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

[marynnu]

Thing is though, the stats ARE damning for Letby and her supporters.

What stats?

 

[May72031]

What stats?

The fact that she was on duty for 12 of the 13 deaths at COCH in that period. The fact that tube dislodgements went from 1% to 36% while Letby was on duty at LWH. McDonald and the Letbyists were hopping up and down that Panorama had to correct it down from 40%... Lol.

Those stats.

 

[May72031]

Deb Roberts with another smackdown (long thread) on some of the bogus arguments from the pro-Letby crew.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1962223095080460314

 

[marynnu]

The fact that she was on duty for 12 of the 13 deaths at COCH in that period. The fact that tube dislodgements went from 1% to 36% while Letby was on duty at LWH. McDonald and the Letbyists were hopping up and down that Panorama had to correct it down from 40%... Lol.

Those stats.

Is her presence a statistic?
I don't think the 36% at Liverpool is significant, as it only covers a very small number of shifts during her 2nd placement.

 

[Jules2021]

Is her presence a statistic?
I don't think the 36% at Liverpool is significant, as it only covers a very small number of shifts during her 2nd placement.

Surely it's even less likely she'd encounter a natural tube dislodgement if she only worked a very small amount of shifts? One would be very unlikely, but it happened FOUR times! This is on TOP of all the other evidence! If she worked more shifts the truthers would have some other excuse up their sleeve. I don't know much about stats but it just seems totally damning to me?

JMO

 

[May72031]

Is her presence a statistic?
I don't think the 36% at Liverpool is significant, as it only covers a very small number of shifts during her 2nd placement.

The number of times she was on duty for the collapses/deaths is obviously a statistic.

 

[Tortoise]

Is her presence a statistic?
I don't think the 36% at Liverpool is significant, as it only covers a very small number of shifts during her 2nd placement.

I agree, I wouldn't call her presence a statistic, in the sense of the word being used by statisticians to criticise the case, which is to say she wasn't prosecuted on the basis of chance. An expert statistician wasn't required to make the chart, or work out the chances of it being her. Jurors weren't relying on a number to decide if each death or collapse was natural.

Commonalities such as bleeding throats, parents and nurses just having left the nursery, and many more, also don't require an expert statistician to weigh in, although they are kind of statistical information, but within the capability of a lay juror to see that is not a coincidence. Having said that, the jurors weren't decided in all cases where these things happened, so it seems they wanted to be sure on the medical evidence and didn't make their own amateur predictions of the chances of the events being natural or not.

It all depends on how the word is being used. Statisticians criticising the case like to think she was prosecuted solely on the basis of her being on shift when a decline or death occurred, which is just nonsense. She was prosecuted on the back of medical evidence and then the circumstances of it. It doesn't even appear to be an argument her legal team are making. I think it's a select few making a big noise, which they have form for doing.

The LWH data could be another matter, in which expert statisticians may or may not be used by the prosecution, but it might be supplemented by an identical finding at CoCH? It's just a guess at the moment.

 

[marynnu]

I agree, I wouldn't call her presence a statistic, in the sense of the word being used by statisticians to criticise the case, which is to say she wasn't prosecuted on the basis of chance. An expert statistician wasn't required to make the chart, or work out the chances of it being her. Jurors weren't relying on a number to decide if each death or collapse was natural.

Commonalities such as bleeding throats, parents and nurses just having left the nursery, and many more, also don't require an expert statistician to weigh in, although they are kind of statistical information, but within the capability of a lay juror to see that is not a coincidence. Having said that, the jurors weren't decided in all cases where these things happened, so it seems they wanted to be sure on the medical evidence and didn't make their own amateur predictions of the chances of the events being natural or not.

It all depends on how the word is being used. Statisticians criticising the case like to think she was prosecuted solely on the basis of her being on shift when a decline or death occurred, which is just nonsense. She was prosecuted on the back of medical evidence and then the circumstances of it. It doesn't even appear to be an argument her legal team are making. I think it's a select few making a big noise, which they have form for doing.

The LWH data could be another matter, in which expert statisticians may or may not be used by the prosecution, but it might be supplemented by an identical finding at CoCH? It's just a guess at the moment.

I see it as elimination of suspects more than anything else. To be responsible for any one incident someone has to be present, don't they! It's suspicious that she was there every time but is just a starting point. As you say, the jury did not make their decisions based on her presence alone.

 

[JosieJo]

I see it as elimination of suspects more than anything else. To be responsible for any one incident someone has to be present, don't they! It's suspicious that she was there every time but is just a starting point. As you say, the jury did not make their decisions based on her presence alone.

This is exactly how I see it simple as that

 

[Marantz4250b]

The number of times she was on duty for the collapses/deaths is obviously a statistic.

I don't agree that it's a statistic but I suppose we could debate it back and forth.

The fact of the matter is, though, whether it's a statistic or not, it was never used as a statistic by the prosecution. They never presented it along the lines of ....she was there at the relevant times, therefore it's highly likely that she did it.... It was simply a chart of coinciding events (and I'm specifically not using the word "coincidence" because her supporters will wrongly promote that as meaning "random") to which the jury were entitled to place whatever weight (or none) as they felt justified. It showed her shift time against the deaths and collapses she was charged with. The jury were entitled to take that as meaning that she's guilty as all holy hell, to totally disregard it or something in between.

There was absolutely no statistical evidence used by the prosecution, as far as I recall.

 

[Charlot123]

The fact that she was on duty for 12 of the 13 deaths at COCH in that period. The fact that tube dislodgements went from 1% to 36% while Letby was on duty at LWH. McDonald and the Letbyists were hopping up and down that Panorama had to correct it down from 40%... Lol.

Those stats.

Was she on duty at LWH or was she a trainee? If a trainee, then someone had to observe her. An unobserved trainee is a serious violation of protocol. If LWH states that Lucy Letby or any other nurse trainee was left unobserved when trained, it is a serious issue. Regardless of this very case.

But have they made any official statement?

 

[marynnu]

Was she on duty at LWH or was she a trainee? If a trainee, then someone had to observe her. An unobserved trainee is a serious violation of protocol. If LWH states that Lucy Letby or any other nurse trainee was left unobserved when trained, it is a serious issue. Regardless of this very case.

But have they made any official statement?

She was doing her specialist course, so in a student capacity. No student is observed constantly, especially an experienced trained nurse.

 

[Charlot123]

She was doing her specialist course, so in a student capacity. No student is observed constantly, especially an experienced trained nurse.

A "student" is not "a nurse" or "a doctor". A teaching hospital gets paid for teaching so they have to observe and train. Main issue: a trainee doesn't yet have the license. She is not liable.

It happened in 2011. No evidence. Hence, the accusers introduced "all ventilated shifts" vs "Lucy Letby-ventilated shifts".

Let us take another area to explain how such logic works.To simplify: take an upscale hair salon that is also teaching hairdressers. If a trainee messed up the client's hair, it is on the salon because the client paid to it. But, say, one day something bad happened and the salon decided to check the performance of that trainee through the whole year when she had been there. To do so, they look at the shifts during which she worked, and count the percentage of unhappy clients. Then they compare the number with the shifts that she wasn't in the salon. 20 chairs per shift, at times, there are more trainees, at times, less, employed hairdressers are different, some stand and observe, some get out for a smoke, the prices may go up with the inflation. Lots of factors that should not be disregarded. But the owners do, and compare only the performance of the whole salon during the trainee's shifts with the performance of the said salon when she is away. Basically, the owners arbitrarily assign all the shift's "messes up" to her alone, since she was on that shift!

This is not even bad statistics, this is flawed logic.

Also: you can't allow one person absorb the underperformance of the whole salon. And this is how "Lucy Letby-ventilated shifts" look to me.

In short: such serious accusation, not a single case of evidence, all "operation Hummingbird" being way postfactum, calls for a really excellent analysis. So if we discussion "forget the statistics" because, "it is not about the statistics", what stays?

- not a single case of death listed as "murder" on postmortem
- not a single person witnessing Lucy inflicting harm
- the only doctor who "saw" Lucy doing nothing apparently, was mistaken. Now he says "I don't know" why he said it.
- not a single trace, DNA, card swipe data, anything connecting Lucy to the increased mortality
- more and more better-trained doctors are saying that there are alternative explanations to the deaths and that not a single case needs the presence of a murderer to explain it
- the unit was truly underperforming when Dr. Breary was its Senior Consultant and had to be upgraded from level 2. Just at the same time when Lucy was removed.

How can anyone be happy that a person serves life on such flimsy evidence?

 

[joltz]

Was she on duty at LWH or was she a trainee? If a trainee, then someone had to observe her. An unobserved trainee is a serious violation of protocol. If LWH states that Lucy Letby or any other nurse trainee was left unobserved when trained, it is a serious issue. Regardless of this very case.

But have they made any official statement?

How did Letby feel about trainee nurses?

Oh yes, we know from the trial, she was annoyed because she felt her trainee was glued to her so made multiple opportunities to get away from her.

So, no, trainees are not supervised all of the time, just ask Letby.

 

[Charlot123]

How did Letby feel about trainee nurses?

Oh yes, we know from the trial, she was annoyed because she felt her trainee was glued to her so made multiple opportunities to get away from her.

So, no, trainees are not supervised all of the time, just ask Letby.

I doubt that Lucy Letby might be interviewed soon.

On another note, unsupervised trainees put nurses’ and doctors’ licenses at risk. Since the hospital is paid for the trainees, we end up discussing “poor hospital practice”.

 

[joltz]

I doubt that Lucy Letby might be interviewed soon.

On another note, unsupervised trainees put nurses’ and doctors’ licenses at risk. Since the hospital is paid for the trainees, we end up discussing “poor hospital practice”.

Its a pointless discussion. Realistically trainee nurses are not watched all of the time, it just doesn't happen. In any case, yes, Letby will have had opportunity to do harm, there's no doubt whatsoever.

 

[JosieJo]

Was she on duty at LWH or was she a trainee? If a trainee, then someone had to observe her. An unobserved trainee is a serious violation of protocol. If LWH states that Lucy Letby or any other nurse trainee was left unobserved when trained, it is a serious issue. Regardless of this very case.

But have they made any official statement?

She was a registered nurse ..qualified staff nurse ...she was doing further training...yes a lot of her time would be supervised some wouldn't...she would be allowed to do some tasks alone..
She was registered with the NMC with her own pin number...so if she did harm babies she was the person responsible..not the hospital

 

[marynnu]

Removed

 

[marynnu]

I doubt that Lucy Letby might be interviewed soon.

On another note, unsupervised trainees put nurses’ and doctors’ licenses at risk. Since the hospital is paid for the trainees, we end up discussing “poor hospital practice”.

The very idea that you supervise someone constantly is ridiculous, frankly. Nowhere does that.

 

[StargateONeill]

Killer nurse Lucy Letby is 'pals with notorious paedo' on prison's 'VIP wing'

Lucy Letby has befriended a notorious paedophile at HMP Bronzefield, according to a source, who said the killer nurse 'isn’t fussy about who she socialises with'

share.google