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

[Parker Knoll]

The Sun and Shoo Lee …. What bedfellows.

 

[WaneLyrical]

The Sun and Shoo Lee …. What bedfellows.

Any thoughts on the actual content?

 

[Parker Knoll]

I will watch it late WL and give my thoughts if anyone was remotely interested.

 

[Charlot123]

Sort of.

1) There are a number of qualified, authoritative statisticians who have reviewed the case and stated that the chart is evidentially worthless: Gill is far from alone.

2) The "statistics debate" is absolutely relevant to the discussion on this message board. The reason being that in the event posters do not understand the bare essentials of statistics, then of course you will have posters concluding: "the chart itself was nothing more than a visual presentation of the fact that she was present", and other posters agreeing with it. This is an erroneous statement, masquerading as a reasonable argument, being peddled around the board; when really it should be taken to task as complete and utter nonsense (which of course has no place in a reasonable discussion). There's that as well as the fact that Prosecutor Nick Johnson put forth an argument built upon statistics (in his own words).

We all poorly know statistics to start with. I just re-read Roy Meadow (Sally Clark’s) case. Had I already not read about his fallacy, I’d probably use the same equation, 1/8500 x 1/8500. But the fact that two “cot deaths” in one family may be connected (genetically, as it was found out) and hence, you don’t treat variables as independent, would not have occurred to me. I hope that I would have had more common sense than Meadows and say, “the odds look impossible” and consult a statistician. Why don’t doctors do it more often? -statistics is a complex science.

In case when statisticians are invited, and listened to, the result is very different. I’d advise people to read about the cluster of brain tumors, mostly benign, affecting about 7 current or former nurses on its 5th-floor maternity unit of Newton-Wellesley Hospital in Massachusetts, as reported in early 2025.

Investigating uses a measurable, scientific approach. The committee ruled out environmental factors; they invited statisticians and found out that statistically, this cluster is not significant. (This is difficult, to look at the cluster and hear that it can be random!) They keep the door open. The investigators dispersed the panic and are looking at other factors the only nurses on maternity wards could be subjected to. With good scientific approach, should there be any, yet unknown, correlation between some factor and the OB nurses’ work, it will be found out.

This is the approach of the XXI century, IMO. But to get answers, one has to be ready to invite scientists to his unit, and work with them.

 

[alb1on]

I find it bizarre that anyone should dispute that a conviction is unsafe when so many of the witnesses and evidence has been refuted or undermined. I appreciate that some have a belief in the infallibility of court proceedings which is on a par with religious belief but that is not how the English court system works (although it may be the case elsewhere). When expert evidence is brought into question the Court of Appeal is there to review the conviction. In this case multiple strands have been questioned by experts considerably more qualified than the witnesses. That makes it an open and shut case for review regardless of the thoughts of those lacking the necessary expertise. I spent my entire working life focused on statistics as an underwriting director and if any of my staff had suggested the statistical evidence in this case was a suitable basis for a decision I would have moved them on.

 

[alb1on]

We all poorly know statistics to start with. I just re-read Roy Meadow (Sally Clark’s) case. Had I already not read about his fallacy, I’d probably use the same equation, 1/8500 x 1/8500. But the fact that two “cot deaths” in one family may be connected (genetically, as it was found out) and hence, you don’t treat variables as independent, would not have occurred to me. I hope that I would have had more common sense than Meadows and say, “the odds look impossible” and consult a statistician. Why don’t doctors do it more often? -statistics is a complex science.

In the Roy Meadow's case statistics was not a complex science. I would have expected a school pupil doing maths to understand the difference between independent and dependent events.

 

[rvlvr]

Any thoughts on the actual content?

It’s wild to me that Professor Lee and a frankly overwhelming number of eminent, internationally recognised experts in various fields relevant to this case, can be written off on this forum as a ‘mob’!

Reluctant as I am to engage with the Sun’s content, I watched the video and found it very informative. Professor Lee is everything you’d hope for from an expert. What a contrast with the narcissistic Dr Evans!

 

[Charlot123]

In the Roy Meadow's case statistics was not a complex science. I would have expected a school pupil doing maths to understand the difference between independent and dependent events.

The whole fact that cot deaths in the same family were not independent was neither known nor discussed. In fact, I thought on reading about the case “what if both kids had narcolepsy?”, but no one in the articles of that time was asking these questions!

But mostly, in such trials, one has to turn to specialists, and if medical statisticians exist, it is strange not to use their expertise.

 

[Charlot123]

It’s wild to me that Professor Lee and a frankly overwhelming number of eminent, internationally recognised experts in various fields relevant to this case, can be written off on this forum as a ‘mob’!

Reluctant as I am to engage with the Sun’s content, I watched the video and found it very informative. Professor Lee is everything you’d hope for from an expert. What a contrast with the narcissistic Dr Evans!

Professor Lee has a unique combination of a neonatologist’s perspective and, as it seems to me, he loves to teach. Too bad they didn’t use his expertise well.

They are still debating with him in the press trying to find studies contradicting his words, while the reality is different: expensive but useless trial of Lucy Letby and the whole circus of catching a serial killer in NICU was not started by him. (It is all very sad because the money spent on the trial could be definitely used to improve plumbing in NICU, for example, with much better results.)

As to “the mob”, that trend was started by the media and repeated by Dr. Gibbs. (“The Gang of Seven” stems from the “Gang of Four” in the time of the Cultural Revolution in China, and it was anything but funny. There is humor in bad taste). What people post here is the reflection of what our journalism has morphed into, IMHO.

 

[May72031]

I find it bizarre that anyone should dispute that a conviction is unsafe when so many of the witnesses and evidence has been refuted or undermined.

Er, but they haven't. Don't get caught up in the Maltin PR-backed hurricane of conspiracy theories and false claims that made you believe that.

 

[alb1on]

The whole fact that cot deaths in the same family were not independent was neither known nor discussed. In fact, I thought on reading about the case “what if both kids had narcolepsy?”, but no one in the articles of that time was asking these questions!

But mostly, in such trials, one has to turn to specialists, and if medical statisticians exist, it is strange not to use their expertise.

Roy Meadow is not and never has been a statistician. His sole training is in medicine. A trained statistician would have qualified any evidence by being clear that the numbers he quoted rested upon the assumption that the events (baby deaths) were independent. This is not rocket science and any expert evidence should state any assumptions made in the evidence given. The fault lay in the court admitting expert evidence on a matter for which the witness was not an expert.

 

[alb1on]

Er, but they haven't. Don't get caught up in the Maltin PR-backed hurricane of conspiracy theories and false claims that made you believe that.

Complete rubbish. Just to state three key pieces of evidence refuted by those with the expertise to do so;

• the statistical analysis refuted by the author of the guidelines of the Royal Statistical Society.
• the use of the paper of Dr Shoo Lee cited by the prosecution, refuted by Dr Shoo Lee.
• the evidence of Peter Hindmarsh who was under investigation by the GMC in respect of his ability to act as an expert witness at the time of his testimony. He avoided professional sanction only by giving up his registration before the findings.

It would usually be sufficient for a referral to the Court of Appeal for one key piece of evidence to come into disrepute. It is unheard of for an appeal not to be granted when 3 key lines of evidence fall.

Do not let emotions about the case blind you to the issue of due process and the need to ensure justice (either way). One case which stinks out the system corrupts the entire system (as was the case, for example, with Timothy Evans). The judicial system rests upon people having faith in the fairness of the system.

 

[JimmyDurham]

Johnson put on an argument that lasted for 6 months. Of that 6 month duration, he discussed statistics for about 10 minutes.

Dear Katy:

I posted the following in post 2,820.

Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC explicitly founded his claim on statistics as he opened the Crown’s case with:

Nurse Lucy Letby poisoned babies with insulin, trial told​

Lucy Letby is described as a "constant malevolent presence" at the opening of her murder trial.

www.bbc.co.uk

Prior to January 2015, the statistics for the mortality of babies in the neo-natal unit at the Countess of Chester were comparable to other like units. However, over the next 18 months or so, there was a significant rise in the number of babies who were dying and in the number of serious catastrophic collapses. And these rises were noticed by the consultants working at the Countess of Chester and they searched for a cause. “Having searched for a cause, which they were unable to find, the consultants noticed that the inexplicable collapses and deaths did have one common denominator. The presence of one of the neonatal nurses and that nurse was Lucy Letby.

The above is the opening statement from the prosecution. In that opening statement, essentially Johnson/the prosecution were saying this: whatever else you hear in this case, it pales into insignificance when compared with the shift chart, what matters most is that Letby was on duty at all of the serious incidents in this chart and it simply cannot be a coincidence; it means that whatever else you hear, Letby is guilty given that she is the only person on duty at all of these incidents.

A cynic would suggest that Johnson/the prosecution understood that the medical evidence would be difficult to understand for a jury constituting your average man and woman on the street and therefore wouldn't be convincing, but in the event you present a chart claiming that only one person was present when all of the babies died, well, that's a lot more powerful and convincing isn't it. Particularly when the jury did not hear the evolution of the chart and expert statisticians who termed it scientifically worthless due to the chart's methodology.

 

[Sweeper2000]

What the flying f. A huge amount of top level medical expertise and evidence, a large amount of other evidence "pales into significance" when faced with the shift chart. The docs originally didnt even need a shift chart to know something had happened with those babies. J h c

 

[JimmyDurham]

Those 'suspicious' incidents were originally deemed 'suspicious' by a police officer, with no medical expertise.

Dear Katy,

I've already replied to you on this to explain how and why you're peddling rubbish here.

According to Evans's initial analysis, Letby was not in the hospital when 10 of the 28 incidents he described as suspicious took place. When Evans first detailed his findings to senior detectives from Cheshire Police and National Crime Agency experts over two days in October 2017, a number of his conclusions were strikingly different from those presented in court.

 

[Charlot123]

What the flying f. A huge amount of top level medical expertise and evidence, a large amount of other evidence "pales into significance" when faced with the shift chart. The docs originally didnt even need a shift chart to know something had happened with those babies. J h c

Something could be: senior doctor not seeing a baby for three days, choosing wrong size tube for ventilation, IV access tissuing and a newborn baby not getting IV fluids, infection...

Lots of different reasons. As it happens in ICUs worldwide.

Except for Chester, where they start looking for a serial killer.

 

[marynnu]

Something could be: senior doctor not seeing a baby for three days, choosing wrong size tube for ventilation, IV access tissuing and a newborn baby not getting IV fluids, infection...

Lots of different reasons. As it happens in ICUs worldwide.

Except for Chester, where they start looking for a serial killer.

None of them collapsed and died for those reasons though, did they.th
I don't think a baby has ever deteriorated because a consultant hadn't seen them that day. Consultants don't see every baby on a neonatal unit you know.

 

[Charlot123]

None of them collapsed and died for those reasons though, did they.th
I don't think a baby has ever deteriorated because a consultant hadn't seen them that day. Consultants don't see every baby on a neonatal unit you know.

The ICUs I saw had daily morning staff rounds and if an emergency, the senior doctor would definitely come in. What’s the doctor’s role? He works on the unit!

 

[JimmyDurham]

None of them collapsed and died for those reasons though, did they.th
I don't think a baby has ever deteriorated because a consultant hadn't seen them that day. Consultants don't see every baby on a neonatal unit you know.

The problem is that you keep repeating this like you know, like you know everything, and the opinions of people far more qualified than you do not matter.

There are some well qualified people who do not agree with the prosecution's case. 'Needs a retrial.

What you and I think, as non qualified medical people, is immaterial.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Yeh its been stated already. We are all waiting on what the ccrc say about the matter. Mcdonald said a decision was imminent a while back so hopefully soon.

They are the serious pro's on that matter and can make a decision better than us.

I wouldnt downplay many opinions here either, some made forecasts a long long time back which came to be known as fact much later. Others are professionals within their fields and have relevant knowledge. Its a forum yes but it being a forum saya nothing about the people posting on it.