UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #36

[Charlot123]

bbm

How in the world would hospital statistics account for the anomaly of an murderous nurse. LL was convicted of murders because of many factors proving her guilt.

And she got away with murders she committed because they couldn’t prove it in court. That does not make her innocent of those crimes.



Right. It was a case of a murderous nurse. A ghastly, murderous nurse.

So: it is a mega-huge case. In such cases, the burden of proof has to be extensive. I understand that there probably were some serious suspicions about Lucy besides Dr. RJ.

The claimed anomaly was not the nurse; it was the rise in the NICU deaths in 2014-2015. If it was due to the nurse LL only, then statistical analysis will be absolutely able to show "Lucy" when controlled for other factors. In fact, often in such cases there might be two unconnected factors or even more that pop out. But If after controlling for the other one or two, the the factor of LL still stays, it will be incredibly suspicious. I wonder why no such work has been done, though.

 

[Charlot123]

The statisticians seem incapable of looking at the babies as individuals. This was not a case of oh there’s been an unexpected increase in deaths therefore there must’ve been murders and we’re gonna blame a nurse for them. There is a difference between an “unexpected increase in overall deaths” and an “increase in unexpected and unexplained deaths”.

So it’s not that the suspicious part was just that the overall number of deaths increased unexpectedly. For example you could have had a situation where that happened but each of the individual deaths was expected and easily explained.

In this case yes there was an unexpected rise in overall deaths but more importantly the individual deaths were all unexpected and/or unexplained. They suddenly had babies who were not expected to die, collapsing and dying, and doctors couldn’t explain why it had happened. There were patterns of these collapses happening when the babies designated nurse had just gone on a break, or their parents had just left to get food or some sleep, or on special occasions like the babies 100 day anniversary or their due date. Two of the babies who had unexpected collapses had twins who were later found to have been poisoned with insulin around the same time as their collapses.

The prosecution didn’t just say oh look there were more deaths than would be expected that year and as LL was on shift for every baby she must’ve murdered them. They showed why each death was also unexpected and/or unexplained and showed how LL had been cotside even when she denied she had been. They showed her falsifying records, contradicting the statements of other staff and parents. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. I’d advise watching some of CS2Cs videos, particularly the transcripts of her police interviews and when she took the stand.

And yes the hospital downgraded to level 1 around the time they took her off the ward but several of the babies who were attacked and murdered would still have been admitted under the level 1 criteria!

Thank you. A very detailed and thorough answer. In other words, there were enough cases which were unexplained, then the insulin one (two already?) that stays unexplained. And not only were they unexplained or unexpected, but also too many were linked with Lucy.

I would look at the interviews, thank you.

Cases like this, if unsolved or solved incorrectly, have the potential of bringing the systems down, and the UK public medical system is not bad at all, in fact, surprisingly good, this is why I am concerned.

 

[MrsAddick]

Curious to know if there’s been any further updates on operation hummingbird regarding investigation of cases outside of the initial window i.e. review of LLs entire career and any unusual cases during that period. Do we know when her activities actually started? (assuming that this was as escalating pattern of behaviour)

 

[Parker Knoll]

Are more charges to come ?

Lucy Letby quizzed over MORE baby murders

The killer nurse was quizzed under caution over unexpected deaths and collapses of infants at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Tortoise]

The rest of those handover sheets stashed under her bed, diary coded entries and Facebook searches could be a good signpost too.

 

[Tortoise]

I was trying to think why she would agree to be interviewed, and I think it would be her curiosity to find out where the investigation has led them so far.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Yes I agree - a voluntary interview to see what they had.
It’s like a game to her now.

 

[JennieM]

Lucy Letby questioned in jail over more baby deaths at two hospitals

Police confirm serial killer nurse is being interviewed about cases at a second centre, Liverpool Women’s hospital

[…]

Police began a review of the 4,000 babies she nursed during her career, which dates back to January 2012 and includes two training placements she carried out at the Liverpool Women’s hospital as a student nurse.

It is understood she was questioned for the first time about cases at the latter hospital, as well as baby deaths and collapses at the Countess of Chester hospital.

Cheshire police said on Tuesday: “We can confirm that, following agreement, Lucy Letby has recently been interviewed in prison under caution in relation to the ongoing investigation into baby deaths and non-fatal collapses at the Countess of Chester hospital and the Liverpool Women’s Hospital. Further updates will follow.”

Police would not tell the Daily Mail exactly when the interview took place or how many specific cases Letby – one of only four women sentenced to a whole-life term in UK legal history – was questioned about.

Sources have told the Mail that any charges, if they are brought, won’t be laid until “well into the new year”.

The Guardian was unable to reach Cheshire police for a comment.

[…]

Lucy Letby questioned in jail over more baby deaths at two hospitals

Police confirm serial killer nurse is being interviewed about cases at a second centre, Liverpool Women’s hospital

www.theguardian.com

 

[Highlandspring]

This whole case lodges on statistics as it starts with unexplained rise in NICU deaths in 2014-2015. And later, the hospital stated that after LL was moved from the unit, no other kids died. This is how the case started. It is nothing but statistics, only poor one, as it omits one important factor: significant decrease in unit complexity, from level 2 (27 weeks or above or any baby needing a ventilator) to level 1 (above 32 weeks). It is a huge change. Any case of hospital mortality is statistics, you can't avoid it. In fact, it is great because it makes cases more objective.

You know the renowned statistician Jane Hutton? She fell apart at just a few challenges by journalists in an interview. Eg when she said 'One has to factor in the other staff on duty...' (they were), 'The insulin tests were incorrectly processed (they weren't) and questioned how the unexpected/unexplained deaths were determined (she was schooled). She was rendered speechless and couldn't get off the zoom call quick enough.
Also CPS dismissed her offers to help, ditto the Thirlwall Inquiry after approach from the Royal Statistical Society. As others have said, statistics lose significance when there's a mountain of other evidence including 246 witnesses and 5000 pages of documentation.

Plus, one could say, more charges incoming.

 

[MamsBestGirl]

Lucy Letby questioned in jail over more baby deaths at two hospitals

Police confirm serial killer nurse is being interviewed about cases at a second centre, Liverpool Women’s hospital

[…]

Police began a review of the 4,000 babies she nursed during her career, which dates back to January 2012 and includes two training placements she carried out at the Liverpool Women’s hospital as a student nurse.

It is understood she was questioned for the first time about cases at the latter hospital, as well as baby deaths and collapses at the Countess of Chester hospital.

Cheshire police said on Tuesday: “We can confirm that, following agreement, Lucy Letby has recently been interviewed in prison under caution in relation to the ongoing investigation into baby deaths and non-fatal collapses at the Countess of Chester hospital and the Liverpool Women’s Hospital. Further updates will follow.”

Police would not tell the Daily Mail exactly when the interview took place or how many specific cases Letby – one of only four women sentenced to a whole-life term in UK legal history – was questioned about.

Sources have told the Mail that any charges, if they are brought, won’t be laid until “well into the new year”.

The Guardian was unable to reach Cheshire police for a comment.

[…]

Lucy Letby questioned in jail over more baby deaths at two hospitals

Police confirm serial killer nurse is being interviewed about cases at a second centre, Liverpool Women’s hospital

www.theguardian.com

It was just on Sky News. Chester Police have made a statement confirming she has been questioned under caution. Updates will follow when appropriate.

 

[Sweeper2000]

All media articles say multiple cases of collapses aNd deaths. I don't think they would question her on multiples without having a idea of how irregular they are. Oh dearrrrrr. Didn't want to hear that but if true it fits the puzzle.

We have failed to find the things we were looking for in Lucy's past, ie hurting animals, being bullied, petty theft, etc etc. Yet we still find it difficult to believe that there were no indications at all of something amiss. So now I am wondering if we should look further afield - perhaps a relative also had "something wrong" with them. A great-aunt, an uncle, a cousin? Could be.

I doubt you will find it. There's only a few things to my knowledge that have a genetic link. Them being mood disorders and anything that affects emotion regulation. There is no genetic link to anything that makes a person homicidal but there is a genetic link to aggression. She wasn't aggressive openly. Incidentally it's also true that many things tend to culminate and peak around teh age she was, the 27 club is an example of behaviour reaching its extreme. Might go some way to explain the recklessness of her actions.

Anyone think we will see another trial?

 

[Marantz4250b]

All media articles say multiple cases of collapses aNd deaths. I don't think they would question her on multiples without having a idea of how irregular they are. Oh dearrrrrr. Didn't want to hear that but if true it fits the puzzle.



I doubt you will find it. There's only a few things to my knowledge that have a genetic link. Them being mood disorders and anything that affects emotion regulation. There is no genetic link to anything that makes a person homicidal but there is a genetic link to aggression. She wasn't aggressive openly. Incidentally it's also true that many things tend to culminate and peak around teh age she was, the 27 club is an example of behaviour reaching its extreme. Might go some way to explain the recklessness of her actions.

Anyone think we will see another trial?

I've heard it said many times that the brain isn't fully developed and is prone to impulsive behavior up to the mid-20's so, yes, that makes sense.

I'm not sure that we'll see any more trials. Obviously, we aren't privy to the info the CPS has, or will have in due course, but my personal feelings lean towards there not being more trials regardless of how strong the evidence is.

If new cases reach the evidentiary standard (a realistic chance of a conviction) they still have to meet the public interest test. This is the overarching test. I'm not sure that they can meet that test for the following reasons:

• There is no public protection interest; she is serving multiple "Whole Life" tariffs so further WLT's offer no additional public protection.
• She cannot be punished to any greater extent - see point one.
• Any new trials will inevitably be exceptionally costly to the public purse. Taking points one and two into account, how does this benefit the public interest?
• The courts are currently rammed. The backlog of cases has apparently reached 70,000 and victims (and accused people) are sometimes waiting up to two years for justice to be served. Any cases brought against LL will almost certainly occupy weeks and more likely months of court time. How is that in the public interest taking into account points one and two?

I just cannot see any public interest in bringing further cases. There might be other issues we do not know about but I think they would have to be very important to meet the test and I have no idea what they may be, imo. I never saw the public interest in re-trying her on the one count they did so I may well turn out to be wrong on all of the above.

Perhaps the word "interest" in the criteria should be changed "benefit". That's what it really means, afterall. I genuinely cannot see any benefit to the public in prosecuting her further. Happy to hear opposing views, though.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I've heard it said many times that the brain isn't fully developed and is prone to impulsive behavior up to the mid-20's so, yes, that makes sense.

I'm not sure that we'll see any more trials. Obviously, we aren't privy to the info the CPS has, or will have in due course, but my personal feelings lean towards there not being more trials regardless of how strong the evidence is.

If new cases reach the evidentiary standard (a realistic chance of a conviction) they still have to meet the public interest test. This is the overarching test. I'm not sure that they can meet that test for the following reasons:

• There is no public protection interest; she is serving multiple "Whole Life" tariffs so further WLT's offer no additional public protection.
• She cannot be punished to any greater extent - see point one.
• Any new trials will inevitably be exceptionally costly to the public purse. Taking points one and two into account, how does this benefit the public interest?
• The courts are currently rammed. The backlog of cases has apparently reached 70,000 and victims (and accused people) are sometimes waiting up to two years for justice to be served. Any cases brought against LL will almost certainly occupy weeks and more likely months of court time. How is that in the public interest taking into account points one and two?

I just cannot see any public interest in bringing further cases. There might be other issues we do not know about but I think they would have to be very important to meet the test and I have no idea what they may be, imo. I never saw the public interest in re-trying her on the one count they did so I may well turn out to be wrong on all of the above.

Perhaps the word "interest" in the criteria should be changed "benefit". That's what it really means, afterall. I genuinely cannot see any benefit to the public in prosecuting her further. Happy to hear opposing views, though.

That all seems onpoint tbh. She can certainly not be punished any more than a WLO. I wonder if the results of more trials might affect any post trial policy making and subsequent lawmaking though? I bet it would. The count they retried her on may simply be due to the fact she was already tried on it. Why would the police investigate that though? With no mind to a conviction?

 

[Marantz4250b]

That all seems onpoint tbh. She can certainly not be punished any more than a WLO. I wonder if the results of more trials might affect any post trial policy making and subsequent lawmaking though? I bet it would. The count they retried her on may simply be due to the fact she was already tried on it. Why would the police investigate that though? With no mind to a conviction?

I'm not really sure what you mean there. Point I was getting at, though, was that there were other counts that the jury failed to reach a verdict on so why have a retrial on only one of them? What were the differing considerations as regards that single case? It just seems strange to me as, ostensibly, it seems no different to the others.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I'm not really sure what you mean there. Point I was getting at, though, was that there were other counts that the jury failed to reach a verdict on so why have a retrial on only one of them? What were the differing considerations as regards that single case? It just seems strange to me as, ostensibly, it seems no different to the others.

It was probably because of the Eye witness. The only case with an eye witness to something that only she could have done. Probably the strongest of all the cases that didn't get the big G. Was also bolstered by her already being found guilty on the other charges. Jmo.

 

[MrsAddick]

That all seems onpoint tbh. She can certainly not be punished any more than a WLO. I wonder if the results of more trials might affect any post trial policy making and subsequent lawmaking though? I bet it would. The count they retried her on may simply be due to the fact she was already tried on it. Why would the police investigate that though? With no mind to a conviction?

That’s an interesting question. Certainly if I was a parent who suspected their baby could have been harmed by LL, I would want it fully investigated by police for a sense of closure. Another consideration is that a confirmed cause of death can impact whether the family may be entitled to some form of compensation.

From the public interest perspective, I imagine there’s dark clouds hanging over not one, but multiple NHS hospitals now. Widespread impacts for staff, patients and communities.

 

[Marantz4250b]

That’s an interesting question. Certainly if I was a parent who suspected their baby could have been harmed by LL, I would want it fully investigated by police for a sense of closure. Another consideration is that a confirmed cause of death can impact whether the family may be entitled to some form of compensation.

From the public interest perspective, I imagine there’s dark clouds hanging over not one, but multiple NHS hospitals now. Widespread impacts for staff, patients and communities.

I'm not suggesting that there is no public benefit to the police not investigating or that there should not be an inquiry into how this all happened, which is currently underway. There are, imv, very good public policy reasons as to why all that needs to go ahead.

Those are different matters to the very specific decision as to whether to prosecute, though.

Just my opinion but at this time I am failing to see how they would demonstrate what benefit to the public would be in prosecuting additional crimes she may be suspected of. Indeed, it would all seem to be contrary to the public benefit rather than to its benefit.

 

[Tortoise]

I'm not really sure what you mean there. Point I was getting at, though, was that there were other counts that the jury failed to reach a verdict on so why have a retrial on only one of them? What were the differing considerations as regards that single case? It just seems strange to me as, ostensibly, it seems no different to the others.

It's the only case where she was accused of dislodging a breathing tube.

 

[MrsAddick]

I'm not suggesting that there is no public benefit to the police not investigating or that there should not be an inquiry into how this all happened, which is currently underway. There are, imv, very good public policy reasons as to why all that needs to go ahead.

Those are different matters to the very specific decision as to whether to prosecute, though.

Just my opinion but at this time I am failing to see how they would demonstrate what benefit to the public would be in prosecuting additional crimes she may be suspected of. Indeed, it would all seem to be contrary to the public benefit rather than to its benefit.

Yes, I take your point. Public interest vs public benefit is an important distinction.

So, can I ask a silly question that exposes how little I actually understand of the full end-to-end process to secure a conviction…

If police investigate a crime and feel they have enough evidence, do they go to the DPP to state their case and it’s the DPP’s decision whether to proceed…they weigh up likelihood of meeting burden of proof, legal precedent etc…then are they the one’s who make a judgement regarding public benefit? Or are there other parties involved? I’m guessing that decision could be quite political.

 

[Parker Knoll]

They take it to the CPS who make a decision on charging. It has to cross the threshold, so they gather the evidence and pass it over. If they say yes they charge. They may decide some meet and some don’t or non / all.