Whatever one's opinion there is a really interesting article about her trial. Worth a read. Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question
Bit too much coincidence surely? It's been a lengthy trial, doctors expressed concerns about her at the time and she's been found guilty. As they themselves have said, they did not sit through the proceedings and they acknowledge there was reasonable doubt.
The one in the New Yorker was similar if not slightly better. I think there's enough doubt if only because they're relying on false assumptions. Doesn't make her not guilty (although it wouldn't surprise me if she wasn't).
Statisiticians would tell you it's quite possible she's just an outlier and that the data presented in court is essentially meaningless in and of itself. To a non expert jury that can be quite persuasive and it shouldn't be. Coincidences happen all the time. I think there were a further 6 (edited from 3 originally) deaths when she wasn't at work. That combined with statements made to the jury about medical evidence appear to be contradictory according to other (better?) experts in the field. As I said I've no idea if she is or isn't but as proven by the Dutch nurse who was found guilty of something similar and later aquited, these things happen.
If she's innocent then why: - falsify records to cover up her actions or whereabouts. - Why did several doctors and consultants put complaints in against her? - The strong rise in cases when she started on the ward and the strong decline in case when she left the ward. I'm sorry I know this discussion of innocence can be mentally stimulating to have for people but she is guilty, two separate juries have found her guilty and mathematically it isn't a coincidence all this evidence against her, it simply points to her having murdered 7 babies and attempted to murder 7 more. May she burn in hell.
It should be possible to entertain an idea whilst not necessarily believing it to be true. It's how many wrongfully convicted end up being released, because someone somewhere said to themselves, "Maybe they didn't do it?" Again, not to say she's not guilty but these things happen...
You believe she's innocent? Two separate juries and a mountain load of evidence points to her being guilty, I don't think that can be ignored and it shouldn't be.
No idea whether she did it or not but you have to be very, very careful about the use of statistics in criminal cases. Particularly where you're doing an analysis of conditional, or bayesian, probability and elements of that are based on subjective assumptions rather than things that can be objectively verified (see also the Sally Clark conviction). This seems particularly inappropriate:
The statements in the Guardian article appear to me to be assertions and not particularly probative one way or the other. The difference was outlined in detail by Dame Victoria Sharp in her judgement in the Court of Appeal. It seems to me that the original trial court, the divisional court and the Court of Appeal all weighed the evidence and arguments fully in what was undoubtedly an extremely difficult case. It's certainly one where you would have needed to hear all the evidence in order to form any reasonable view. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a demanding burden, particularly in cases resting partly or wholly upon circumstantial evidence. The Court of Appeal judgement is worthy of a read: ewca_crim_2024_748.pdf
The Dutch nurse, Lucia De Berk, was found guilty in part because at trial they presented statistics to show that there was a 1 in 3,400,000 chance that she wasn't responsible for multiple deaths under her care. Only later an expert statistician showed it was actually as low as 1:25. Poster above mentioned the deaths fell away when she was taken off duty but failed to mention that at the same time the hospital stopped taking in really sick children because they hadn't had enough specialist care doctors. Again, no idea if she's guilty or not guilty, but there's probably more doubt than the original verdict would have people believe.
Unfortunately her defense council didn't do a great job in highlighting some of these issue or calling expert witnesses who could show the other side of the story, coupled with some chicanery from the prosecution on their evidence has left us with a lot of new information not played out in court it seems.
Very much this. As a new father I find the topic pretty emotional, so apologies if this is an emotive response. She clearly didn't do her best by those babies and at a very minimum was grossly negligent. The sheer volume of evidence, testimony from her peers and self-written confessions very much point to her being much worse than negligent. Every time I see her name I think of the parents whose babies she killed and wish people would have the decency to drop it and not speculate on something they know the square root of **** all about.
The evidence is huge and i agree with the poster above in speculation in cases like this only serves to hurt those involved (such as Sandy Hook) Just a small snippet of evidence includes: Full timelines with every member of staff's actions on the unit. Think swipe card data in and out of the rooms, when digital notes were made and which computers these were done from so they could further place staff, prescriptions each of them signed at each time to place them with babys. This allowed them to place Letby as the only member of staff in the room during these collapses. You were shown the notes from other staff about these babies, and how they directly contradicted Letby's. These were followed through chronologically, so you got a sense of how unexpected these collapses were. You were shown Letby's messages. We were shown far more than were reported, both with Dr A and another friend. There are times she's apparently worried about a baby, and is speaking to Dr A about having that baby, but she's not raising any concerns to him despite him working on that day. You were shown the charts where Letby was 'interrupted'. Half filled in, not signed. Signing out of the box as though it was a countersignature for her student in the case of Baby P for example. The prosecution case was that LL did deliberate harm to each baby. In each charge, they used 4 separate, independent experts to show specifically what harm was done. Statistics weren't used to convict Letby, an overwhelming amount of evidence did that, you can't really compare her case with Lucia De Berk and im not sure what posters on here get out of saying otherwise especially those who work in the NHS.
Are we talking about the same woman that wrote "I am evil, I did this" in her own notebook amongst a bunch of other fatal coincidences? Aye, I'm on the fence on this one.
