Lucy Letby Guilty
Discussion
Hammersia said:
sebdangerfield said:
It was on the full chart. The defence would have had a field day had it not been. The BBC have redacted the chart. The chart shown in court to jurors and discussed for many hours had all the information on.
Can we see this then please.Hammersia said:
sebdangerfield said:
It was on the full chart. The defence would have had a field day had it not been. The BBC have redacted the chart. The chart shown in court to jurors and discussed for many hours had all the information on.
Can we see this then please.What's your hypothesis on what actually did happen, assuming Lucy Letby is innocent? Was it just a series of tragic co-incidental events, or was it a series of evil crimes perpetrated by person or persons unknown, or is there some other explanation?
Ian Geary said:
I can see how the attempted murders were harder to prove, but I did also notice the suspect trying to play the "underfunded NHS" card in her defence.
Potential medico-legal liability due to under-resourcing is a big driver of medical professionals (esp consultants) leaving the NHS. Here's an example, and the comments contain at least one other: https://twitter.com/peter__duffy/status/1692568800...It may not be the cause or this situation, but it *is* a major problem.
Hammersia said:
Strangest murder case ever really, in terms of the gravity of the crimes vs lack of direct evidence, clear motive or any previous examples of psychopathy.
With Beverly Allit, I remember her boyfriend giving interviews after the trial indicating how nutty she was. Nothing remotely like this here.
Isn't that another way of saying these convictions aren't necessarily the soundest ever?With Beverly Allit, I remember her boyfriend giving interviews after the trial indicating how nutty she was. Nothing remotely like this here.
Hondashark said:
I think I read that the unit has only had 1 death in the last 7 years. Pretty incredible change.
I'd be interested to know what else had changed in that time. It is clear that a lot of people were suddenly looking very carefully at the unit. It is also said that the unit no longer treats babies who are as sick.It is also reported that:
- The number of perinatal deaths in 2017 and 2018 was higher than in 2015 and 2016, but Lucy Letby was not on the ward in these years; and
- In June 2019, Dr Gibbs retired. Dr Gibbs was the Senior Consultant who accused Lucy Letby of murdering infants. In that same year the number of perinatal deaths and stillbirths dramatically declined.
pocketspring said:
Why isn't there CCTV in the room?
This is a pretty important question. It is hard to imagine, in 2016, there being no cameras in a NICU.fs916 said:
One of the most damning pieces of evidence most people claim are the insulin (LL even agrees the babies must have been given it),
Yet, if this is accurate
"It is the case that Professor Hindmarsh stated that a blood test with an insulin concentration of 4657 (units not given pmol/L or mU/L) and very low c-peptide could only occur due to exogenous administration. Remarkably, he then leaps to a conclusion that this insulin must have been administered via the dextrose/TPN solutions. This is a stunning claim to make, not least when a concentration of insulin of 4657 pmol/L or 4657 mU/L, would kill two grown men. Yet the infant, who was both very low birth weight and very preterm, recovered without any sequelae in a few hours"
https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/
Any insulin experts looked at this data, and can give their opinion?
Where is Letby supposed to have got all this Insulin from? Is Insulin just routinely available in a cupboard for nurses to grab? Genuine question for hospital folks.Yet, if this is accurate
"It is the case that Professor Hindmarsh stated that a blood test with an insulin concentration of 4657 (units not given pmol/L or mU/L) and very low c-peptide could only occur due to exogenous administration. Remarkably, he then leaps to a conclusion that this insulin must have been administered via the dextrose/TPN solutions. This is a stunning claim to make, not least when a concentration of insulin of 4657 pmol/L or 4657 mU/L, would kill two grown men. Yet the infant, who was both very low birth weight and very preterm, recovered without any sequelae in a few hours"
https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/
Any insulin experts looked at this data, and can give their opinion?
omniflow said:
I suspect I know how you're going to answer this question, but I'll ask it anyway.
What's your hypothesis on what actually did happen, assuming Lucy Letby is innocent? Was it just a series of tragic co-incidental events, or was it a series of evil crimes perpetrated by person or persons unknown, or is there some other explanation?
And this is the problem. Letby is there. A case has been constructed. The default assumption is now there must be a single, probably criminal, cause for all these deaths. If not Letby, then who?What's your hypothesis on what actually did happen, assuming Lucy Letby is innocent? Was it just a series of tragic co-incidental events, or was it a series of evil crimes perpetrated by person or persons unknown, or is there some other explanation?
Frankly, from top to bottom, the whole case stinks. That doesn't mean Letby is innocent of all charges. But the alleged total failures of management make it very hard to believe that standards were being upheld by everyone else at all times - it was clearly monumentally lax.
It is beyond comprehension that all these people who now claim to have had serious concerns did not contact the police, for instance. Or preserve evidence. Or report to coroners.
It is startling to read in the RCPCH report that the consultants only held two ward rounds per week in the NICU. Can any consultants comment on this? This seemed very surprising to me.
I didn't follow the case day-by-day. Were there expert witnesses put up to refute those of the prosecution? What was the defence?
milesgiles said:
it is explained, if you can read, that that chart is supposed to be EVERY death or collapse within that year she worked before being moved to non clerical duties.
Nothing about insulin or air since the causes werent investigated properly.
id think the basic statistical calculation is what is the chance of this being a coincidence. But you do need comparable data from the years previously, and from other comparable baby units, and its not clear that exists
Was the chart for every single death in that year? Nothing about insulin or air since the causes werent investigated properly.
id think the basic statistical calculation is what is the chance of this being a coincidence. But you do need comparable data from the years previously, and from other comparable baby units, and its not clear that exists
The caption merely suggests it was a list picked to include all unexpected events when Letby was on shift which is quite a different thing per what you were saying above.
As you say, it perhaps would be a more comparable list to show all unexpected events over the year (and compared to prior years) and how different it was only once she was working there.
I believe there were 6 extra deaths during the year, that she was not present for.
Now, if you took her out of the picture and combined those 6 deaths with the 7 she was convicted of - would it be possible to paint a similar picture against another member of staff? not implying any guilt on any member of staff, just wondering if prosecution could selectively build a case against anyone?
Now, if you took her out of the picture and combined those 6 deaths with the 7 she was convicted of - would it be possible to paint a similar picture against another member of staff? not implying any guilt on any member of staff, just wondering if prosecution could selectively build a case against anyone?
fs916 said:
I believe there were 6 extra deaths during the year, that she was not present for.
Now, if you took her out of the picture and combined those 6 deaths with the 7 she was convicted of - would it be possible to paint a similar picture against another member of staff?
Do you have a link for that re 6 more without? 6+ those she was involved in would seem to be very high given the BBC article says CCH were averaging 2-3 deaths a year previously. Now, if you took her out of the picture and combined those 6 deaths with the 7 she was convicted of - would it be possible to paint a similar picture against another member of staff?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/18/po...
"The hospital said it had contacted the police this month to help them rule out unnatural causes of death in its neonatal unit between June 2015 and June 2016. The force said it would examine the deaths of 15 babies "
So according to that, over 12 months, there was 15 deaths and she was charged and convicted of 7 of those
I also seem to remember seeing a chart which showed a similar rise in stillbirths during that time. There's so much info out there, it's an absolute headache!
Going to leave it here, don't wish to get too involved in such a difficult subject.
fs916 said:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/18/po...
"The hospital said it had contacted the police this month to help them rule out unnatural causes of death in its neonatal unit between June 2015 and June 2016. The force said it would examine the deaths of 15 babies "
So according to that, over 12 months, there was 15 deaths and she was charged and convicted of 7 of those
I also seem to remember seeing a chart which showed a similar rise in stillbirths during that time. There's so much info out there, it's an absolute headache!
Going to leave it here, don't wish to get too involved in such a difficult subject.
Thanks for the link. It does have an odd bit later as it also says"The hospital said it had contacted the police this month to help them rule out unnatural causes of death in its neonatal unit between June 2015 and June 2016. The force said it would examine the deaths of 15 babies "
So according to that, over 12 months, there was 15 deaths and she was charged and convicted of 7 of those
I also seem to remember seeing a chart which showed a similar rise in stillbirths during that time. There's so much info out there, it's an absolute headache!
Going to leave it here, don't wish to get too involved in such a difficult subject.
"Two babies died in the unit in 2013 and three died in 2014. In comparison, there were eight deaths in 2015 and five in 2016."
15 deaths would mean 2 more than the neonatal unit were involved with?
It's a mess on all sides that's for sure.
skwdenyer said:
I didn't follow the case day-by-day. Were there expert witnesses put up to refute those of the prosecution? What was the defence?
Expert witnesses don’t really work like that. An expert witness can give evidence of opinion in court when a normal witness can only give fact so it’d be a difficult situation for one expert to refute another’s opinion. It’d discredit the viability of the expert holding that position in the first place. Because of that, situations often arise where prosecution and defence experts will accept on what they both agree on and deal with the bits they don’t with a statement along the lines of, “I’ve never experienced x in my x years of practice.” Or, “in x years of practice I’ve seen this once and in my opinion I attribute it to x.” In my line of work that’s rare as physics doesn’t lie and neither can digital media and telecommunications systems but in the medical world it’s more prevalent.
sebdangerfield said:
skwdenyer said:
I didn't follow the case day-by-day. Were there expert witnesses put up to refute those of the prosecution? What was the defence?
Expert witnesses don’t really work like that. An expert witness can give evidence of opinion in court when a normal witness can only give fact so it’d be a difficult situation for one expert to refute another’s opinion. It’d discredit the viability of the expert holding that position in the first place. Because of that, situations often arise where prosecution and defence experts will accept on what they both agree on and deal with the bits they don’t with a statement along the lines of, “I’ve never experienced x in my x years of practice.” Or, “in x years of practice I’ve seen this once and in my opinion I attribute it to x.” In my line of work that’s rare as physics doesn’t lie and neither can digital media and telecommunications systems but in the medical world it’s more prevalent.
sebdangerfield said:
Expert witnesses don’t really work like that. An expert witness can give evidence of opinion in court when a normal witness can only give fact so it’d be a difficult situation for one expert to refute another’s opinion. It’d discredit the viability of the expert holding that position in the first place.
Because of that, situations often arise where prosecution and defence experts will accept on what they both agree on and deal with the bits they don’t with a statement along the lines of, “I’ve never experienced x in my x years of practice.” Or, “in x years of practice I’ve seen this once and in my opinion I attribute it to x.” In my line of work that’s rare as physics doesn’t lie and neither can digital media and telecommunications systems but in the medical world it’s more prevalent.
Thanks. I was aware of that in civil cases. It is a most unsatisfactory aspect of English justice. Experts frequently disagree in real life, especially on matters of judgement and opinion.Because of that, situations often arise where prosecution and defence experts will accept on what they both agree on and deal with the bits they don’t with a statement along the lines of, “I’ve never experienced x in my x years of practice.” Or, “in x years of practice I’ve seen this once and in my opinion I attribute it to x.” In my line of work that’s rare as physics doesn’t lie and neither can digital media and telecommunications systems but in the medical world it’s more prevalent.
So how does one go about rebutting such a witness in England? The site linked-to earlier is interesting (I say no more than that, because it isn’t my domain and I can’t comment on the validity and currency of the references they’ve given) and would seem to provide a number of avenues for genuine disagreement (as opposed to arguing for the sake of it) as to the prosecution’s version of events.
skwdenyer said:
sebdangerfield said:
Expert witnesses don’t really work like that. An expert witness can give evidence of opinion in court when a normal witness can only give fact so it’d be a difficult situation for one expert to refute another’s opinion. It’d discredit the viability of the expert holding that position in the first place.
Because of that, situations often arise where prosecution and defence experts will accept on what they both agree on and deal with the bits they don’t with a statement along the lines of, “I’ve never experienced x in my x years of practice.” Or, “in x years of practice I’ve seen this once and in my opinion I attribute it to x.” In my line of work that’s rare as physics doesn’t lie and neither can digital media and telecommunications systems but in the medical world it’s more prevalent.
Thanks. I was aware of that in civil cases. It is a most unsatisfactory aspect of English justice. Experts frequently disagree in real life, especially on matters of judgement and opinion.Because of that, situations often arise where prosecution and defence experts will accept on what they both agree on and deal with the bits they don’t with a statement along the lines of, “I’ve never experienced x in my x years of practice.” Or, “in x years of practice I’ve seen this once and in my opinion I attribute it to x.” In my line of work that’s rare as physics doesn’t lie and neither can digital media and telecommunications systems but in the medical world it’s more prevalent.
So how does one go about rebutting such a witness in England? The site linked-to earlier is interesting (I say no more than that, because it isn’t my domain and I can’t comment on the validity and currency of the references they’ve given) and would seem to provide a number of avenues for genuine disagreement (as opposed to arguing for the sake of it) as to the prosecution’s version of events.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark
If they used probability in this case I hope they did their homework. IMO the UK Statistics Authority should be given real teeth to punish bulls
t stats abuses in media and public life. Although that's probably impossible in the post-twitter age.skwdenyer said:
sebdangerfield said:
Expert witnesses don’t really work like that. An expert witness can give evidence of opinion in court when a normal witness can only give fact so it’d be a difficult situation for one expert to refute another’s opinion. It’d discredit the viability of the expert holding that position in the first place.
Because of that, situations often arise where prosecution and defence experts will accept on what they both agree on and deal with the bits they don’t with a statement along the lines of, “I’ve never experienced x in my x years of practice.” Or, “in x years of practice I’ve seen this once and in my opinion I attribute it to x.” In my line of work that’s rare as physics doesn’t lie and neither can digital media and telecommunications systems but in the medical world it’s more prevalent.
Thanks. I was aware of that in civil cases. It is a most unsatisfactory aspect of English justice. Experts frequently disagree in real life, especially on matters of judgement and opinion.Because of that, situations often arise where prosecution and defence experts will accept on what they both agree on and deal with the bits they don’t with a statement along the lines of, “I’ve never experienced x in my x years of practice.” Or, “in x years of practice I’ve seen this once and in my opinion I attribute it to x.” In my line of work that’s rare as physics doesn’t lie and neither can digital media and telecommunications systems but in the medical world it’s more prevalent.
So how does one go about rebutting such a witness in England? The site linked-to earlier is interesting (I say no more than that, because it isn’t my domain and I can’t comment on the validity and currency of the references they’ve given) and would seem to provide a number of avenues for genuine disagreement (as opposed to arguing for the sake of it) as to the prosecution’s version of events.
There are many ways in which this can be done. It can start with poor selection by the opposing side where the witness expertise can be easily challenged. I've seen psychiatrists called as expert witnesses in a dispute where physiology and chemistry is more relevant.
They will be cross-examined. Many will have been paid a fixed fee and will not have done as much research on the subject as me. Sometimes they'll use a section of a piece of research to support their opinion but fail to see contradictory evidence from the very same source elsewhere. That can be devastating if I've led them up the path of bigging up their impeccable source material.
The aim is to show they're not so expert after all. Many are poor in a formal setting and when put under pressure. Many have big egos and short tempers. A succession of get outs along the lines of 'can't comment as that's outside my experience' can put doubts in the minds of those judging the weight and validity of their evidence.
It's a game.
Edited by Unreal on Saturday 19th August 18:24
glazbagun said:
Sally Clark was convicted of murdering her own children in part because of flawed statistical analysis and the so-named Prosecutor's Fallacy. Her own defence missed it, too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark
If they used probability in this case I hope they did their homework. IMO the UK Statistics Authority should be given real teeth to punish bullst stats abuses in media and public life. Although that's probably impossible in the post-twitter age.
A decent understanding of probability, particularly as it relates to risk assessment, should be part of every child's education.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark
If they used probability in this case I hope they did their homework. IMO the UK Statistics Authority should be given real teeth to punish bulls
t stats abuses in media and public life. Although that's probably impossible in the post-twitter age.skwdenyer said:
Thanks. I was aware of that in civil cases. It is a most unsatisfactory aspect of English justice. Experts frequently disagree in real life, especially on matters of judgement and opinion.
So how does one go about rebutting such a witness in England? The site linked-to earlier is interesting (I say no more than that, because it isn’t my domain and I can’t comment on the validity and currency of the references they’ve given) and would seem to provide a number of avenues for genuine disagreement (as opposed to arguing for the sake of it) as to the prosecution’s version of events.
Sorry, I know this has been answered by others but I’m unsure what HR is and In my line of work (criminal) it’s significantly different. The expert witnesses will set out in a joint statement the basic science and accepted principles underlying their field of expertise and the points where they agree and disagree. These points are then presented to the jury in a formal admission. The jury then decide on the contentious points. So how does one go about rebutting such a witness in England? The site linked-to earlier is interesting (I say no more than that, because it isn’t my domain and I can’t comment on the validity and currency of the references they’ve given) and would seem to provide a number of avenues for genuine disagreement (as opposed to arguing for the sake of it) as to the prosecution’s version of events.
Because it’s a joint statement there are always phrases the expert will be comfortable with and those they are not and as such the statement is carefully worded to be cautious.
That’s not to say issues dont happen though. For example, some areas are ISO accredited, digital forensics for example. Telecommunications data however isn’t yet. It will be in the next few years. Some experts I’ve come head to head with on telecommunications evidence are doctors in chemical engineering with 15 years experience in DNA analysis but have a week’s course on comms data. Accreditation is dealing with that but so does joint statements from the experts.
sebdangerfield said:
skwdenyer said:
I didn't follow the case day-by-day. Were there expert witnesses put up to refute those of the prosecution? What was the defence?
Expert witnesses don’t really work like that. An expert witness can give evidence of opinion in court when a normal witness can only give fact so it’d be a difficult situation for one expert to refute another’s opinion. It’d discredit the viability of the expert holding that position in the first place. Because of that, situations often arise where prosecution and defence experts will accept on what they both agree on and deal with the bits they don’t with a statement along the lines of, “I’ve never experienced x in my x years of practice.” Or, “in x years of practice I’ve seen this once and in my opinion I attribute it to x.” In my line of work that’s rare as physics doesn’t lie and neither can digital media and telecommunications systems but in the medical world it’s more prevalent.
sebdangerfield said:
Sorry, I know this has been answered by others but I’m unsure what HR is and In my line of work (criminal) it’s significantly different. The expert witnesses will set out in a joint statement the basic science and accepted principles underlying their field of expertise and the points where they agree and disagree. These points are then presented to the jury in a formal admission. The jury then decide on the contentious points.
Isn't that a real problem then that the jury who are essentially laypersons are going to have to decide which expert to believe and a case potentially boils down purely to whose lawyer argues said expert's (subjective) better? For a specialist issue, surely it should be a separate set of experts in that field that are better placed to decide whose view is more likely?isaldiri said:
Was the chart for every single death in that year?
[Img]https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/15BDB/production/_130615098_lucy_letby_nurses_shift_grid_2x640-nc_2x640-nc.png.webp[/thumb]
The caption merely suggests it was a list picked to include all unexpected events when Letby was on shift which is quite a different thing per what you were saying above.
As you say, it perhaps would be a more comparable list to show all unexpected events over the year (and compared to prior years) and how different it was only once she was working there.
yeah I think most of this is poor reporting[Img]https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/15BDB/production/_130615098_lucy_letby_nurses_shift_grid_2x640-nc_2x640-nc.png.webp[/thumb]
The caption merely suggests it was a list picked to include all unexpected events when Letby was on shift which is quite a different thing per what you were saying above.
As you say, it perhaps would be a more comparable list to show all unexpected events over the year (and compared to prior years) and how different it was only once she was working there.
were there deaths and unexpected events when she wasnt present that year? There surely were, so why are they not in the chart?
isaldiri said:
sebdangerfield said:
Sorry, I know this has been answered by others but I’m unsure what HR is and In my line of work (criminal) it’s significantly different. The expert witnesses will set out in a joint statement the basic science and accepted principles underlying their field of expertise and the points where they agree and disagree. These points are then presented to the jury in a formal admission. The jury then decide on the contentious points.
Isn't that a real problem then that the jury who are essentially laypersons are going to have to decide which expert to believe and a case potentially boils down purely to whose lawyer argues said expert's (subjective) better? For a specialist issue, surely it should be a separate set of experts in that field that are better placed to decide whose view is more likely?For example, I may say in my opinion a phone was likely to have been in an area of coverage which includes the offence location at the material time. It’s for a jury to decide if the phone was in the defendant’s hand at the time. Or an expert may say they’ve only ever seen injuries such as those the victim suffered in situations when air is injected into a baby. It’s for the jury to decide how much weight to give “only ever” in the expert’s statement and then if the likelihood of that occurring was due to the defendant administering it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff