Nurse Lucy Letby - guilty of murdering 7 babies - whole life sentence

FortBoyard said:
Perhaps, I have seen this graph which I would like to understand better, eg why such variance in reporting?

351877_a24df7cac6894ab59633f3f3dd3e5b82~mv2.png


3125c3ef8ad9075d31ede7dc7a2c6c70.png
Click to expand...

I've only looked at the first graph but the yellow bar is showing neonatal death rates in Cheshire West/Chester. Countess of Chester wasn't the only neonatal unit in that area.
 
Last edited:
Penna said:
I used to manage a neonatal unit. Numbers on their own don't tell you much, as you have to look at the type of babies that were routinely admitted to that unit.

A woman with a higher-risk pregnancy might well end up giving birth in a particular hospital, precisely because the neonatal unit is more adequately-equipped for sicker, more premature babies.

I remember a very ill-informed regional boss berating hospital managers who had high rates of outpatient appointment non-attendance. He held up two hospitals as shining examples of what we should all achieve - they were both specialist cancer units. He hadn't made the simple connection between the nature of the specialty and the likelihood of people not bothering to turn up for their appointments. Numbers don't tell the full story.
Click to expand...

What type of vetting takes place of the staff at Neonatal units (or any other for that matter)? Surely the most important thing is to learn from such horrific events and try to minimize the possibility of it ever happening again?
I’m also interested in the psychological state of her (I can’t get myself to write her name). By all accounts she seemed the last person to expect to do such evil wicked acts. Why? To harm the babies or the parents for example? Will we ever know?
 
11101 said:
Don't you think with such a high profile and lengthy case the defence would have noticed that and been able to successfully discredit it? It's not a particularly complex point. In this thread @Wolverine commented on it as a GP, a subject expert could easily pick it apart in court if there were any doubt.
Click to expand...

You mean in this post:

Wolverine said:
Laughably amateur explanation of insulin vs c-peptide physiologically one example.
Click to expand...

I didn't question that, perhaps I should have - it would be good to know what @Wolverine meant.

As far as I can tell, Richard Gill doesn't attempt to explain the relationship, but he does reference Science on Trial which appears to make reasonable statements.

I'm not a GP, I'm a vet, but my understanding is that C-peptide and insulin are released in equal amounts by the pancreas during the production/release of insulin. C-peptide is therefore a surrogate for insulin - it has no effect on blood glucose but persists longer than insulin, which is labile and rapidly metabolised. The rationale, therefore, is that high C-peptide levels with low insulin levels are found physiologically, but the reverse situation is typically associated with exogenous insulin supplementation. As I understand it, that was presented in court as an absolute, and the fact that there are published reports of cases where low C-peptide and high insulin concentrations have occurred physiologically was not reported.
 
Rams said:
What type of vetting takes place of the staff at Neonatal units (or any other for that matter)? Surely the most important thing is to learn from such horrific events and try to minimize the possibility of it ever happening again?
Click to expand...
Everyone who works in a hospital is subject to a Disclosure and Barring Service screening, and for most hospital employees that would be at the enhanced level. That means that all past convictions for anything will be reported.

Letby didn't have any past convictions. Most people don't, of course.
 
Penna said:
Everyone who works in a hospital is subject to a Disclosure and Barring Service screening, and for most hospital employees that would be at the enhanced level. That means that all past convictions for anything will be reported.

Letby didn't have any past convictions. Most people don't, of course.
Click to expand...

Is there no kind of psychological vetting in place? Is this person mentally fit or appropriate to do the job irrespective of any past convictions?
 
A tiny, and I mean tiny part wants to believe she was framed, because the actual reality is so tremendously horrific and evil.
 
I had a premature child, who spent weeks in the neonatal unit and daily we put all our trust in those workers to help and protect our child during their most vulnerable time, and to think someone could take advantage of that makes me sick.

I hope she spends the rest of her life in excruciating pain.
 
Rams said:
Is there no kind of psychological vetting in place? Is this person mentally fit or appropriate to do the job irrespective of any past convictions?
Click to expand...

With the sheer turnover of staff, it would be impossible. I'm not sure how "psychological vetting" would pick up red flags either. It's likely these sinister thoughts of hers only presented themselves further down the line.
 
hobbers said:
Well that's part of the point of the articles. Her defence team were incompetent, underfunded and/or believed she was guilty. Setting aside the question of her guilt I dont doubt she was very poorly represented.
Click to expand...

That's was my point. If a generalist GP can pick it apart from a cursory glance then an actual expert in that very specific area would have no trouble taking it to pieces. According to that site they didnt even notice it? That's not a poor legal team that's more like it isn't actually the gotcha that site thinks it is.
 
hobbers said:
Expert witnesses cost money that she probably doesnt have.
Click to expand...

Does she not qualify for Criminal Legal Aid? That will allow for payment of expert witnesses, and I don't doubt the courts would grant authority for higher fees in a case such as this.

Where does her defence team being incompetent come from? Prior belief in guilt doesn't come into it. Many legal teams might believe the person they are representing is guilty, that doesn't prevent them carrying out their professional responsibilities.

For reference this is her barrister https://www.exchangechambers.co.uk/people/benjamin-myers-kc/
 
Last edited:
Rams said:
Is there no kind of psychological vetting in place? Is this person mentally fit or appropriate to do the job irrespective of any past convictions?
Click to expand...
No, nothing like that. When I entered registered nurse training, you couldn't do nursing if you had had treatment for mental illness, but that's no longer the case as far as I know. It means very little, as many people with mental illness never bother getting it diagnosed because they don't even realise they're ill.

Edited to add that of course, Letby did a degree in Paediatric Nursing. Nurse qualifications come via universities these days, the nursing student gets the degree (which is a mixed academic and practical course, with more academic than practical content), and then they apply for registration with the professional body. I trained in a hospital-based school of nursing, where we were mostly working on the wards as part of the staff complement, rather than as supernumerary observers.

A couple of students from my cohort dropped out, as they proved to be unsuitable once they actually started laying hands on patients. It kind of allowed you to see early on what someone was like. However, nursing today is very different to how it was when I qualified!
 
Last edited:
DanH said:
Does she not qualify for Criminal Legal Aid? That will allow for payment of expert witnesses, and I don't doubt the courts would grant authority for higher fees in a case such as this.

Where does her defence team being incompetent come from? Prior belief in guilt doesn't come into it. Many legal teams might believe the person they are representing is guilty, that doesn't prevent them carrying out their professional responsibilities.

For reference this is her barrister https://www.exchangechambers.co.uk/people/benjamin-myers-kc/
Click to expand...

I know enough from my law degree days to know being in the legal 500 means you really know what you're doing. So 100% not an incompetent legal team.

To be honest with such a high profile case there are not going to be any corners cut on either side.
 
11101 said:
I know enough from my law degree days to know being in the legal 500 means you really know what you're doing. So 100% not an incompetent legal team.

To be honest with such a high profile case there are not going to be any corners cut on either side.
Click to expand...

Actually his closing arguments are pretty solid and I would implore people to read them if they are interested in the case. Particularly around the insulin administration, it was just that they accepted into evidence the fact that the insulin evidence was proven to be caused only by deliberate intervention. Apparently, you cannot introduce new expert testimony after discovery in UK law? Not sure if that is accurate?

So in future - if it does transpire that the insulin evidence is weak - it would likely give good grounds for appeal.

https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/n...letby-trial-june-26---defence-closing-speech/
 
Penna said:
I used to manage a neonatal unit. Numbers on their own don't tell you much, as you have to look at the type of babies that were routinely admitted to that unit.

A woman with a higher-risk pregnancy might well end up giving birth in a particular hospital, precisely because the neonatal unit is more adequately-equipped for sicker, more premature babies.

I remember a very ill-informed regional boss berating hospital managers who had high rates of outpatient appointment non-attendance. He held up two hospitals as shining examples of what we should all achieve - they were both specialist cancer units. He hadn't made the simple connection between the nature of the specialty and the likelihood of people not bothering to turn up for their appointments. Numbers don't tell the full story.
Click to expand...

Interesting to hear your experience, what is your view on the case? Sorry if you explained it before.

Must admit, probably slightly contrary to my postings in this thread I am erring towards guilty.

With your experience of this type of environment do you think its possible this is a series of unfortunate events or does it look to you like a clear case of foul play?
 
carpy said:
I've only looked at the first graph but the yellow bar is showing neonatal death rates in Cheshire West/Chester. Countess of Chester wasn't the only neonatal unit in that area.
Click to expand...

It is the only neonatal unit in the Cheshire West/Chester council area, the only other nearby hospitals is Arrow Park (Wirral) and Leighton in Crewe (Cheshire East). I live between Countess of Chester and Leighton and we had our boy, thankfully at Leighton, five weeks ago.
 
She was convicted in a court of law by a jury. They heard the evidence and that was the verdict.

The system isn't perfect but it's the best we've got.

Probably be allowed to appeal so all the evidence will be gone through again.

From the PD evidence, you can't really make a decision either way.
 
I have been looking into this as there are a lot of other theories floating around saying she's was innocent.

It is interesting as we only hear one side of it in the media where it seems just so obvious she's guilty.
 
lsd said:
I have been looking into this as there are a lot of other theories floating around saying she's was innocent.

It is interesting as we only hear one side of it in the media where it seems just so obvious she's guilty.
Click to expand...

What's the argument for innocence?
 
Drainy said:
What's the argument for innocence?
Click to expand...


From what I've read during the time period looked at there were a lot of deaths that occurred that were very similar and she couldn't be charged with them as she's wasn't present at the time not had any interaction with the victims.

One report I read there was one particular period ten deaths occurred and she could only be charged with three as there was no link with her and the other seven.

It went on to say the only conclusion was there was one cause we do not know or Lucy just happened to be killing babies at the same time as this other reason or other killer.

I mean I don't know one way or the other but I just find it troubling in these cases we are often only fed one side of the facts.
 
Is all the data available? From what I've read the main case against her was the correlation between her shift patterns.To be honest I haven't really followed it.

But if the above is true then, for me, this is fairly useless information to make any kind of judgement either way. You'd need all the data surrounding the number of total shifts, number of shifts she did, and whatever else that might add context to the odds of this being a mathematical coincidence.

edit: just looking at the chart now, that looks very damning, assuming it's accurate

wait sorry, the chart I saw was just every case with an incident where she was on shift. So pretty much meaningless. Need to see a similar chart but with every incident. As surely there were incidents when she wasn't working?
 
Last edited:
lsd said:
From what I've read during the time period looked at there were a lot of deaths that occurred that were very similar and she couldn't be charged with them as she's wasn't present at the time not had any interaction with the victims.

One report I read there was one particular period ten deaths occurred and she could only be charged with three as there was no link with her and the other seven.

It went on to say the only conclusion was there was one cause we do not know or Lucy just happened to be killing babies at the same time as this other reason or other killer.

I mean I don't know one way or the other but I just find it troubling in these cases we are often only fed one side of the facts.
Click to expand...

You do know the evidence wasn’t just “these babies happened to die while Lucy was on shift and caring for them”, right? It was other weird shit like stalking the social media of families of only the babies that died; the notes she wrote basically confessing; falsifying handover sheets and other documents to make it seem like she wasn’t there when some of the murders and attempted murders occurred; her own colleagues being suspicious (I believe one of them even raised his suspicions with a higher body but was dismissed iirc) etc.
 
Also committing the crimes during a period where other babies are dying is a good cover
 
Anyway I hate that the Americans on social media have discovered this case. In true Yank fashion, they’ve applied their own laws and judicial process to this to explain why it should be declared a mistrial and are genuinely baffled as to why ANOTHER COUNTRY doesn’t follow practices present in AMERICA.
 
Tarrou said:
wait sorry, the chart I saw was just every case with an incident where she was on shift. So pretty much meaningless. Need to see a similar chart but with every incident. As surely there were incidents when she wasn't working?
Click to expand...
Exactly, it's kind of back to front. "Look at all the babies who died when Letby was on duty, see if any other nurse was on duty for every one - no, only Letby". However, if you included deaths where she wasn't on duty, you might have found another nurse's name who was present for (say) 5 of the deaths attributed to Letby, but who was also on duty for some of the other deaths.

I'm not saying the conclusions were wrong, but if this was in fact the way evidence was presented, it's very clearly inaccurate.

edited to add - it may be that they only looked at unexpected and unexplained deaths. In a neonatal unit it's an unfortunate fact that babies die, due to prematurity, respiratory problems, infection etc.
 
Sara125 said:
Anyway I hate that the Americans on social media have discovered this case. In true Yank fashion, they’ve applied their own laws and judicial process to this to explain why it should be declared a mistrial and are genuinely baffled as to why ANOTHER COUNTRY doesn’t follow practices present in AMERICA.
Click to expand...
"why was she represented by a barista?!"
 
Penna said:
Exactly, it's kind of back to front. "Look at all the babies who died when Letby was on duty, see if any other nurse was on duty for every one - no, only Letby". However, if you included deaths where she wasn't on duty, you might have found another nurse's name who was present for (say) 5 of the deaths attributed to Letby, but who was also on duty for some of the other deaths.

I'm not saying the conclusions were wrong, but if this was in fact the way evidence was presented, it's very clearly inaccurate.

edited to add - it may be that they only looked at unexpected and unexplained deaths. In a neonatal unit it's an unfortunate fact that babies die, due to prematurity, respiratory problems, infection etc.
Click to expand...

I believe she was the only person who was on duty for all of the deaths in question wasn't she?
 
Wibble said:
I believe she was the only person who was on duty for all of the deaths in question wasn't she?
Click to expand...

Not finished reading the article, but the point made there was that
1. there were other deaths during that time
2. she was the neonatal specialist, in many of the deaths, she was called in specifically for that reason.
 
Tarrou said:
some interesting stuff but it seems quite biased in favour of her innocence doesn’t it?
Click to expand...

Nothing there convinced me of her innocence now that she has been convicted. There is of course a danger with simply correlating things with events when causation isn't established. Using the frequency of rare events as evidence also needs to be used carefully. For example, state that something doubled from a previous year sounds very significant but if (for example) something doubled from 3 to 6 then that is likely not to be statistically significant as the variance will likely be huge. Typically relying only on correlation becomes a problem with cases involving mothers convicted of murder when an unusually large number of their kids die from SIDS. In a few notable cases where this resulted in a miscarriage of justice the concern about correlation not necessarily being causation was largely removed when experts gave evidence that there were no causes for death possible, other than the mother's actions, to kill them because SIDS doesn't kill so many in a single family. It then turns out years later that there is a genetic trait carried in the family that can explain the deaths. However, I don't think this is the case here. Letby being the only staff member on duty for unexpected deaths may have been the trigger for suspicion but there seems to be far more evidence than that.
 
Last edited:
berbatrick said:
Not finished reading the article, but the point made there was that
1. there were other deaths during that time
2. she was the neonatal specialist, in many of the deaths, she was called in specifically for that reason.
Click to expand...

Yet since there was evidence of air or insulin injections and other medical intervention occurred in the deaths then someone must have done it. To do it they had to be there.
 
If this is the one where the previous jury couldn't reach a verdict you would think they were very sure about the other charges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.