You know, there may be a certain bias introduced by the framework of the court. Everything that comes from Lucy Letby has been vetted in the concept of the trial.
When in 2016 (•a woman of my country was running for an important position*), I had zero problems with her, but for some reason, here she was considered “unlikable”. Later, I realized why. She was naturally camera-shy and looked awkward on TV and podium. So, boring, not a natural actress, sounded dull… what she said made sense but she did not take the time to train herself on an unfavorite medias. Introverts never look well on media.
(There is a reason why psychiatrists are strongly advised not to make a diagnosis without seeing someone in person.)
Just a good example how we should not rely on a media or excerpts or letters, even.
You were watching Lucy when the press already named her “a killer nurse”. There is a chance that if you read the same but in a different context (a nurse saved a drowning child), you’d come to a different conclusion.
I was watching her and listening to her answers to direct questions concerning the charges against her. I was forming an opinion based upon those answers. It was not made because of a bias because I clearly had no idea if she was guilty of these extreme charges.
In fact, I was leaning towards innocence. The charges were too brutal and horrible to believe.
After a week on the stand, I saw her ability to manipulate, deflect and deny, even when the facts and evidence were right in front of her.
You asked me about him, I said what I thought.
You say those things with no evidence, imo.
He clearly explained during the trial, why he began to be suspicious. It was not out of fear or delusion. It was logical and rational and he turned out to be correct. IMO
Well, this is a very simple situation. The money is missing from the till is a direct connection with “someone is stealing it”.
Probably 90%. There are other choices, such as “the cashier or myself is bad at math, doesn’t count the money, gives too much charge back” , or “I was pitch drunk yesterday and forgot that I took it myself”. But all other explanations could probably amount to 10%. 90% chance, as you said, the explanation is, “someone was stealing”.
But what if instead of controlling for the most obvious factor, stealing by the employee, one says, “OK, there is 0,001% chance that mice ate the money, let us start with inviting pest control”?
Because this is how it would look in NICU.
The explanation “the babies collapsed because we have a killer on the unit” doesn’t stand up to criticism. How often do “killers on the unit” happen? 0.0001% if that? Why start with them if other causes take precedence?
Again, you are making up facts. No one began with the serial killer notion.
Even after his suspicions in the first 4 incidents because Letby was the nurse involved , his first thought were that maybe she was lacking experience, making bad decisions or mistakes, and needed more training. It was NOT suspicion that she was being malicious in any way.
The Royal College of Pediatric and Child Health Review mentioned “ inadequate staffing and senior cover”. Start with it! Hire more nurses, come to the unit more often, Dr, Breary, hire one more senior doctor; then look at statistics.
That^^ was always something the doctors were wanting and asking for.
But these collapses were not caused by understaffing or lack of care. We saw the detailed medical notes that were filled out every 15 to 20 minutes for each child. Every one of them had constant supervision and attention. The documentation was shown in court. The treatments were shown with receipts for prescriptions and observation logs showing who administered them and when.
There were notes showing feedings, diaper changes, cuddling times with family, sleep schedules, initialed by the designated nurses.
These babies died horrific deaths, sudden collapses, many with massive blood loss, dire injuries, brain damage, internal organ shut downs. Those kinds of injuries are the result of assault, not 'lack of senior cover.'
Infection. Fix that darn water system, take swabs from everywhere, including ventilators tubing (Stenotrophomonas maltophilia), clean the unit, move it to a newer building, after all. When fecal material flooded the water system, Dr. Breary had full right to call Tony Chambers, Ian Harvey or whoever and say, “fix it all today or we all leave”.
Guess what, IT WAS FIXED THAT VERY DAY. And there were no infections that came from that broken pipe incident. NONE of the babies that Letby was charged with, had infections from plumbing etc.
Talk to the GYN department. In 2015, the practice of using 2-3 embryos for IVF is becoming obsolete. Demand adjustment, use of better genetic screening and better IVF practices.
(Send Dr. Jayaram to take ventilators classes. We all know that bad vent settings might be deleterious.)
There are too many things that need to be changed first to improve statistics before anyone starts chasing killers in NICU.
Again, you are conflating things. THESE victims in this trial had nothing to do with IVF or ventilator settings or the water system.
But the truth it, doctor Breary is not an insightful leader. He says, “we were doing everything as usual”. Well, maybe the answer is, then do it better!
Dr Breary was a hero in this case. He spearheaded the efforts to get Letby off of the floor and in a desk job. The collapses stopped immediately.
This being said - I am not stating that she is “absolutely innocent”.
Oh? Just slightly innocent?
Data presented doesn’t point at her being guilt.
The data presented in court did point to her guilt according to the judge and the jurors.
I am saying “the trial is a travesty and the conviction is unsafe.”
I disagree, obviously.
Also, “there were many other reasons for increased mortality, way, way above the possibility of a killer on the unit”.
Yes, both things can be true. The hospital can need reform and better staffing and better conditions and the hospital can be hosting a serial killer unbeknownst to them.
