Nurse Lucy Letby found guilty of murdering seven babies

I'm absolutely lost.

Innocent until proven guilty? Not proving a negative.

Maths, lost again.

I watched a Danish series on Netflix called The Nurse . Based on a true case in Denmark and she was also enabled by management .

A really fascinating read I to say. I knew very little about the case apart from the headlines, but a chilling read that really woukd not make you have much trust in the Chesire police.

I found it a very dull read. Sorry! Is there any new evidence, or basically its a long-winded way of saying:

- it was only statistical evidence, which they think was flawed

• the public mood/media/etc had already judged her guilty.

I look at it from the opposite point of view, is there any evidence, except flawed statistical evidence, that points to her being guilty? And no seems to be the answer to that question.

That leads on to asking whether flawed statistical evidence makes a person guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. I have a very very hard time saying yes to that personally.

The big thing that is a bit concerning about the case is so many are under impression a crime definitely occurred. The actual evidence for murders seems pretty weak at this point.

The dumbest things said on TV cop shows:

1. We got an eye witness! Case closed.
2. All that evidence is just circumstantial!

More people have been wrongly convicted by mistaken eye-witnesses than any other cause.

Most convictions depend on circumstantial evidence. In fact, it is increasingly rare for anyone other than the victim to go into a witness box and give direct evidence of a crime.

If Lucy Letby is innocent, she did an outstanding job of incriminating herself.

The lack of defence was really very concerning and bizarre.

There was also a very interesting part of the New Yorker article that was removed following concerns raised by an English court 🧐

The latest conviction is based on direct evidence, not statistics. Her defenders will find this very hard to explain away

Consultant paediatrician Dr Ravi Jayaram had caught her "virtually red-handed" as he entered the unit's intensive care room at about 03:45.

Dr Jayaram, who intervened to resuscitate the child, told jurors he saw "no evidence" that Letby had done anything to help the deteriorating baby. He said he heard no call for help from Letby, or alarms sounding as Baby K's blood oxygen levels suddenly dropped. Letby told the jury of six women and six men she had no recollection of any such event.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98q74dn91do

This is the amount of 'evidence' required to establish an attempted murder conviction btw. A possibility based on a belief based on a suspicion that was neither reported to anyone nor recorded in medical notes at the time. Despite there being not enough evidence to even charge Letby with the murder of a baby that died 3 days later she somehow can be found guilty of the attempted murder of the same baby.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jun/19/lucy-letby-doctor-oxygen-levels

She was also confirmed to have been in another room feeding and changing a different baby (whom I assume is alive and well) at 3.30, a process which is 10-15 minutes long just for the feeding.

She also expressed reservations about jayorams good faith in a written defence statement. This stinks to high heaven.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jun/24/lucy-letby-denies-having-killed-babies-at-attempted-murder-trial

Agree.

Very good read that article.

Always wondered what exactly was the "evidence beyond reasonable doubt ."

Looks like there are a lot of holes in that investigation and probable grounds for appeal at the very least .

Thought the electric chair would be fairly inexpensive

Well for some to be so flippant when they're not spending the rest of their days in prison.

Transcript from the original trial showing zero corroboration between the nurse charged with baby K's care and Jayoram..

https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/11e3cm1/lucy_letby_trial_prosecution_day_63_28_february/?rdt=33100

Judge Goss directed the jury that if they concluded that Letby had deliberately harmed babies one way, they could also conclude that she had inflicted deliberate harm on others, even if jurors were not certain of her methods.

So basically, they could find her guilty for the other deaths for no other reason than she was there. This direction from the Judge alone should have been grounds for appeal.

At least the press have finally been allowed to expose this travesty now the courts process is over, this will just grow and grow now.

That article mentions the shift chart in the negative for once. I'm sure this has been done to death in this thread but I've always taken that chart as evidence of how easily they can be used to influence juries and the public. There was a recent Behind the Bastards podcast about nonsense forensics that I thought sounded like this.

(There were 25 suspicious events making up the rows, these were a list of all the events occurring while Letby was on shift. Events that happened when she wasn't there were not on the list. Surprise surprise, she's present for all the listed events. Complete drivel. Also there were only nurses across the top, like no doctors or other staff worked in the hospital).

if Lucy is let off, she probably won't be working as a nurse again, but many here would seem to have no problem her working as a baby sitter for them ? the presumption of innocence and all that

The biggest issue here is that the jury was made up of 12 ordinary people and they can be easily swayed by "expert" OPINION. Frankly, for complex medical cases they should have a jury with some form of medical knowledge.

Just look at some of the early posts here and the total assumption of her guilt because the media narrative said so.

The guardian article is good, but if you have an interest in it, read the New Yorker article. Its a good couple of hours of a read, but it raises a huge number of questions.

Her legal team don't seem to have had much expertise in the field and they were up against the very best.

Remember, you don't need to look far in the past to see how bad the UK system is - Royal Mail / Horizon is a classic example of making the evidence fit and only now have they accepted that they knew the software was flawed all along yet that didn't stop people being wrongly convicted and people committing suicide because the people in charge didn't want to be found out - even if it cost innocent lives.

That was over a year ago !

You don't quote the actual post you mention . I looked it up and it is agreeing with the verdict at the time based on the investigation and jury trial .

I never said I had " done a lot of research " .I think I said I had since" read a bit " more about it at that time but that was mainly the articles presented here .I avoided it otherwise .

I didn't conclude she was guilty .

No ,I am not medical ,..nursing background.

But I am posting here same as as anyone else with knowledge based on the mostly tabloid UK press except for the Panorama episode and trying to correlate it with my very enjoyable and excellent experience working in the NHS years ago in that field of work .

The Panorama episode ... did not go into her defence in court much.

After reading the NYT article I have many questions and think this may be an unsafe conviction , based on her poor defence .

Not sure if I could or anyone could say she is innocent , but it should go to appeal at least .

Originally .. felt it strange that the doctors who would normally be responsible / accountable for these babies' health were blaming a nurse without much proof except a very subjective sense that "something was not right ".

Fair enough if they felt she was a bad neonatal nurse, who did not react quickly enough to her babies' determination, I agree then with removing her from the area .

I didn't read anything that pointed to anything more than that .

Then thought there must have been something more that the police arrested her and charged her.

Would usually be on the nurse's side anyway . .no surprise there !

But it was very highly charged and emotive in here with parents of babies' undergoing similar , and I didn't want to say anything to contribute to that

Tuned out until I read that article above and it reinforced my earlier feelings about this .

I was a bit horrified to see what the actual evidence was in the end presented at trial against her Appears to be in the main her demeanour , .circumstantial ..and a note ..and an investigating witness / doctor who was allowed change his testimony and not be cross examined ?

Very poor for so many convictions .Although I am sure the parents and families of those poor babies are relieved to have some closure.

But what if was not her and just poor care generally by the hospital the doctors and the unit as a whole

But if it's not reexamined we will never know for sure .

Still just gut feeling though .I don"t know enough about it still to be definitive .

And another thought- proving murder in a medical setting must be one of the hardest things for a barrister to achieve - but the prosecution were very successful - just what sort of defence did she have? Did they make the decision that no way would a jury convict on the evidence and just sit back? Where were the counter arguments backed up by an alternative set of medical “experts”?
Im not a lawyer but I have been a jury member - this is basic defence 101- even if the argument's or evidence put forward by the defence are ultimately dismissed in favour of the prosecution there has to be a level of effort put in on behalf of the defence- one would have thought they would have had counter arguments all the way through especially for things like the roster contrasted with serious medical events taking place when she was on duty - Shirley an alternative reality could have been created there that greatly reduced that evidential impact or even negated it

Another interesting one from The Telegraph, they've posted several spin offs of that in the past few days.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-letby-serial-killer-or-miscarriage-justice-victim/

The defence seemed atrocious.

However there is a barrister in the UK, Mark McDonald who just did an interview on this, it's on youtube, where he describes how difficult it is to get expert witnesses for child abuse cases.

There's also going to be a 'private eye' article next week that's going to discuss "The way expert witnesses are used - or not used - in criminal trials with complex and uncertain science is simply not fit for purpose, and risks miscarriages of justice."

https://x.com/drphilhammond/status/1810630891649073506

Here's the New Yorker article

It's long, but well worth a read.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it