Could Lucy Letby be innocent?

[Skeptisk]

I didn’t follow her initial trial or read too much about it. It was presented in the media as if the evidence against her was overwhelming. However I read today (in the Guardian) that:

- there was no physical evidence linking her to any of the deaths
- there were no witnesses to any suspect actions
- the statistical evidence is not secure (the spike in deaths is not statistically significant)
- there were 6 deaths when she wasn’t on duty
- the expert witness evidence on cause of death and linking of them to specific actions that Letby is claimed to have done eg inject air into the babies is contested by other experts
- her defence didn’t call expert witnesses

Is it possible that she is innocent? Are the convictions safe?

[simon_harris]

no and yes

[pghstochaj]

Skeptisk said:

- her defence didn’t call expert witnesses

What about Dr Mike Hall?

[Super Sonic]

Yes and no. I've always been uneasy due to lack of evidence, and the fact that she shows none of the behaviours associated with serial killers. It is possible she has been scapegoated to draw attention from the real causes. There is a history of hospitals having inadequate maternity departments, and management cover ups.
Seems management would rather see people imprisoned than admit failures.

[Not-The-Messiah]

It's joke of a trial.

From what I've seen it seems shes been found guilty purely on what happened being statistically unlikely.

What next, are they going to go and arrest lottery winners and say they must have stolen the money because it's statically unlikely they won it?

Easier to just blame a fall guy than the institution for it's incompetence is my opinion.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

I've heard a couple of people raising doubts and parallels drawn with a case in (IIRC) the Netherlands. I certainly didn't find the "confessions" scribbled on a notepad after her first arrest to be very convincing.

You would really hope that such monstrous allegations would have to be proven beyond any slight shadow of a doubt.

[phil-sti]

Skeptisk said:

I didn’t follow her initial trial or read too much about it. It was presented in the media as if the evidence against her was overwhelming. However I read today (in the Guardian) that:

- there was no physical evidence linking her to any of the deaths
- there were no witnesses to any suspect actions
- the statistical evidence is not secure (the spike in deaths is not statistically significant)
- there were 6 deaths when she wasn’t on duty
- the expert witness evidence on cause of death and linking of them to specific actions that Letby is claimed to have done eg inject air into the babies is contested by other experts
- her defence didn’t call expert witnesses

Is it possible that she is innocent? Are the convictions safe?

Hasn't she been refused the right too appeal? that in itself says there is no evidence of an unsafe conviction.

[greygoose]

Super Sonic said:

Yes and no. I've always been uneasy due to lack of evidence, and the fact that she shows none of the behaviours associated with serial killers. It is possible she has been scapegoated to draw attention from the real causes. There is a history of hospitals having inadequate maternity departments, and management cover ups.
Seems management would rather see people imprisoned than admit failures.

I read an article the other day that she does fit the profile of female serial killers. The lack of action by the management may have lead to more victims being attacked by her but she was the one killing those babies.

[Hugo Stiglitz]

Has anyone actually reviewed all the evidence and been present at the trial or basing their judgement on snippets and a biased US article.

[Tankrizzo]

I did read the trial coverage at the time and thought the evidence against her seemed largely circumstantial. But I'm not a lawyer or involved in maternity stuff so I can't say if that's enough to make it an unsafe conviction.

[Petrus1983]

I think she's innocent. Maybe there's a Ted Bundy aspect to it. Either way I'm uncomfortable with the conviction.

[greygoose]

Petrus1983 said:

I think she's innocent. Maybe there's a Ted Bundy aspect to it. Either way I'm uncomfortable with the conviction.

Do you think Ted Bundy is innocent?!

[blue_haddock]

Not-The-Messiah said:

It's joke of a trial.

From what I've seen it seems shes been found guilty purely on what happened being statistically unlikely.

What next, are they going to go and arrest lottery winners and say they must have stolen the money because it's statically unlikely they won it?

Easier to just blame a fall guy than the institution for it's incompetence is my opinion.

For me the most recent retrail is the most unsafe as it basically just said that based on her convictions shes a mass murderer so its ok to just rely on that rather than any actual evidence.

But i do have doubts like others over the actual lack of physical evidence and relying on circumstantial evidence.

[Petrus1983]

greygoose said:

Petrus1983 said:

I think she's innocent. Maybe there's a Ted Bundy aspect to it. Either way I'm uncomfortable with the conviction.

Do you think Ted Bundy is innocent?!

Well no - that's exactly the point.

[dundarach]

Gosh, not sure what to think or write in this case.

I would hope for her sake, she is, in that, if she isn't then it's a terrible miscarriage of justice and moreover, everyone thinking she's a baby killer, must be really terrible.

Could she be, not so sure?

I've never worked in the NHS or could imagine within a new born baby ward. I don't know what the statistics are for how many babies die per individual.

When we had our two, I didn't get the impression that large numbers were dying, especially to each nurse.

Which brings me to my own lived experience previously employed as a teacher many years ago. Back then we took every precaution to ensure we were never in a situation where things can go wrong. Never touch a child, never be alone with a child, if you're ever in the position (detentions, catch ups, sorting one of them out) get someone else, tell someone else, open a door, ask for supervision and so on.

I would have expected a nurse who appeared to be around large numbers of dying babies to cover themselves, or walk!

Then again, as I say, I don't know what it's like or the numbers.

I think she's probably guilty, and perversely, I hope she is.

The babies are dead, the parents have closure and she can live with her actions.

Editing to add, I'm now googling numbers:

So 0.4% infant mortality rate.https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/childhoodinfantandperinatalmortalityinenglandandwales/2022#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20there%20were%201%2C019,1%20of%20our%20accompanying%20dataset).

Something like 5000 nurses https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC85221...

20 deaths per nurse per year - bloody hell!!! (although I'm guessing this includes dead births etc.)

Wow!

Edited by dundarach on Tuesday 9th July 12:39

[JuanCarlosFandango]

greygoose said:

I read an article the other day that she does fit the profile of female serial killers. The lack of action by the management may have lead to more victims being attacked by her but she was the one killing those babies.

The study found that they "tended to be white, middle class, Christian, in their 20s or 30s, of average intelligence and attractiveness and in a “stereotypically feminine job.""

Quite a broad profile.

[AdeTuono]

Petrus1983 said:

I think she's innocent. Maybe there's a Ted Bundy aspect to it. Either way I'm uncomfortable with the conviction.

12 people sat through a 10 month trial, were presented with all the evidence, and came to a guilty verdict.

What do you know that they don't?

[Pistom]

AdeTuono said:

12 people sat through a 10 month trial, were presented with all the evidence, and came to a guilty verdict.

What do you know that they don't?

Not having spent 10 months in a trial that was focused on statistical probability and treating that as fact is one advantage. It's very easy to be sold a lie. It's happened before and will happen again.

I've no idea if it happened on this occasion but the simple fact is she's been found guilty and now for that to be overturned, something significant is going to have to happen.

[Rufus Stone]

AdeTuono said:

12 people sat through a 10 month trial, were presented with all the evidence, and came to a guilty verdict.

What do you know that they don't?

Because juries have never made mistakes before.

[Senex]

AdeTuono said:

12 people sat through a 10 month trial, were presented with all the evidence, and came to a guilty verdict.

What do you know that they don't?

Juries can be very unreliable.

In her book, Forensics: The Anatomy of Crime. Val McDermid writes about a case where a 14 year old girl was being sexually abused by her father (or step-father, I forget which) in which Ms. McDermid presented pretty overwhelming evidence for the prosecution.

The 14 year old was unusually level-headed and logical. The jury returned an innocent verdict.

When jury members were later questioned about their decision, several of them thought the girl didn't cry enough when giving her evidence.

Eye witnesses can be even more unreliable.