UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #4

[kittythehare]

I was thinking more on the lines of (if she is in fact guilty) perhaps she got used to the limelight and found things a bit tame afterwards. This is simply conjecture as I have no idea what being the face of the campaign actually involved but perhaps it created a desire for more attention. Just my own thoughts and conjecture.

Could well be.

 

[Kitaro]

They don't need to disprove the charges. The defence needs to create enough reasonable doubt, 'doubt' is not a fact, it is something we all assess differently and some jurors will have more doubt than others.

I stand corrected on the terminology, criminal cases aren’t my area of expertise I’m only interested in this as it happened in my home city. Either way the defence has it’s work cut out here, pretty hard to create doubt with that note as a layman. As for sentencing, this is a very unique case and sure if she is found guilty it will be reflected in that.

 

[squish]

Here is a very thorough article on the generic reasons for Whole Life Orders and why Lord Justice Fulford deemed Wayne Couzens offending to be unique, handing him a Whole Life Order, even though his crimes did not fit the established reasons.

Of course it is up to any Judge at sentencing, but if a Whole Life Order is handed down outside of the generic reasons, the offending will need to have had a disproportionate impact on wider society.

Otherwise the sentence will be appealed, which is likely to be successful.

Why the whole-life sentence for the murderer of Sarah Everard is correct

30th September 2021 Earlier today the murderer of Sarah Everard received a whole-life sentence. Such a sentence is exceptional – the relevant statutory provision sets out five express instanc…

davidallengreen.com

It will have a HUGE impact on wider society, the NHS will have to overhaul it’s rules to prevent this happening again. There will also be a massive inquest. The public trust medical professionals with their lives. It is equal to, if not worse than Wayne Couzens in terms of abuse of power and trust.

 

[Charlot123]

.

It doesn't seem impossible at all. It's not as though babies were dying every day. The unit was downgraded around the time LL was taken off clinical duties so any suggestion that these things "stopped" when she stopped nursing is irrelevant.

You say, "uniquely high number of deaths". We don't know that that is true because we don't, for instance, know the numbers of patients in the unit at the relevant time or the seriousness of their conditions when compared with at other times.

It seems that the prosecution, though, aren't overly emphasising the increased numbers of deaths or, importantly, the mere fact that LL was on-shift at the time which is what seems to have happened in the case of LDB. Their evidence seems to be along the lines that LL was physically present in very close proximity to these patients when the events happened. They still haven't produced any forensic evidence that LL actually did anything that I can see, though, so it's still a variation on the "LL was there so she must have done it" theme.

Honestly, I’d like to see some statistics. It may not even start with the unit. First, was there any increase in the number of preemies born in the area in 2015-2016? Was there any recent change in the policy for that NICU? For example, after 2016, the unit stopped taking neonates earlier that 32 weeks. Maybe the opposite change happened in 2014? It usually takes about 2 years to see the effect. Did they widen the area of catchment, including some regions with poor prenatal care? Did they open IVF center in the hospital?

Or maybe, an old doctor working at the NICU for years retired? Maybe instead of hiring one doctor they split a position between two?

There might be lots of factors adversely impacting the statistics.

 

[Supernovae]

I think that in light of cases like LDB, prosecution cases will stay well clear of using statistics as a main piece of evidence in order to convict people. Didn't they use percentages in order to put the finger on Rebecca Leighton as well?

They've already used some form of statistical reasoning multiple times in opening and the fact they haven't used a flashy Roy Meadow style "1 in 73 million" figure doesn't change that.

From my copy of Bad Science by Ben Goldacre (p273):

"Not only was this crucial nuance of the prosecutor's fallacy missed at the time - by everyone in court - it was also clearly missed in the appeal, at which the judges suggested that instead of 'one in seventy-three million', Meadow should have said 'very rare'. They recognised the flaws in the calculation, the ecological fallacy, the easy problem above, but they still accepted his number as establishing a 'a very broad point, namely the rarity of double SIDS'.

That, as you now understand, was entirely wrongheaded: the rarity of double SIDS is irrelevant, because double murder is rare too. An entire court process failed to spot the nuance of how the figure should be used. Twice."

 

[Charlot123]

Yes, it's possible!

If something has happened once then it can happen again, if the conditions remain the same.

But they didn’t. They changed the admissions criteria. What the unit says is that they are not equipped to take care of very high-risk neonates. So their statistics should be stellar now. If they still have bad statistics, the next person to get rid of is the CEO of the hospital.

 

[Honeybirdette]

This is the other main expert:

Dr Sandra Bohin | Forensics and Expert Witnesses Magazine

www.forensicandexpertwitness.co.uk

I wonder what route mr myers will go down to discredit her testimony? He wont be able to use “a little bit past it” on her. That’s for sure!

 

[arrogantcat]

I stand corrected on the terminology, criminal cases aren’t my area of expertise I’m only interested in this as it happened in my home city. Either way the defence has it’s work cut out here, pretty hard to create doubt with that note as a layman. As for sentencing, this is a very unique case and sure if she is found guilty it will be reflected in that.

The note also says “I have done nothing wrong”. Literally both are there in the same note, so I’d say doubt is the most reasonable response.

There are apparently additional notes further arguing her innocence, too, that have not been released yet.

 

[Charlot123]

Question. Now that Countess of Chester hospital is limiting its admission of very premature babies and they are diverted to other hospitals, how is statistics of NICU deaths changed in those hospitals? They are overwhelmed and overburdened now. I’d like to see what happens in them.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

It was the high number of deaths that started bells ringing and concerns to be raised in the first place, and that was before a detailed investigation started and potential evidence came to light.

This talk of a high number of neonatal deaths MUST be put into context. The numbers are far from statistically overwhelming.

The notion that there were 'loads' of additional deaths at CoCH in 2015 and 2016 is just NOT the case.

The Countess of Chester Hospital delivered 3043 babies in 2015.
The Countess of Chester Hospital delivered 2980 babies in 2016.

A neonatal death IS a liveborn baby (born at 20+ weeks gestational age or later, or with a birthweight of 400g or more where an accurate estimate of gestation is not available), who died before 28 completed days after birth

In 2015 overall neonatal mortality was 1.91 per 1000 live births. Hospitals with similar numbers of births had an average neonatal mortality rate of 1.27 per 1000 births.

For some additional context the UK neonatal mortality rate in 2015 was 2.6 per 1000 births. In 2016 it was 2.7 per 1000 births. Therefore, the CoCH had a significantly lower neonatal mortality rate that the UK average in both of these years.

The extended perinatal births and extended perinatal mortality include stillbirth, which we do not need to consider in this instance.

The CoCH neonatal mortality rate declined in 2016, as shown on the graph.

The CoCH had the highest neonatal mortality rate in 2015, when compared to NHS hospitals with a similar number of births. In 2016 The CoCH still featured as one of the highest, compared with hospitals with a similar number of births.

Countess of Chester Hospital: Woman held in baby deaths probe

A healthcare professional is being held over the deaths of eight babies at a Cheshire hospital.

www.bbc.co.uk

Indicator 3.2.2 - Neonatal mortality rate - U.K. Indicators For The Sustainable Development Goals

sdgdata.gov.uk

 

[merrypason]

Imagine a totally different situation. This is totally hypothetical, not blaming anyone, just explaining how different situations might create the same impression.

Just a fantasy.

Imagine that there is a hypothetical hospital, and a higher than expected number of hospital deaths, and a nurse is accused because there is some correlation between the nurse being on call and a negative outcome.

That nurse, IRL, is not guilty. She merely has a silent crush on another staffer and tries to organize her on call days/nights around the time that other person is working. And the other person is harming the patients, but he/she/they don’t stand out at all.

Now once the negative statistics is found out, a lot of changes happen. Cameras everywhere, better accountability, someone is accused, lots of attention. The real culprit either feels scared to continue, or, most likely, leaves.

Trying to study the “close proximity” situation. There might be tons of reasons why the events seem paired.

For all I know, statistics might be bad merely because the preemies are so fragile, and there was no additional culprit.

https://www.cheshire.police.uk/police-forces/cheshire-constabulary/areas/cheshire/about-us/about-us/operation-hummingbird/

Some context of this police operation and how thorough if nothing else, they're being.

They've been investigating this for 6 years, they asked for another £1mn last year in additional funding (on the police funding publication) and the DCI role has been extended to 2025. If it was a hack job based on just statistics and the opinion of two experts, they would have ramped down this investigation in 2020 after she was charged.

I think they will have other medical experts at the trial as well by the sound of it. Certainly in one of the cases, they talked about a nursing expert, and also professor. There might be colleagues, victim's parents, neighbours - who knows, they haven't actually presented anything yet.....

There's 6 months worth of evidence to go through. They're still just talking about expert's credentials and how things work at the hospital. There's clearly a LOT more to come.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

It will have a HUGE impact on wider society, the NHS will have to overhaul it’s rules to prevent this happening again. There will also be a massive inquest. The public trust medical professionals with their lives. It is equal to, if not worse than Wayne Couzens in terms of abuse of power and trust.

<modsnip>
Please read the sentencing of WC by Lord Justice Fulford and then all will become clear.

 

[annpats]

This talk of a high number of neonatal deaths MUST be put into context. The numbers are far from statistically overwhelming.

The notion that there were 'loads' of additional deaths at CoCH in 2015 and 2016 is just NOT the case.

The Countess of Chester Hospital delivered 3043 babies in 2015.
The Countess of Chester Hospital delivered 2980 babies in 2016.

A neonatal death IS a liveborn baby (born at 20+ weeks gestational age or later, or with a birthweight of 400g or more where an accurate estimate of gestation is not available), who died before 28 completed days after birth

In 2015 overall neonatal mortality was 1.91 per 1000 live births. Hospitals with similar numbers of births had an average neonatal mortality rate of 1.27 per 1000 births.

For some additional context the UK neonatal mortality rate in 2015 was 2.6 per 1000 births. In 2016 it was 2.7 per 1000 births. Therefore, the CoCH had a significantly lower neonatal mortality rate that the UK average in both of these years.

The extended perinatal births and extended perinatal mortality include stillbirth, which we do not need to consider in this instance.

The CoCH neonatal mortality rate declined in 2016, as shown on the graph.

The CoCH had the highest neonatal mortality rate in 2015, when compared to NHS hospitals with a similar number of births. In 2016 The CoCH still featured as one of the highest, compared with hospitals with a similar number of births.


View attachment 373413

Countess of Chester Hospital: Woman held in baby deaths probe

A healthcare professional is being held over the deaths of eight babies at a Cheshire hospital.

www.bbc.co.uk

Indicator 3.2.2 - Neonatal mortality rate - U.K. Indicators For The Sustainable Development Goals

sdgdata.gov.uk

Well then, if the C of C neo-natal unit did have an average or lower than average death rate, it obviously wasn't that that initiated the suspicion and subsequent investigation......which, for me, puts LL in an even more precarious position.

MOO.

 

[arrogantcat]

Well then, if the C of C neo-natal unit did have an average or lower than average death rate, it obviously wasn't that that initiated the suspicion and subsequent investigation......which, for me, puts LL in an even more precarious position.

MOO.

<modsnip>
Nationally, it was below average, but in comparison to its own averages, the years in question were high. Apples and oranges.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

But they didn’t. They changed the admissions criteria. What the unit says is that they are not equipped to take care of very high-risk neonates. So their statistics should be stellar now. If they still have bad statistics, the next person to get rid of is the CEO of the hospital.

The new unit opened in 2021 and is a level 3 Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.

The unit accepts the most poorly babies for a longer period. Therefore, I assume there is a higher neonatal mortality rate compared to LNU or SCBU.

 

[Dcflag]

While I understand statistics will become important in this case. I’d really love to see stats in general on neonates and deaths including excess air/air embolus. I’d be interested to see how common it is. I get the impression so far that the fact that many of the babies had signs of, or the potential cause of death was air embolisms is significant in itself.

 

[ShireChe]

One thing I am interested in is the charge that was struck off. Will the defence be able to mention this?

I wonder what the original evidence was to say it was murder and then what changed to decide they couldn't include it in the charges. Does this not indicate that there is certainly a possibility for doubt within the cases. However I do think the defence will need some excellent experts to get the jury on board with them, because I don't believe they will take the risk of putting LL up there

 

[kittythehare]

https://www.cheshire.police.uk/police-forces/cheshire-constabulary/areas/cheshire/about-us/about-us/operation-hummingbird/

Some context of this police operation and how thorough if nothing else, they're being.

They've been investigating this for 6 years, they asked for another £1mn last year in additional funding (on the police funding publication) and the DCI role has been extended to 2025. If it was a hack job based on just statistics and the opinion of two experts, they would have ramped down this investigation in 2020 after she was charged.

I think they will have other medical experts at the trial as well by the sound of it. Certainly in one of the cases, they talked about a nursing expert, and also professor. There might be colleagues, victim's parents, neighbours - who knows, they haven't actually presented anything yet.....

There's 6 months worth of evidence to go through. They're still just talking about expert's credentials and how things work at the hospital. There's clearly a LOT more to come.

Please think before you say or do anything and remember that, at the heart of this case, are a number of bereaved and affected families.

https://www.cheshire.police.uk/police-forces/cheshire-constabulary/areas/cheshire/about-us/about-us/operation-hummingbird/important-information/

This is an extremely difficult time for all the families and it is important to remember that, at the heart of this, there are a number of families seeking answers as to what happened to their children.

This is it.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

One thing I am interested in is the charge that was struck off. Will the defence be able to mention this?

I wonder what the original evidence was to say it was murder and then what changed to decide they couldn't include it in the charges. Does this not indicate that there is certainly a possibility for doubt within the cases. However I do think the defence will need some excellent experts to get the jury on board with them, because I don't believe they will take the risk of putting LL up there

You are quite correct in questioning the reasons for the other charge being struck out.

The defence won't raise it, it is irrelevant to the court proceedings. However, Mr Myers KC will hopefully have identified the reasons why it was struck out and may seek to exploit them with his defence of LL, in relation to the other charges.

 

[kittythehare]

One thing I am interested in is the charge that was struck off. Will the defence be able to mention this?

I wonder what the original evidence was to say it was murder and then what changed to decide they couldn't include it in the charges. Does this not indicate that there is certainly a possibility for doubt within the cases. However I do think the defence will need some excellent experts to get the jury on board with them, because I don't believe they will take the risk of putting LL up there

I dont have information on this case but there are many possible reasons for striking cases. Insufficient evidence could be one. There are myriads of possibilities. It is unlikely to affect the actual prosecutions which are going ahead because the evidence meets the bar for a murder charge.