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

[joe jones]

Why was it appalling that he would show how one could add things to an IV bag?

It has been done before, in real life. So why is it appalling?

Very easy for someone to see how easy it is to tamper with an IV and get away with it, and the doll in the demonstration gave me shivers, if I was DPP I would keep Dr Evans well away from the media, he does more damage to his reputation every time he talks, "metropolitan elite" are now to blame for people thinking LL is innocent

 

[Sweeper2000]

Very easy for someone to see how easy it is to tamper with an IV and get away with it, and the doll in the demonstration gave me shivers, if I was DPP I would keep Dr Evans well away from the media, he does more damage to his reputation every time he talks, "metropolitan elite" are now to blame for people thinking LL is innocent

I'll give you that about the met elite his mention of the Welsh being told for however long they aren't good enough was a bit silly as well.

However he does back his opinions with reason and information though.

 

[JosieJo]

Is this it Jo ?

Insulin Test Used to Convict Lucy Letby in Babies’ Deaths Was Unreliable, Experts Say

A new report by neonatal and toxicology experts casts doubt on the test results that were pivotal to the case against the British nurse.

www.nytimes.com

Not letting me open it ..aaaahhhh

 

[Charlot123]

This is why they have medical experts to look at everything then explain it to the jury .. personal I think the jury understood very well ...after all they arrived at various verdicts..not all guilty

Then it brings us back to professional trial witnesses institution… Dr. Evans is under fire, it seems, and for a good reason if we take in his statements after the trial. But definitely, something needs to be changed.

What the story brings to mind is a test given by a certain school to US medical students. They are not told the name of the person (usually someone famous) but are provided with full medical history. The task is to determine the cause of death. Some cases are straightforward, some, very tricky. And of course, they are not 100% reliable, but one thing is pertinent, by not providing the name of the person or the story around him, a certain measure of objectivity is reached.

The case of Lucy Letby is shockingly subjective. The objective evidence does not match the accusation, IMO. But the subjective traits of the personalities involved, OMG! And it remains subjective and honestly, I see less and less of the science nor even art of medicine here and more and more of undue individualism.

Me having been raised in the medical world, doctors (and less so, nurses) are the most common group known to me, the second one being actors. Doctors possess all ranges of human qualities and I don’t expect them to stand out in any exclusive way as humans, ever. Except for: most won’t leave their patients in dire straights, such as at the operating table during artillery fire at war, for example, or during a natural disaster. The connection between them and their patients exists…so I am absolutely sure that the case started not as “bad statistics” but as “kids dying”, and I think there was honest grief on the unit.

(And, they can make mistakes. The best ones do, so I am not holding individual cases like hitting the liver in a preemie against them. The more they work, the more mistakes. Statistics, nothing else).

As to the rest, don’t expect them to be any better or different from all of us. Uneducated to jump to a tall conclusion that a tiny sheet of paper with shifts points at someone being a murderer? (Odd and unduly suspicious), but can happen. Being instigated by colleagues and believing in gossips? Sure. Playing the Superman on the unit and in court? We saw it. I remember a lot of stories that lasted from nothing but lasted for years.

What I want to say? Subjectively where a lot of people are working in a small unit exists. It is not IT where you can find a bug. It is incessant human interaction. But between that and the final ruling there have been some objective measures to test …urban legends, for the lack of a better word? Nothing like this happened, and it is sad that a lot of time and money was spent…to no avail, MOO.

 

[Anxala]

Not letting me open it ..aaaahhhh

Archive here - https://archive.ph/O6d7b

 

[WaneLyrical]

I did find the "treasure box" thing interesting-first we've heard of that I think? I wonder why that never came up at the trial as it sounds like another potential pattern for her?

Joanne Williams talked about the treasure boxes at the Baby K retrial, they were given to the parents of all NNU admissions, and it was standard practice. She said it was possible her 3:30am visit to the labour ward to see Baby K’s parents could have included taking the treasure box.

The transcripts are on Reddit, so can’t link to them.

Edit: apologies; I just checked, she testified to it in the first trial too. In the first trial she was more certain that she would have taken the treasure box.

 

[Jules2021]

Very easy for someone to see how easy it is to tamper with an IV and get away with it, and the doll in the demonstration gave me shivers, if I was DPP I would keep Dr Evans well away from the media, he does more damage to his reputation every time he talks, "metropolitan elite" are now to blame for people thinking LL is innocent

I don't understand the issue. It just seems like you're angry he showed how easy it would be for Lucy to do it and you disagree with it purely for that reason. Unless you think he misrepresented how easy it is? As for the doll, well I'm not sure what you'd rather he do a demonstration on?

I think he's just trying to come up with reasons people are so convinced of her innocence despite the overwhelming evidence because it is a bit of a headscratcher...

JMO

 

[Parker Knoll]

Exactly - it just showed how easy it was.
Hiding in plain sight.

 

[rsteen]

Fortunately the general public don't have unrestricted access to IVs to tamper with them, so demonstrating how easy it is is unlikely to spawn a wave of copycats. A medical professional with malicious intent would already be aware of ways to do it.

 

[katydid23]

My biggest problem with this case is that it requires a lot of special knowledge. After all, being present at the trial if one is not a neonatologist (I am not) might not be that enriching. Trying to guess “guilty or not?” looking at Lucy’s face might be the wrong approach.

This case is highly specialized. Moreover, neonatologists are a rather new specialty.

How can the case be decided by the jury consisting of people who are far remote from medicine?

The jury listens to the neonatal experts in order to make their decisions. They do not need to be experts themselves to do so.

After all, if planes crash, investigation goes to FAA, not to random passerbys.

And when people have lawsuits involving plane crashes, the juries rely upon various flight experts in order to make their decisions.

Isn’t a human body an even more complex organism than a plane?

The jury is not expected to know statistics. The jurors have no idea.

Statistics had nothing to do with this decision.

They have to trust the trial consultants, but I guess Dewi Evans’s reputation was not that high to start with (another judge warned Judge Goss that Dewi was useless).

Two unit doctors put their name behind the case, which is a lot. One, as we saw, totally misrepresented evidence and that was a major blow to the case. We don’t have any witnesses to Lucy’s malfeasance.

YES, we do have witnesses to her malfeasance. They testified to such at the trial.

I think this question will be inevitably raised. This is not a domestic violence case. This situation occurred in the hospital that had an exclusive thing, Level II NICU.

I think that sooner or later, it will be obvious that laymen jurors system is ill fit for this case.

Have you seen a transcript of the trial? It was not above a layman's cognitive abilities to deliberate upon the matters set forth in that trial.

 

[katydid23]

One click is one too many IMO.

IDK. I think it is interesting that the concern over one negligible click, which would be intrinsically meaningless, would outweigh one's responsibility to back up their claims.

 

[katydid23]

Very easy for someone to see how easy it is to tamper with an IV and get away with it, and the doll in the demonstration gave me shivers,

Dr. Evan's point was just that---to show how easy it is to tamper with an IV without being seen. That is not a secret. He did not reveal some high tech top secret mystery.

Perhaps it gave you shivers because it showed how easily LL could have done what she was ultimately convicted of?

if I was DPP I would keep Dr Evans well away from the media, he does more damage to his reputation every time he talks, "metropolitan elite" are now to blame for people thinking LL is innocent

I did not see him doing anything or saying anything that would be damaging to his reputation.

 

[joltz]

Fortunately the general public don't have unrestricted access to IVs to tamper with them, so demonstrating how easy it is is unlikely to spawn a wave of copycats. A medical professional with malicious intent would already be aware of ways to do it.

Let's not forgot, the deaths started almost immediately after Letby passed her QIS qualification. She never had this type of access to IV medication and high dependency situations previously. This is what's called evidence. Of course things like air embolism cropped up in this course. Letbys tests results and signature were shown for the course. The air embolism question was shown, from memory.

Just another coincidence I guess...

JMO

 

[Charlot123]

The jury listens to the neonatal experts in order to make their decisions. They do not need to be experts themselves to do so.

But then...if the experts are of poor quality, the jury and ultimately, the life of the accused is in the hands of an unqualified person?

Statistics had nothing to do with this decision.

And this is precisely what makes people question the safety of the conviction. First, "statistics has nothing to do with it"; then, a group of scientists whose level of education and expertise is way higher than that of dr.Evans are brushed aside; then, the only "witness", Dr. Jay, is apparently lying under oath... what stays out of solid facts undoubtedly proving Lucy's guilt?

YES, we do have witnesses to her malfeasance. They testified to such at the trial.

Dr. Jayaram is the witness you are alluding to?

Have you seen a transcript of the trial? It was not above a layman's cognitive abilities to deliberate upon the matters set forth in that trial.

This case was lacking solid evidence from the getgo. The media presented this case to the public with the photos of Lucy's post-it notes. Since then, the level of subjectivism and emotionality in the media was increasing. She was labeled "the killer nurse" before the trial; the press was unhinged IMO.

I hoped that the trial would bring in objectivity. IRL, it looked like a weak case, but defended by an even weaker attorney. Post-trial, the facts that were taken in as evidence appeared untrue: Dr. Jayaram lied, after all.

So with more people questioning the safety of the conviction, the only way to prove one's cause is to err more on the subjective, emotional side. This is what I see happening all the time, but see, emotions, anger, bickering are a poor substitution for the lack of evidence.

 

[Charlot123]

I disagree, if Dr Evans. evidence is discredited then the whole case crumbles, as it is he who opines on COD. and from that poisoned tree all the other branches join,
I was utterly appalled at his demonstration of how one could add things to an IV bag, with a doll included in the demonstration,

Well, this is dramatic but unimportant. Dr. Evans was chasing own theories. From something being easy it doesn't follow that: 1) there is a killer on the unit; 2) that the killer used dr. Evans' "easy" method; 3) that Lucy did it.

 

[Charlot123]

Very easy for someone to see how easy it is to tamper with an IV and get away with it, and the doll in the demonstration gave me shivers, if I was DPP I would keep Dr Evans well away from the media, he does more damage to his reputation every time he talks, "metropolitan elite" are now to blame for people thinking LL is innocent

What the heck does he even mean by "metropolitan"? As in "Londoners"? Or "metropolitan" as opposed to "colonial"? Does Dr. Evans imply that he is not elite?

Dr. Evans was the trial expert for the highest-profile trial of the XXI century in UK. In no way is he a humble "country doctor". IMHO his statements and expertise might be questionable but one thing is obvious: he is well-connected medical elite.

 

[SusanDonim]

But then...if the experts are of poor quality, the jury and ultimately, the life of the accused is in the hands of an unqualified person?

And this is precisely what makes people question the safety of the conviction. First, "statistics has nothing to do with it"; then, a group of scientists whose level of education and expertise is way higher than that of dr.Evans are brushed aside; then, the only "witness", Dr. Jay, is apparently lying under oath... what stays out of solid facts undoubtedly proving Lucy's guilt?

Dr. Jayaram is the witness you are alluding to?


This case was lacking solid evidence from the getgo. The media presented this case to the public with the photos of Lucy's post-it notes. Since then, the level of subjectivism and emotionality in the media was increasing. She was labeled "the killer nurse" before the trial; the press was unhinged IMO.

I hoped that the trial would bring in objectivity. IRL, it looked like a weak case, but defended by an even weaker attorney. Post-trial, the facts that were taken in as evidence appeared untrue: Dr. Jayaram lied, after all.

So with more people questioning the safety of the conviction, the only way to prove one's cause is to err more on the subjective, emotional side. This is what I see happening all the time, but see, emotions, anger, bickering are a poor substitution for the lack of evidence.

Did you actually follow the trial on here?

 

[thinker47]

I think we'll be going round and round on this forever, unless someone else is found who *did* commit the crimes or LL herself confesses. LL, it appears, is never going to do that and if the babies died of natural causes and the number of deaths was all just a horrible coincidence, then there simply is no-one else to be found. In most events, it's almost impossible to prove a negative without a substitute positive. It seems that the only choice worth discussing now is whether it is 'better' to have an innocent person behind bars, thus destroying their life and that of their family, or to have a guilty party released on no secure evidence, to do the same thing again and put many unknown persons at risk. Because the only person who actually knows the facts is LL and her 'facts' are apparently not to be trusted. And round and round we go. The *only* thing we have here or *can* have here is opinion, we're all entitled to our own and there's no point in our getting into strife about it .

 

[Baileyboo]

I think we'll be going round and round on this forever, unless someone else is found who *did* commit the crimes or LL herself confesses. LL, it appears, is never going to do that and if the babies died of natural causes and the number of deaths was all just a horrible coincidence, then there simply is no-one else to be found. In most events, it's almost impossible to prove a negative without a substitute positive. It seems that the only choice worth discussing now is whether it is 'better' to have an innocent person behind bars, thus destroying their life and that of their family, or to have a guilty party released on no secure evidence, to do the same thing again and put many unknown persons at risk. Because the only person who actually knows the facts is LL and her 'facts' are apparently not to be trusted. And round and round we go. The *only* thing we have here or *can* have here is opinion, we're all entitled to our own and there's no point in our getting into strife about it .

There is medical evidence proving the babies were deliberately harmed. Such as the insulin/ C peptide blood tests, baby O liver injuries seen on post mortem, baby G vomiting double the amount of milk she was fed. The medical evidence stood up in court and needs to properly challenged in court to release her.
The issue isn't about personalities and who comes off better on TV. It's about having robust evidence. Shoo Lee's panel haven't gone to court with their evidence while Dr Evans has therefore their evidence can't be compared yet.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think we'll be going round and round on this forever, unless someone else is found who *did* commit the crimes or LL herself confesses. LL, it appears, is never going to do that and if the babies died of natural causes and the number of deaths was all just a horrible coincidence, then there simply is no-one else to be found. In most events, it's almost impossible to prove a negative without a substitute positive. It seems that the only choice worth discussing now is whether it is 'better' to have an innocent person behind bars, thus destroying their life and that of their family, or to have a guilty party released on no secure evidence, to do the same thing again and put many unknown persons at risk. Because the only person who actually knows the facts is LL and her 'facts' are apparently not to be trusted. And round and round we go. The *only* thing we have here or *can* have here is opinion, we're all entitled to our own and there's no point in our getting into strife about it .

The problem we now have is that the "Free Lucy Letby" campaign and its supporters is/are drifting ever more towards traditional conspiracy theory irrationality to the point that even if she confesses they probably won't stop. It will become part of the narrative and will be explained away as her being forced into confessing or statements being made on her behalf that she hasn't made and suchlike. I mean, it's not like they're going to let Piers Morgan interview her on TV. Even if they do and she confesses people still won't believe it.

There is plenty of "secure evidence". The issue is that there isn't a simple one or two pieces of incontrovertible, absolutely damning, "smoking gun" evidence that can't be rationally argued against. She isn't on video injecting insulin into drip bags or being violent with a baby. She was convicted on all of the evidence taken as a whole and many people simply seem unable to assess things in the round, unfortunately.

To be fair, that's not unreasonable if you hadn't followed the trial in great detail and only heard bits and pieces on the evening news. This is compounded now by the documentaries, podcasts, YouTube and Facebook videos portraying her innocence which vastly outweigh the original news stories and is now all that anyone is seeing. It also doesn't help that a lot of the early stories were simply wrong - such as the repeated untruth as to how the original investigation of her started. And also the fact that lots of these current documentaries are simply flat out wrong in parts - the example give just a few posts ago of the reports of the lab that did the insulin tests failing its quality control. It didn't but that wasn't made clear in the most recent doc.

You are correct, the only thing we can ever have is opinion - well sort of. The only opinion which matters, however, is that of the jury. They are the only group of people outside the relevant legal teams, the judge and a very small number of press and other attendees who were at court for every day of the trial. No one else has all the facts to arrive at a truly informed opinion. The only informed opinion is why she is now serving fifteen Whole Life Orders.