GUILTY 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 #38

[May72031]

Aye, there is plenty of evidence to contradict that particular expert for the prosecution.

No, there isn't, and you still haven't presented any.

We weren't talking about that, however. You claimed "irrelevant adhom"; I demonstrated that it was no such thing.

No. You didn't.

I'm happy to come onto the opposing evidence, but in the meantime: do you accept that I am correct in stating that your "irrelevant ad hom" is no such thing.

No. I do not.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Another piece of research, published by a medic based in Alabama, in 2007, which examined the case of an infant who died after air was accidentally introduced via a venous drip, was also very significant, Prof Clarke, said.

‘The failure of Prof Lee to include the 1981 case in his original 1989 Lee and Tanswell paper, or the 1981 case and the 2007 paper in his subsequently updated research in 2024, are major omissions and show there has been a significant deficiency in his literature search strategy and selective publication,’ Prof Clarke said.

‘Both these cases provide clear-as-day evidence that venous air embolism can rapidly become arterial air embolism and so cause rapid onset skin rash.’


He is doing that himself, imo

If you’re quoting the daily mail rag at me again, please don’t. Clark is wrong, Lee didn’t “fail to reference” any of this. It’s literally in his paper, so it’s anyone’s guess as to where Clark has got his info from (it’s clearly not from Lee’s paper).

And no, Lee has not discredited himself, nowhere close to it.

 

[Sweeper2000]

If you’re quoting the daily mail rag at me again, please don’t. Clark is wrong, Lee didn’t “fail to reference” any of this. It’s literally in his paper, so it’s anyone’s guess as to where Clark has got his info from (it’s clearly not from Lee’s paper).

And no, Lee has not discredited himself, nowhere close to it.

Can you quote where I can read it. Would be interested.

 

[WaneLyrical]

That would have been needlessly confusing.

They did provide evidence concerning the doctor's shifts and none of the doctors were present for even 1/3 of the incidents.

A shift chart showing who was on shift, how on earth would that be “needlessly confusing”? Some of these doctors were there for many of the more questionable cases. Like Doctor B/V, the one with memory loss, who only a few weeks before the ‘murder spree’ started was criticised rather harshly by the coroner for failing to spot the very very obvious signs of an intubation gone badly wrong, which directly resulted in a baby’s death. Noah Robinson died because she placed the breathing tube down his gullet, didn’t bother to look at the xray, and assumed the monitor must be faulty.

And we saw that throughout the trial, didn’t we? Incompetency when it came to intubations. Lee pointed it out too.

These babies were failed. When they needed urgent intervention, the doctors were either not there, or those who were there were without sufficient skill, or equipment and drugs weren’t available and had to be tracked down. Every mistake, every delay, all heightening the risk to these sick fragile infants.

But all seemingly irrelevant according to the trial and this forum.

 

[joltz]

I cannot believe I am reading this. The most incredible piece of sleight of hand wizardry I have ever witnessed.

For the first time in my life, I'm lost for words.

Your replies all come across as emotionally attached to this debate, which may hinder your ability to discern, the actual facts. I see nothing in your responses which cannot be thoroughly debunked. Honestly I've not got the patience to repeat myself for the upteenth time. I will just say that nothing your are claiming holds any merit and thanks to the users of this sub that must have the patience of a saint, to be continually putting down these weak attempts at discrediting the evidence. Over 2 years since Letbys convictions and there's still not an actual shred of new evidence. I can't think of any other serial killers that get pr firms working for them but try as they might there's nothing actually sticking because it's all built on a castle made of mashed potatoes.

JMO

 

[joltz]

A shift chart showing who was on shift, how on earth would that be “needlessly confusing”? Some of these doctors were there for many of the more questionable cases. Like Doctor B/V, the one with memory loss, who only a few weeks before the ‘murder spree’ started was criticised rather harshly by the coroner for failing to spot the very very obvious signs of an intubation gone badly wrong, which directly resulted in a baby’s death. Noah Robinson died because she placed the breathing tube down his gullet, didn’t bother to look at the xray, and assumed the monitor must be faulty.

And we saw that throughout the trial, didn’t we? Incompetency when it came to intubations. Lee pointed it out too.

These babies were failed. When they needed urgent intervention, the doctors were either not there, or those who were there were without sufficient skill, or equipment and drugs weren’t available and had to be tracked down. Every mistake, every delay, all heightening the risk to these sick fragile infants.

But all seemingly irrelevant according to the trial and this forum.

You've been had, your mind is made up. You have blinkers on in this case. You've said you are neurodivergent and you seem to hold Letby in some esteem. As usual with your sort, the actual decent medical professionals come in for stick, while the proven liar and terrible nurse, is somehow never capable of doing any wrong. That's despite many, many proven instances of absolutely appalling behaviour on Letbys part.
I'm quite sure you are just so stubborn in your refusal to believe something that you are simply incapable of seeing it, more fool you tbh. It's quite telling that the majority of Letbys support comes from some seriously fringe minorities

I would really like to be a fly on the wall at Maltin PR meetings, when they are specifically choosing to target these groups of people, who they know will absolutely fall hook and sinker for it.
JMO

 

[joltz]

A shift chart showing who was on shift, how on earth would that be “needlessly confusing”? Some of these doctors were there for many of the more questionable cases. Like Doctor B/V, the one with memory loss, who only a few weeks before the ‘murder spree’ started was criticised rather harshly by the coroner for failing to spot the very very obvious signs of an intubation gone badly wrong, which directly resulted in a baby’s death. Noah Robinson died because she placed the breathing tube down his gullet, didn’t bother to look at the xray, and assumed the monitor must be faulty.

And we saw that throughout the trial, didn’t we? Incompetency when it came to intubations. Lee pointed it out too.

These babies were failed. When they needed urgent intervention, the doctors were either not there, or those who were there were without sufficient skill, or equipment and drugs weren’t available and had to be tracked down. Every mistake, every delay, all heightening the risk to these sick fragile infants.

But all seemingly irrelevant according to the trial and this forum.

Your been had, your mind is made up. You have blinkers on in this case. You've said you are neurodivergent and you seem to hold Letby in some esteem. As usual with your sort, the actual decent medical professionals come in for stick, while the proven liar and terrible nurse, is somehow never capable of doing any wrong. That's despite many, many proven instances of absolutely appalling behaviour on Letbys part.
I'm quite sure you are just so stubborn in your refusal to believe something that you are simply incapable of seeing it, more fool yuu tbh. It's quite telling that the majority of Letbys support comes from some seriously fringe beliefs.

I would really like to be a fly on the wall at Maltin PR meetings, when they are specifically choosing to target these groups of people, who they know will absolutely fall hook and sinker for it.
JM

 

[Charlot123]

.

There is nothing wrong with the medical experts in this trial. Shoo Lee has disproven nothing. imo

It is Dr. Lee’s response to the situation and his ardent wish for his name not to be in any way connected to this case that is most telling.

Dr. Lee doesn't believe that Lucy Letby is guilty and also, he respects himself and his legacy too much to allow his name being linked in any way to Rex v Lucy Letby.

He even travelled, using own time and money, to the UK and reviewed the case. He looked through the cases, he saw the hospital and he the had the chance to talk to the doctors. After it all, he did not say
"unsafe conviction". He said "the nurse is innocent". Which means: a spike in mortality in COCH NICU didn't need a killer. COCH NICU was an unfit unit for the level of care it provided.

Now, Dr. Shoo Lee’s article is in public domain. He can not forbid people to quote it. His travel, his review, his press conference and his publicly voiced opinion of COCH NICU is the maximum he can do to to express his protest against being involved in the case. IMHO, he views the case as bogus.

Logically, these shouldn’t be the tabloids discussing the study of the Taiwanese doctor either. The group of clinicians accusing Lucy Letby should directly consult the Taiwanese doctor on their cases. You’d think it is the way to go. Why don’t they?

I think it is because they have no clinical data to present.

 

[katydid23]

.

It is Dr. Lee’s response to the situation and his ardent wish for his name not to be in any way connected to this case that is most telling.

It's quite the opposite, imo. He is clamouring to be involved with this case, imo.

 

[Charlot123]

It's quite the opposite, imo. He is clamouring to be involved with this case, imo.

This is understandable. Dr. Lee doesn’t want his name or old article to be used to jail a nurse that he, with his longstanding experience in neonatology, considers innocent.

 

[katydid23]

This is understandable. Dr. Lee doesn’t want his name or old article to be used to jail a nurse that he, with his longstanding experience in neonatology, considers innocent.

Unlike the other experienced doctors who currently worked in neonatology, Prof Lee was NOT there, at the clinic, able to see what happened in these 27 incidents.

I will take the opinions of those who actually cared for those babies from birth to their collapses, over someone who heard second hand stories about what transpired.

The doctors at the scene witnessed the situation first hand. The first 3 babies died within a 2 week period. Dr Lee wants to write it off as outliers. He wants to write off all 27 sudden collapses as problems with plumbing or understaffing. It's ridiculous and he should be ashamed of himself, imo.

 

[Charlot123]

Unlike the other experienced doctors who currently worked in neonatology, Prof Lee was NOT there, at the clinic, able to see what happened in these 27 incidents.

I will take the opinions of those who actually cared for those babies from birth to their collapses, over someone who heard second hand stories about what transpired.

The doctors at the scene witnessed the situation first hand. The first 3 babies died within a 2 week period. Dr Lee wants to write it off as outliers. He wants to write off all 27 sudden collapses as problems with plumbing or understaffing. It's ridiculous and he should be ashamed of himself, imo.

Anyhow, we can discuss it till the cows come home. We are walking around in circles. My opinion is that the conviction looks unsafe.

 

[Marantz4250b]

What are you talking about? Have you read the letter?

So, as regards that letter.

The RSS do not refer to that chart in the context of the evidentiary nature as used at her trial. Indeed, the inquiry itself was conducted according to very specific terms of reference. It was stated right from the outset, the very first day I think, that it was in no way involved in testing the validity of her trials, convictions or suchlike. It had no mandate to do that and doing so would most likely be unlawful.

They say;

Our understanding is that your inquiry will focus on the wider circumstances of the case. Some of the evidence used in the trial was on the face of it statistical in nature – eg, the duty roster spreadsheet of data that indicated Letby’s presence on shift when babies collapsed or died. And, if you are considering ways in which NHS trusts might more quickly act in this type of case, evidence based on statistics and data couldwell play an important role.

Clearly, they are referring to how the NHS might use data like this in future in order to safeguard patients.

At no point, whatsoever, does the letter refer to the evidentiary quality, or lack thereof, of the chart as regards its use in a criminal trial! If you assert that it does, please point out the specific part.

As mentioned, the inquiry did NOT have a mandate to investigate her trials or their outcomes.

Once again, I will point out that this chart was NEVER presented as being statistical in nature at her trials. Not once. That is a gaslighting technique employed by her supporters. It was nothing more than evidence of where she was (in the hospital and on-shift) when the incidents occurred.

The jury were entitled to place as much or as little significance on it as they saw fit. They could choose to take it as being utterly damning or of no significance whatever. Not once did the prosecution ever say, suggest or intimate that the fact that her shifts coincided with collapses amounted to a strong correlation with guilt. If you say they did then please provide the specific quotes from the trial.

 

[Baileyboo]

I don't understand all the controversy over the shift chart. The Jury needed to see who was on duty for each charge to prove Letby was there every time and other staff weren't. It was then up to the jury to decide if there was evidence to prove intentional harm in each case. If there isn't enough evidence that a baby was deliberately harmed it is irrelevant who was there. If there were other cases of deliberate harm and deaths that Letby was absence for and which were ignored then the statisticians would have a point but there's no evidence suggesting this was the case.
Letby's defence had a number of medical experts who she decided not to call but they were provided for her.

 

[JimmyDurham]

We do understand the point you are trying to make. YES, it is possible to do sleight of hand tricks with statistics and clusters and shift rotation statistics. YES, it was pointed out by the RSS, we are aware.

I don't know about the others in the "we" mob, but you've demonstrated here that you personally do not understand what I'm saying.

For the avoidance of doubt:

I'm not saying that somebody willfully misrepresented the shift pattern/statistics. I'm saying that they are open to telling an incorrect story depending on how the information is gathered and presented.

The RSS were keen to point out that such information could quite conceivably lead to a miscarriage of justice. This stance from a reputable body should have been heard in court. The RSS noted that the 2022 guidelines on how to use statistical evidence in medical cases, designed to prevent errors like those in the Sally Clark case, were not followed in the Letby trial.

There appears to be two counter-arguments on this thread:

1) The shift pattern data that was presented is not a statistical argument. That is laughable and demonstrates the degree of mental acrobatics that posters are prepared to undergo in a "do not concede anything at all costs" message board mentality.

2) It is merely one brick in a wall of evidence. It doesn't matter. Each piece of evidence should be taken on its own merit. In the final analysis, the jury did not hear the stance of reputable bodies such as the RSS and others who believe that the shift pattern data presented in this case as a piece of evidence, is somewhere along the spectrum of scientifically worthless and fundamentally flawed.

There were charges which were beyond reasonable doubt that Nurse Letby committed murder and attempted murder upon these babies.

Not according to various medical experts who disagree with the prosecution experts and the doctor who is adamant that his study was misrepresented by the prosecution.

You can argue until the cows come home about documentation put before the jury, but in the final analysis the jury did not hear the alternative opinion from qualified and authoritative experts who do not agree with the prosecution.

You simply cannot have a fair trial when statistics are presented and the jury does not hear that the presentation of these statistics are flawed according to reputable bodies nor when the jury has not heard qualified and authoritative experts who are prepared to stand up under scrutiny and say that the prosecution have got this wrong.

It is frustrating

Don't be frustrated. Simply stop and think about what I have just posted.

Was it really a fair trial? What if that was your Sister?

Get all of the pertinent information into a court of law and in the event Letby is found guilty as a result, then fair enough.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I don't understand all the controversy over the shift chart. The Jury needed to see who was on duty for each charge to prove Letby was there every time and other staff weren't. It was then up to the jury to decide if there was evidence to prove intentional harm in each case. If there isn't enough evidence that a baby was deliberately harmed it is irrelevant who was there. If there were other cases of deliberate harm and deaths that Letby was absence for and which were ignored then the statisticians would have a point but there's no evidence suggesting this was the case.
Letby's defence had a number of medical experts who she decided not to call but they were provided for her.

In reality there is no controversy over the shift chart. Any "controversy" about it has been manufactured by her supporters in order to gaslight people into thinking that a meaning was attached to it by the prosecution that never existed in the first place.

I have now asked several times for someone pushing this theory to kindly provide the prosecution statements where they claimed it was "statistical" in nature and that that nature points towards guilt. To date, no one has done that because it was never said.

 

[Marantz4250b]

The RSS were keen to point out that such information could quite conceivably lead to a miscarriage of justice. This stance from a reputable body should have been heard in court. The RSS noted that the 2022 guidelines on how to use statistical evidence in medical cases, designed to prevent errors like those in the Sally Clark case, were not followed in the Letby trial.

Where do they say this, please? The specific quotes, if you would.

They have never said this to the inquiry because the inquiry was not concerned with examining the conduct of her trials.

And to ask yet again, please point out where, specifically, the prosecution suggested or drew the inference that that chart pointed strongly towards guilt due to "stats".

 

[Marantz4250b]

Was it really a fair trial? What if that was your Sister?

Get all of the pertinent information into a court of law and in the event Letby is found guilty as a result, then fair enough.

Yes, it was.

We know it was because nothing in her appeal to the CCRC is grounded in her not having had a fair trial.

If it were then MM would be making very sure that the entire world know it!

 

[Marantz4250b]

Are you seriously and genuinely suggesting that she would not have been convicted on multiple counts of murder and attempted murder had the chart not have been presented as evidence?

Seriously?

Serious question.

 

[JimmyDurham]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/20/letby-shift-data-scientifically-worthless-statisticians/

The statement that Lucy Letby's shift data was "scientifically worthless" originated from a September 2024 meeting of statisticians and experts at the Royal Statistical Society. Experts at the meeting, which was held under Chatham House rules, argued the evidence was "very selective" and lacked proper context.