread.

 

[Eddie99]

Where’s all the commentators that said she didn’t do it?

Based on the fact that the medical and statistical evidence used to convict her have since lost all credibility, I believe if there was a retrial there's no realistic prospect of getting a conviction again.

I know there's still the notes saying she did it, but these were an exercise at the instruction of her psychologist to write down how she had been made to feel after being accused of murdering babies. There were contradictory notes saying she did nothing wrong too. There's also the Facebook searches, but she was prolific on social media making around 200 searches per month if I recall correctly and curiosity isn't a crime.

These things only looked bad in the context that the medical evidence fabricated by Dewi Evans said that babies were definitely murdered by someone. Now that actual medical evidence says no murders took place they don't look like much at all.

 

[do_ron_ron]

DP.

 

[do_ron_ron]

I've already read it and the reasons why that private-eye report isn't the win you think it is have been covered previously in the thread.

A load of international experts seem to disagree. From my reading it would appear the hospital trust are more to blame. It does appear to be the classic British case. The junior gets the blame while those in charge(until very recently) are ignored.

 

[arknor]

Where’s all the commentators that said she didn’t do it?

even if she did do it their seems to be have been so much incompetence and she can never be reliably convicted anyway.

I'd like to see more of them behind bars.

 

[Ayahuasca]

A load of international experts seem to disagree. From my reading it would appear the hospital trust are more to blame. It does appear to be the classic British case. The junior gets the blame while those in charge(until very recently) are ignored.

That's just a vague appeal to authority, deflecting blame by making unsupported claims and using a stereotype on your behalf.

Why don't you highlight some specific details from the report, or explain which aspects the 'international experts' are supposedly challenging? Then it would at least be possible to discuss the merit of those individually.

 

[do_ron_ron]

That's just a vague appeal to authority, deflecting blame by making unsupported claims and using a stereotype on your behalf.

Why don't you highlight some specific details from the report, or explain which aspects the 'international experts' are supposedly challenging? Then it would at least be possible to discuss the merit of those individually.

Challenging? Almost everything.
The so-called expert during the trial continually xhanged his mind about various things. That alone should have put the jury on alert. Here is a summary from the BBC report

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.co.uk

 

[Ayahuasca]

Challenging? Almost everything.
The so-called expert during the trial continually xhanged his mind about various things. That alone should have put the jury on alert. Here is a summary from the BBC report

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.co.uk

I don't need a link to a BBC report.

You don't seem capable of offering your own perspective on this, you just link to articles or reports and expect them to do all the heavy lifting for you. The flaws of that PE report were highlighted to you earlier in the thread, so unless you can pinpoint some specifics, this is largely pointless.

 

[do_ron_ron]

I don't need a link to a BBC report.

You don't seem capable of offering your own perspective on this, you just link to articles or reports and expect them to do all the heavy lifting for you. The flaws of that PE report were highlighted to you earlier in the thread, so unless you can pinpoint some specifics, this is largely pointless.

Your argument is largely pointless. I have given you links Private-Eye and its 22 part investigation and a BBC summary and you ignore them.
What were the so-called flaws in PE? What do you know that these experts do not know?

 

[Ayahuasca]

Your argument is largely pointless. I have given you links Private-Eye and its 22 part investigation and a BBC summary and you ignore them.
What were the so-called flaws in PE? What do you know that these experts do not know?

I haven't ignored them, I've already read both.

They were explained to you earlier in the thread, so either you've forgotten them, ignored them, or missed them. The search function will be useful to you, as I won't be doing the heavy lifting for you.

What exactly do you know that has convinced you that these experts are right, when a large part of the report is still based on guesswork? As I said, this is an appeal to authority fallacy, which happens time and time again in situations like this. Even experts who have access to much more information than these people do get things wrong all the time.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Not really, I believe in innocent until proven guilty and not media trial.
The experts view is not 'guesswork' but their experience during long medical careers.
The Prosecution expert misinterpreted air embolism data from one of those experts in court. That expert, Dr Lee said

During Letby's trial, the prosecution referred to the 1989 paper by Dr Lee that looked at cases of air embolus, referring to injuries caused when air is injected into a baby's arteries or veins after staff at the Countess of Chester reported skin discoloration on some of the babies.

In the cases Dr Lee analysed in his paper, those injuries had happened accidentally.

However, at the press conference Dr Lee said in all of the cases in his paper air was injected into the babies' arteries, not their veins.
He said that the skin discolouration described in the paper was not possible when air was injected into the veins.
Dr Lee said he had recently updated his academic paper and found no cases of skin discolouration linked to air embolism by the venous system.

Then there is the statistical analysis

In the Lucy Letby case, statistical evidence was a key part of the prosecution's argument, but its interpretation and potential misuse have been heavily criticized. The prosecution used a chart showing Letby's presence during the deaths and collapses of babies, arguing it was statistically significant. However, critics argue this analysis was flawed, potentially committing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, and that other factors weren't adequately considered.

As I mentioned earlier

It appears there was bacteria in drains withing the unit which was known about but never sorted.
A load of very experienced nurses got the boot and relativeley younger nurses got put in charge of things they should not have been doing. The unit was regularly understaffed.
The unit was too small for the type of procedures they were doing.

 

[Ayahuasca]

Not really, I believe in innocent until proven guilty and not media trial.

Despite how much you believe this to be the case, she wasn't only given a media trial.

The experts view is not 'guesswork' but their experience during long medical careers.

These are two different things. You can have a long career in a field, but that doesn't provide you with everything you need to make a judgement on another case, particularly one as complex and rare as this. Some of their report is guesswork because they didn't have access to all the information required to avoid that.

The Prosecution expert misinterpreted air embolism data from one of those experts in court. That expert, Dr Lee said

They may well have done so, is that enough for a retrial on a specific charge(s)?

Then there is the statistical analysis

The word 'potentially' is important here and statistics are always open to criticism.

As I mentioned earlier

I haven't questioned the bacteria within the unit's drains. There were clear failings elsewhere (if any similar unit around the country fell under this much scrutiny, you would likely see numerous issues being uncovered), but you said the trust should be blamed more than Letby, who was found to have deliberately acted in ways that led to the deaths and attempted murders of numerous babies.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Despite how much you believe this to be the case, she wasn't only given a media trial.



These are two different things. You can have a long career in a field, but that doesn't provide you with everything you need to make a judgement on another case, particularly one as complex and rare as this. Some of their report is guesswork because they didn't have access to all the information required to avoid that.



They may well have done so, is that enough for a retrial on a specific charge(s)?



The word 'potentially' is important here and statistics are always open to criticism.



I haven't questioned the bacteria within the unit's drains. There were clear failings elsewhere (if any similar unit around the country fell under this much scrutiny, you would likely see numerous issues being uncovered), but you said the trust should be blamed more than Letby, who was found to have deliberately acted in ways that led to the deaths and attempted murders of numerous babies.

1.A simple look at the media over the past months shows otherwise.
2. There was more than one person in the expert group and they issued a joint statement.
3. Absolutely. The trial relied and the judge mentioned the air embolism in his summing up. The prosecution expert relied on one of the books written by Dr Lee and quoted wrongly. Given it was heavily relied upon and wrong, that is definately grounds for a retrial.
4. If the stats are of little use then they should have been ignored or they have to come up with arguments why they are wrong.
5. Shortly after the conviction the hospital was downgraded and not allowed to take in babies so ill. A bit like shutting the door after the horse has bolted. That is the Trust managements fault for not being aware that they should not be treating such ill kids.

As for other units you just need to look at the various stories coming out about pregnancy units in a load of hospitals to see that there are problems.

 

[Ayahuasca]

1.A simple look at the media over the past months shows otherwise.
2. There was more than one person in the expert group and they issued a joint statement.
3. Absolutely. The trial relied and the judge mentioned the air embolism in his summing up. The prosecution expert relied on one of the books written by Dr Lee and quoted wrongly. Given it was heavily relied upon and wrong, that is definately grounds for a retrial.
4. If the stats are of little use then they should have been ignored or they have to come up with arguments why they are wrong.
5. Shortly after the conviction the hospital was downgraded and not allowed to take in babies so ill. A bit like shutting the door after the horse has bolted. That is the Trust managements fault for not being aware that they should not be treating such ill kids.

As for other units you just need to look at the various stories coming out about pregnancy units in a load of hospitals to see that there are problems.

1. No, a cursory glance at the media does not prove that this was a trial by media.

2. I’m aware that there was more than one person in the group, and that it was a joint statement. That still doesn't mean that all of their report is based on fact, or that you're not using an appeal to authority.

3. What specific charge or charges would the retrial be on? All of them?

4. There’s no evidence that the statistics were of little or no use. Their argument was that all statistics are open to critique, and they said 'potentially'.

5. However, this doesn't mean that the trust is more to blame than Letby for what happened. Others should be held accountable, but ultimately, Letby was found to have performed specific acts that killed the victims.

In hindsight, it's easy to say, 'This could have been stopped here,' or 'More deaths could have been prevented,' but where do you draw the line? If someone deliberately acts in a way that harms or kills people, the blame should land mostly on them. Otherwise, you’re playing a game of guessing where or when someone should have stepped in. With an organisation like this, you’d obviously expect it to be more stringent, but no organisation operates as it's meant to on paper. Humans are going to make mistakes, sometimes very costly ones and turn a blind eye to things they really shouldn't. I just think this line of thinking is an excuse to say that a serial killer like Letby holds less blame.

 

[do_ron_ron]

1. No, a cursory glance at the media does not prove that this was a trial by media.

2. I’m aware that there was more than one person in the group, and that it was a joint statement. That still doesn't mean that all of their report is based on fact, or that you're not using an appeal to authority.

3. What specific charge or charges would the retrial be on? All of them?

4. There’s no evidence that the statistics were of little or no use. Their argument was that all statistics are open to critique, and they said 'potentially'.

5. However, this doesn't mean that the trust is more to blame than Letby for what happened. Others should be held accountable, but ultimately, Letby was found to have performed specific acts that killed the victims.

In hindsight, it's easy to say, 'This could have been stopped here,' or 'More deaths could have been prevented,' but where do you draw the line? If someone deliberately acts in a way that harms or kills people, the blame should land mostly on them. Otherwise, you’re playing a game of guessing where or when someone should have stepped in. With an organisation like this, you’d obviously expect it to be more stringent, but no organisation operates as it's meant to on paper. Humans are going to make mistakes, sometimes very costly ones and turn a blind eye to things they really shouldn't. I just think this line of thinking is an excuse to say that a serial killer like Letby holds less blame.

If one person with expertise says something and then a group say that is wrong then you have to question the single expert(especially as in this case one of the group was the source of the single experts claim)
A retrial would be based on misleading evidence which was given prominence in the case.
At the time I remember reading of a Dutch case. Notice the similarities

Lucia de Berk case - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ayahuasca]

If one person with expertise says something and then a group say that is wrong then you have to question the single expert(especially as in this case one of the group was the source of the single experts claim)
A retrial would be based on misleading evidence which was given prominence in the case.
At the time I remember reading of a Dutch case. Notice the similarities

Lucia de Berk case - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It’s interesting that you’ve ignored most of my points and are just focusing on a retrial. Once again, you're linking to something without being able to explain what the relevance is in your own words.

Truth isn't determined by headcount. A single expert can absolutely be right against a group, that's how scientific progress often works. What matters is the quality of evidence and methodology, not the number of voices. The reference to that Dutch case with unspecified “similarities” is meaningless without concrete details. If there's genuinely misleading evidence, that's what appeals courts and evidence reviews are for, not mob consensus and appeals to authority.

I’ll entertain your argument as I’ve read into de Berk’s case as it’s often referenced on the likes of Reddit. While the cases share some superficial similarities that make them frequently compared, there are several important differences that distinguish them.

The most significant difference lies in the type and strength of evidence. In the Lucia De Berk case, at her initial trial which resulted in her conviction for a number of murders and attacks, the main piece of evidence was a probability calculation resulting in the chance of 1 in 342 million. The de Berk case was primarily built on statistical coincidence, she happened to be present during an unusual cluster of deaths.

In contrast, the Letby case included additional forms of evidence beyond statistical presence, including alleged physical evidence, witness testimony about observed behaviors and medical evidence about the manner of deaths. The prosecution presented what they claimed was evidence of deliberate harm methods. Letby was convicted after a much longer trial process.

Amongst the other evidence used against her were diary entries that the prosecution asserted showed that she was "obsessed by death" in de Berk's case. However, this was relatively limited compared to the breadth of evidence presented in Letby's case.

While both cases involved statistical arguments about the likelihood of deaths occurring when the nurses were present, the de Berk case was much more heavily dependent on this statistical evidence as the primary basis for conviction. Unless you want to be ignorant of or render all of the other evidence irrelevant, Letby’s conviction had very little to do with statistics.

The comparison between these cases often focuses on the shared concern about problematic use of statistics in medical murder cases, but the differences in evidence types, legal processes and outcomes make them distinct situations despite some procedural similarities.

 

[ubersonic]

Jeremy Hunt and David Davis have now joined the calls for the Criminal Cases Review Commission to increase the priority of their investigation into if a retrial is warranted.

Hunt said he had noted the findings of the international panel of paediatric specialists and neonatologists, and had also read a "wide range of expert concerns about the conduct of the criminal case".

He said: "Taken together - and it pains me to say it - this analysis raises serious and credible questions about the evidence presented in court, the robustness of expert testimony and the interpretation of statistical data."

Hunt said: "I want to put on the record my apologies to the families for anything that did not happen that potentially could have prevented such an appalling crime."

Hunt said he was not arguing that Letby is innocent, adding that "the pain endured by the families affected must also be at the forefront of our minds", but they deserved the truth. "And recently, some have begun to cast doubt on what actually happened," Hunt said.

"Were those tragic deaths caused by an evil woman or were they the result of medical error?"

He said justice "must be done and seen to be done", adding that re-examination of the evidence was not a denial of the families' pain but would "ensure that all of us can have confidence that the truth has been reached through a rigorous and fair process".

"And if medical error was the cause, we can then make sure no more babies die from the same mistakes," he added.

 

[Ayahuasca]

So, the Health Secretary who held the position during that period and failed to implement a key recommendation from the Shipman Inquiry by not putting medical examiners in place at hospitals. These examiners would have investigated concerns such as those raised by the mother of infant E regarding the nurse's actions. However, they were not implemented due to cost considerations.

If the person responsible for the NHS had enacted this crucial policy by August 2015, this situation could have been prevented. However, he chose not to. Now this same individual is suggesting that Letby's case needs to be reviewed more quickly based on what a dubious panel said at a press conference?

It's getting more and more ridiculous.

The case is being reviewed again so I'm not sure what the problem is. If Letby had no means of seeking justice, that would be understandable. It's another laughable article, published in the Daily Fail, seemingly intended to pressure the Criminal Cases Review Commission into referring the case to the Court of Appeal, rather than allowing the Commission to evaluate the submission based on its actual merits.

 

[Eddie99]

A single expert can absolutely be right against a group, that's how scientific progress often works.

So you think a single paediatrician retired since 2009 and paid by the prosecution could be correct and the creme de la creme of neonatologists around the world working pro bono are all wrong? Dewi Evans previously boasted about only ever losing one case which was for the defense, why would an independant unbiased witness care about winning or losing cases?

 

[Ayahuasca]

So you think a single paediatrician retired since 2009 and paid by the prosecution could be correct and the creme de la creme of neonatologists around the world working pro bono are all wrong? Dewi Evans previously boasted about only ever losing one case which was for the defense, why would an independant unbiased witness care about winning or losing cases?

They could still be right, but in this case, I’m not convinced by that expert witness alone.

It's also laughable to think that some of those on the panel don't have an axe to grind and aren't profiting from all of this in some way.