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

[Charlot123]

It certainly is interesting in that just about all cases, Dewi Evans removed incidents when Letby was off duty and added incidents when Letby was on duty.

What are the chances of the original chart being incorrect in just about every incident when Letby wasn't there and the chart favoured Letby, and also incorrect in just about every incident when Letby was there and the chart favoured Letby? Yet, not incorrect in just about every incident when it didn't favour Letby? I think we need a statistician to come along and gives us the odds. I'm gonna push the boat and say it is highly unlikely.

As for: "it was ultimately up to the jury to decide if the incident was suspicious." I keep hearing this from various posters as some final analysis. I don't think these posters understand the core tenets of the legal system.

That being: the jury needs to hear all of the information before deciding, from both the prosecution and the defence. They didn't get it. They were presented with a chart that looked damning but not the evolution of that chart and its methodology which has led qualified, authoritative people to state: cheery-picked, misleading, scientifically and evidentially worthless.

What truly surprises me is that they really created scientifically unverified, but from the legal standpoint, very odd process. They started with accusing Lucy of killing the babies with air embolism or gas in the stomach. That itself wasn't proven, but the prosecution added the case where they accused Lucy of injecting exogenous insulin. I was swayed by that case initially, but I didn't know that Lucy wasn't even working during that day!

No big deal, says doctor Evans, she could have added to TPN bag the day before! And he showed at the trial, how.

Never mind that it could be anyone else, any nurse, any pharmacist, maybe Breary himself, whose way of thinking, in my opinion, reeks of paranoia. In the situation when insulin is kept in refrigerator with the bags, who the heck knows what might have happened? But no, since Lucy has been accused, they add the insulin cases to the whole slew of accusations and show how she could have done it.

Now, of course, it becomes irrelevant since the lab had not passed the certification, and Roche assay has been found unreliable.

But this is Evans's mentality, and the court allows him to get away with it.

 

[JimmyDurham]

What truly surprises me is that they really created scientifically unverified, but from the legal standpoint, very odd process. They started with accusing Lucy of killing the babies with air embolism or gas in the stomach. That itself wasn't proven, but the prosecution added the case where they accused Lucy of injecting exogenous insulin. I was swayed by that case initially, but I didn't know that Lucy wasn't even working during that day!

No big deal, says doctor Evans, she could have added to TPN bag the day before! And he showed at the trial, how.

Never mind that it could be anyone else, any nurse, any pharmacist, maybe Breary himself, whose way of thinking, in my opinion, reeks of paranoia. In the situation when insulin is kept in refrigerator with the bags, who the heck knows what might have happened? But no, since Lucy has been accused, they add the insulin cases to the whole slew of accusations and show how she could have done it.

Now, of course, it becomes irrelevant since the lab had not passed the certification, and Roche assay has been found unreliable.

But this is Evans's mentality, and the court allows him to get away with it.

I can't think of another case whereby so many qualified people are disputing the prosecution's argument, and so quickly after a trial as well. It's not akin to say Jeremy Bamber, who, in all probability, is as guilty as sin. Letby's situation is completely different to most claims of a miscarriage of justice as they generally rely on not much at all really.

As said, I have no idea as to whether or not Letby is innocent, and the prosecution do have some circumstantial evidence of merit. The problem is that the jury did not hear a lot of dissenting voices who are qualified in their field. That would include the shift pattern data, the medical evidence and a doctor's statement to the effect that the prosecution misrepresented his study. Until that happens, nobody knows whether she is guilty or innocent.

 

[Baileyboo]

As said earlier, Moore wasn't the only person involved in compiling the original chart but it's generally known as the "Moore Chart".

Actually, Dewi Evans was heavily involved in compiling the original chart also. He was instructed by Cheshire Police to do so in 2017 and initially identified at least 27 babies with suspicious circumstances.

As said, farther down the line Dewi Evans was also heavily involved in removing babies/incidents from the chart when Letby was off duty and adding others when Letby was on duty. But, in just about all cases his additions and removals did not favour Letby, which is why when you get to trial there are 25 incidents and Letby is on duty at all of them.

There were many other unexpected unexplained collapses with Letby on duty which were investigated but due the possibility of natural causes were dropped from the investigation.
Ben Myers could have called a statistician, wonder why he didn't ? Maybe it was because adding a load more collapses where Letby was present wouldn't actually have helped her case.

 

[Charlot123]

And of course, I could not see this yesterday

Verifying Device

The article of Dr. Lee in "the Sun" of March 2, 2026

"Experts used my research to jail Lucy Letby. She must be free, doc slams".

Yes, it is obvious. Dr. Lee disagrees that his research should be used to jail Lucy Letby. He believes the babies died due to "subpar care".

 

[JimmyDurham]

Sir David Spiegelhalter, the emeritus professor of statistics at the University of Cambridge (I didn't study there and so can't say for certain, but I'm assuming it's not a joke whereby the only qualifications you need to get in are being the owner of a pen and a ruler), reckons the spike in deaths at the hospital wasn't unusual in a national context and a context where hospitals were receiving a higher than average number of poorly babies.

He stated: “we expect this to happen every year somewhere.”

 

[Baileyboo]

Sir David Spiegelhalter, the emeritus professor of statistics at the University of Cambridge (I didn't study there and so can't say for certain, but I'm assuming it's not a joke whereby the only qualifications you need to get in are being the owner of a pen and a ruler), reckons the spike in deaths at the hospital wasn't unusual in a national context and a context where hospitals were receiving a higher than average number of poorly babies.

He stated: “we expect this to happen every year somewhere.”

The babies were stable until they met Letby.

There was evidence of poisoning, air embolism, injection of air into the stomach and impact liver injuries. It wasn't a random spike of natural deaths.

 

[JimmyDurham]

The babies were stable until they met Letby.

There was evidence of poisoning, air embolism, injection of air into the stomach and impact liver injuries. It wasn't a random spike of natural deaths.

There are some people qualified in the relevant field who disagree with you.

I don't know what your medical qualifications are, but if you'd like to put them up for scrutiny it would be helpful.

 

[Charlot123]

The babies were stable until they met Letby.

There was evidence of poisoning, air embolism, injection of air into the stomach and impact liver injuries. It wasn't a random spike of natural deaths.

There was no evidence. Even the statement itself is highly unscientific. ("There is evidence of poisoning" immediately invites the question, "by what"?). But also, even with your statement, where is the evidence of all of this being done by Lucy Letby? Who witnessed it? Our sole star witness, Dr. Jayaram, lied under oath, as it looks.

 

[Ruthbullock]

IN summary:

Hospital bosses failed to investigate allegations against Lucy Letby and tried to silence doctors, the lead consultant at the neonatal unit where she worked has told the BBC.
---The hospital also delayed calling the police despite months of warnings that the nurse may have been killing babies.

---The unit's lead consultant Dr Stephen Brearey first raised concerns about Letby in October 2015.

---No action was taken and she went on to attack five more babies, killing two.

Thanks for putting that all together. I’m not negating the issue with management- but there is also an email from the Thirlwall
Inquiry between the doctors discussing the case and one consultant within the chain states that if they believe this to be the truth they need to go to the police . They still didn’t go to the police, nor even the managers at that point- whilst telling another colleague they were convinced this was the answer to what was going on for x y and z reasons. If I believed harm was being caused and had evidence- I would be insisting people listen, I would be attending the briefings and my colleagues who agreed would be backing me and making sure someone was available to attend the meetings after incidents, I would be following colleagues advice and taking the few who agreed to the police, I would have been following the safeguarding policy at the time which didn’t only include reporting to management, but also to the external council body to be involved (LADO)- they didn’t do any of it. You can explain over and over what the did, but to convince me they did everything in their remit correctly- you need to justify why the didn’t do the things they were supposed to do as well. This involves moving from newspaper reporting about Letby on trial (which was not about the doctors and consultants) to reading the inquiry documents and interviews (which is focused on why this happened for such a prolonged period.)

If you go right back to the beginning and you worked there and believed someone was causing harm, you didn’t know who or what and escalated it without deciding to become your own self indulgent poirot to solve the case- the management and external agencies would have been keeping a much closer eye on what was going on and being recorded, we will never know whether it would have taken just as long, longer or less time to come to same or a different conclusion- but those channels couldn’t even start operating as they wanted to investigate themselves.

If you suspect something is rotting in your workplace, it always becomes less credible when you start making accusations- management want to be able to do unbiased investigations without fanfare or random unsubstantiated suspicions being thrown around and that is the case in any workplace.

It was brought up about contacting LADO many times in the inquiry with the doctors, they had no response to why they never made contact despite it being policy . Even the initial police discussion with the consultants asked them why they hadn’t contacted their local LADO and was possibly one of the reasons they didn’t initially pick up the investigation when it was first referred.

 

[Charlot123]

Sir David Spiegelhalter, the emeritus professor of statistics at the University of Cambridge (I didn't study there and so can't say for certain, but I'm assuming it's not a joke whereby the only qualifications you need to get in are being the owner of a pen and a ruler), reckons the spike in deaths at the hospital wasn't unusual in a national context and a context where hospitals were receiving a higher than average number of poorly babies.

He stated: “we expect this to happen every year somewhere.”

Cyclical patterns of events are expected to happen. We live on Earth, where everything cycles, starting with the seasons. Sometimes we can say why cycles of events happen, sometimes we can't.

But if we can't, it would be expected to rule out natural reasons before one starts looking for serial killers on the units. Not that they can't happen, but with such outliers, one has to rule out the real reasons first.

They never invited the external observer to look at their own practices. They just said, "we did everything as before".

And then when Lucy Letby is already in jail, we find out that Dr. Jayaram has poor understanding of ventilation principles, that dr. Breary lacerated the baby's liver, that Dr. Gibbs didn't see a neonate under his care for three days, and that there was Pseudomonas on the unit.

BTW, what these doctors did, IMHO, falls under "mistakes inevitable on a very busy unit, with limited funds, and overwhelmed medical personnel", nothing else. But why put a nurse behind bars for it? On no evidence?

 

[marynnu]

Sir David Spiegelhalter, the emeritus professor of statistics at the University of Cambridge (I didn't study there and so can't say for certain, but I'm assuming it's not a joke whereby the only qualifications you need to get in are being the owner of a pen and a ruler), reckons the spike in deaths at the hospital wasn't unusual in a national context and a context where hospitals were receiving a higher than average number of poorly babies.

He stated: “we expect this to happen every year somewhere.”

It wasn't about a simple spike in deaths. It was about a spike in both deaths AND SERIOUS INCIDENTS which were completely out of the blue had no obvious cause. That is incredibly unusual to the point of unheard of on neonatal units.

 

[JimmyDurham]

Cyclical patterns of events are expected to happen. We live on Earth, where everything cycles, starting with the seasons. Sometimes we can say why cycles of events happen, sometimes we can't.

But if we can't, it would be expected to rule out natural reasons before one starts looking for serial killers on the units. Not that they can't happen, but with such outliers, one has to rule out the real reasons first.

They never invited the external observer to look at their own practices. They just said, "we did everything as before".

And then when Lucy Letby is already in jail, we find out that Dr. Jayaram has poor understanding of ventilation principles, that dr. Breary lacerated the baby's liver, that Dr. Gibbs didn't see a neonate under his care for three days, and that there was Pseudomonas on the unit.

BTW, what these doctors did, IMHO, falls under "very busy unit, with limited funds, and overwhelmed medical personnel", nothing else. But why put a nurse behind bars for it? On no evidence?

Aye, 'reckon all of those considerations: the quality of the care, a struggling unit, a spike in the number of poorly babies being admitted, staffing issues, the infrastructure and so on; these are relevant to the case (as you say).

Needs a retrial. Too many qualified people disputing the prosecution's case with information that a jury hasn't heard. If that happened, with all of the information presented, I could see a hung jury.

 

[Ruthbullock]

What about the numerous people willing to testify in court about said rash. I think you will find that it does hold water.

Who were the numerous people in court who attributed it to a specific medical diagnosis, rather than just describing it and saying they witnessed a rash? The medical professionals couldn’t diagnose it in situ, nor did it bother some of them enough to research it afterwards- so whilst it was paraded as significant in court, in the moment it wasn’t. The few doctors who did start looking into it found a paper that confirmed their belief, but that author has subsequently said based on what you recorded in your medical notes you have misinterpreted it.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Sir David Spiegelhalter, the emeritus professor of statistics at the University of Cambridge (I didn't study there and so can't say for certain, but I'm assuming it's not a joke whereby the only qualifications you need to get in are being the owner of a pen and a ruler), reckons the spike in deaths at the hospital wasn't unusual in a national context and a context where hospitals were receiving a higher than average number of poorly babies.

He stated: “we expect this to happen every year somewhere.”

The 'spike' in deaths/incidents being the reason she was investigated is nothing more than a myth. It didnt happen like that.

No one ever claimed it was. It was simply something a media outlet stated incorrectly.

See the links in my signature for the full story.

 

[Charlot123]

There were many other unexpected unexplained collapses with Letby on duty which were investigated but due the possibility of natural causes were dropped from the investigation.
Ben Myers could have called a statistician, wonder why he didn't ? Maybe it was because adding a load more collapses where Letby was present wouldn't actually have helped her case.

It would be interesting to know whether such shift sheets were also done for each doctor and registrar on the unit, or for nurses only?

I suspect, for nurses. You know why I think so? Many times, senior doctors were not physically present on the unit. The baby doesn't open bowels for three days - dr. Gibbs doesn't see him, just orders ranitidine over the phone.

So I understand, the senior doctors could probably rule themselves out because they were not on the unit often enough.

But this very factor could contribute to untoward events.

 

[Ruthbullock]

It wasn't about a simple spike in deaths. It was about a spike in both deaths AND SERIOUS INCIDENTS which were completely out of the blue had no obvious cause. That is incredibly unusual to the point of unheard of on neonatal units.

So if you were in that work environment you have a choice - follow all the available policy channels to report, or gather the evidence yourself over a year and then report. There’s a really sound reasoning why people are asked not to investigate and accuse colleagues themselves and should instead report things through proper channels- this case being the worst and strongest example ever.

 

[May72031]

Not according to the RSS and Professor Jane Hutton (medical statistician) and other statisticians also, including some from abroad. They believe the chart is evidentially valueless because of the methodology utilised in compiling it.

Yet, it isn't. And anyhow, it played a minor part of the trial evidence. I would love to know WHY Hutton and company would want incidents that are not considered as suspicious by medical experts, somehow included. To me, that would be rigging the chart to suit Letby, rather than the evidence.

Whether you or I believe it is besides the point. The point is that the jury didn't hear from these qualified people. They didn't get that side of the story.

The defence didn't call them. They had their reasons. Letbyists have resorted to some absolutely incredible conspiracy theories to try and get round this obstacle, even suggesting Myers was somehow in on it.

They were simply presented with the chart's final analysis, not the evolution, not the methodology and not the dissenting voices from people who know what they're talking about.

Pointing out its evolution would not have changed a thing.

In that event, it's not a fair trial.

You Letbyists can cling to this fantasy all you like, it was a fair trial.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Seriously ?
She had one of the best British silks representing her fgs !
Do you HONESTLY not think if he could have put an expert up on the stand to refute the prosecutions experts he would have done ?
He must have been asleep at the wheel eh ?

He may be brilliant- but has little experience in the area of medical deaths- he is currently working on greenfell.- another building failing, which seems to have been how he tried to evidence the Letby case.

Benjamin Myers KC specializes in Business and Financial Crime, General Crime, Regulatory Law, Professional Discipline and Inquests and Inquiries. Described as ‘brilliant’, ‘extremely astute’ ‘a superb jury advocate and lawyer’ with ‘an exceptional ability to digest complex cases’,

 

[May72031]

Sir David Spiegelhalter, the emeritus professor of statistics at the University of Cambridge (I didn't study there and so can't say for certain, but I'm assuming it's not a joke whereby the only qualifications you need to get in are being the owner of a pen and a ruler), reckons the spike in deaths at the hospital wasn't unusual in a national context and a context where hospitals were receiving a higher than average number of poorly babies.

He stated: “we expect this to happen every year somewhere.”

We expect what to happen every year somewhere? The equivalent number of collapses/deaths that are sudden and unexpected? If this is the case, can you any point any of these spikes out?

 

[May72031]

Aye, 'reckon all of those considerations: the quality of the care, a struggling unit, a spike in the number of poorly babies being admitted, staffing issues, the infrastructure and so on; these are relevant to the case (as you say).

None of those issues explain the sudden and unexpected collapses and deaths.