Also wonder what her parents are feeling, as they raised one of the most evil woman in history.
Nurse Lucy Letby - guilty of murdering 7 babies - whole life sentence
- Thread starter Raulduke
- Start date
Lucy Letby's mum is in denial / saying she didn't do it. So that's where she's at mentally.
Well said. The cognitive dissonance is a bit odd considering how vocal some of these posters are in the American cops thread.
Been reading a bit about this case over the weekend, and just exploring the evidence. I definitely have not reached a conclusion on her guilt or innocence, but I did find this which was interesting I thought...
Lucia de Berk - Wikipedia
Very similar situation in the Netherlands where a nurse was convicted of multiple murders on circumstantial evidence, the main point for the prosecution was a statistical argument that she had been present at the deaths. Similar to the Letby case. Eventually a group of scientists and statisticians debunked the prosecutions case and she was acquitted. a major miscarriage of justice.
Interestingly the main man who worked on the statistics and science to overturn that conviction - Richard Gill - is currently posting a lot in defence of Letby.
The Lucy Letby case – Richard Gill Statistics (gill1109.com)
It does seem like the Letby evidence is wholly circumstantial. Perhaps a better defence team could have countered the arguments of the prosecution - but the defence called no expert witnesses despite experts offering their services.
Lucia de Berk - Wikipedia
Very similar situation in the Netherlands where a nurse was convicted of multiple murders on circumstantial evidence, the main point for the prosecution was a statistical argument that she had been present at the deaths. Similar to the Letby case. Eventually a group of scientists and statisticians debunked the prosecutions case and she was acquitted. a major miscarriage of justice.
Interestingly the main man who worked on the statistics and science to overturn that conviction - Richard Gill - is currently posting a lot in defence of Letby.
The Lucy Letby case – Richard Gill Statistics (gill1109.com)
It does seem like the Letby evidence is wholly circumstantial. Perhaps a better defence team could have countered the arguments of the prosecution - but the defence called no expert witnesses despite experts offering their services.
Circumstantial indeed but unless she was actually caught in the act, then sadly with no CCTV in many of the areas, then circumstantial is the only way the case could be built. But....
Despite the warning from several medical staff, her strange and very timely text messages to colleagues and the fact she was on shift every single time a baby died or was resuscitated, none of that being enough, then what about the deranged doodlings where she openly admits 'i did this' 'what is wrong with me?' 'i'm evil' none of that enough to sway you?
Feck, I definitely need to play Cluedo with you for cash.
What are the odds of her being in when every baby died - purely from a scientific point of view? Must be staggeringly high.
she should have been dragged in to the room in shackles
Convicted murderers should not be protected by some poxy dignity law
But that's not true. There were I think 11 babies that died where she wasn't present. Read this blog, quite interesting. do-statistics-prove-accused-nurse-lucy-letby-innocent
A quote from that blog:
By the way, I personally think she was probably guilty, but there are some grey areas here that give pause for thought.
Life and death stats get very complicated very quickly.
If Surgeon A has a 85% chance of his patients surviving and he looses 3 in a row, and Surgeon B also has a 85% chance of his patients surviving and he keeps 3 alive in a row, who is the better surgeon?
If I roll a 5 or 6 three times in a row, and my friend rolls a 1 or 2 three times in a row, who is the better at rolling dice?
That being said, I don't believe this is what we're seeing here. I don't think she's a nurse who lost the reverse lottery.
If Surgeon A has a 85% chance of his patients surviving and he looses 3 in a row, and Surgeon B also has a 85% chance of his patients surviving and he keeps 3 alive in a row, who is the better surgeon?
If I roll a 5 or 6 three times in a row, and my friend rolls a 1 or 2 three times in a row, who is the better at rolling dice?
That being said, I don't believe this is what we're seeing here. I don't think she's a nurse who lost the reverse lottery.
Blood tests and autopsies showed some of the kids had been given overdoses of insulin and injections of air. I think in the evidence they showed that she had administered those injections. Circumstantial evidence is only what led them to start digging into her.
Has she got schizophrenia or something similar? Anything in her past that might've completely fecked her up? I guess that trauma from seeing babies die in the first place is a toll on anyone in that profession but clearly something snapped.
Things like this don't just happen out of the blue. Terrifying I guess to know that someone completely ill in the head was in a position to do such a thing but I guess the chances of it happening are so slim.
Things like this don't just happen out of the blue. Terrifying I guess to know that someone completely ill in the head was in a position to do such a thing but I guess the chances of it happening are so slim.
It wasn't every time she was on shift, she was on shift for every one she was charged for. Also cases did not end after she was moved off the ward. One case she was originally charged for was dismissed by the judge pre-trial.
I would read the second link I shared if you want to dig deeper on that. The insulin tests are definitely what led to her conviction, there definitely isn't evidence she administered those, just that someone did and she is the likely candidate. But the reports I shared cast doubt on the insulin evidence itself.
In fact she is accused of having at least 5 methods of murder.
Air embolism administered via blood
Air embolism administered via gut
Overfeeding with milk
physical attack
Insulin
From my - albeit basic understanding of criminology - isn't it unusual for a killer to constantly change their MO?
Last edited:
Cases did not end but the mortality rate immediately returned to the same, normal rate they were at before she arrived.
Didn't one of the doctors walk in on her administering it?
No
Perhaps, I have seen this graph which I would like to understand better, eg why such variance in reporting?
I'm only glad she will never see freedom in her lifetime ever again. Feck that vile creature.
Completely wild and unfounded speculation on my part, but I wonder if that would hold in this context in the same way it might more the more traditional serial killers?
Because most of the predator-attacking-strangers type serial killers I can think of relied on not being identified to get away with their murders, so a common MO is less of an issue. It doesn't really matter if people see a link between the murders, as long as they can't link them to the actual killer. Whereas in this case there's such a high risk of being easily identified once people realise the victims are being murdered that the emphasis would need to be on trying to conceal that a murder happened at all. At which point there's more incentive not to have the same cause of death repeating?
Perhaps, I have seen this graph which I would like to understand better, eg why such variance in reporting?
After she was removed the deaths stopped and there was been one in 7 years.
To be honest the BBC reporting contradicts much of what is on that website, and I know who I would believe.
She wrote a note, parts of which certainly read like a confession as well. Without it reasonable doubt certainly more likely.
There's no motive, which poses a problem. She must be severely mentally ill with quite a unique disorder I would think presuming she's guilty. Possibly dissociative/ multiple personalities or something like that.
Certainly be more comfortable with a diagnosis that explains what her motive was and / or a confession.
Yeah very possible. Also concerned with how determined I look to say she is innocent. I am not sure she is, I just am looking at this through a statistical and empirical lens as I believe it's possible to have a mistrial in a case based on circumstantial evidence.
But maybe also there is a bias in me that doesn't want to believe somebody could be capable of such a sickening act?
I think the note is what she was convicted on. But if you read the whole note she also said "I didn't do this". To me that note, which was penned when she was under suspicion just reads like a diatribe of jumbled thoughts of somebody under severe stress and pressure.
Thanks for posting this. I also cannot decide whether I think she is guilty or not but I had read other comments about this being an unsafe verdict. This is extremely enlightening to read.
Tend to agree with this, I think.
I’m not sure I agree. The arguments made arent statistical but medical, and the person making them isnt a forensic pathologist but a mathematician.
It just reads very contrarian and if theres an argument for the conviction being legally circumstantial then sure, but Im not sure that post makes the case for her innocence well in medical terms. Laughably amateur explanation of insulin vs c-peptide physiologically one example.
i am not familiar with the dutch case however and do think its admirable there are those who have and continue to aim to highlight miscarriages of justices. Just dont believe, from that post anyway the letby example is such though
The thing is it becomes a problem when there is a choice. If you take that choice away from someone then it is an entirely different scenario than if it is standard procedure for them to attend. She has to attend every day of the trial, even when she’s not there to give evidence. If you gave her the choice to sit it out, then talked about it being unfair that she is not there, I’m sure you would have the same discussions - forcing her to attend the trial would turn it into a circus.
I would possibly argue that pre-verdict and post-verdict behaviour is likely to be somewhat different regardless? During the trial they're trying to actually secure a desired result, whereas at sentencing their reaction would possibly be a lot more emotional/disruptive as there's no cost to them in behaving that way?
It's a mix of statistical and medical though isnt it? I mean she had a 9 month trial after years of examination by the police. She was exonerated by a forensic medical investigation which blamed hospital management and the consultants for a poor standard of care resulting in avoidable deaths. After this a consultant contacted the police ref Letby.
She was then convicted in a trial of her peers on a majority not unanimous verdict.
Its definitely possible she is guilty, but it really is worthy of scrutinising the science. Because if the insulin evidence has any doubt it pulls the whole case apart.
I would recommend reading the defences closing remarks on the insulin incidents, which cast interesting doubt on Letby even being capable - in a logistical sense - of the insulin administration.
https://www.denbighshirefreepress.c...letby-trial-june-29---defence-closing-speech/
If she didn't do it who killed the 2 kids with insulin? Once you establish there were actual murders the remaining evidence presumably has far more probative value.
As depressing a case as ever there’s been? I think so.
R.I.P to those babies and I hope their families are recovering and healing.
Incredibly sad, in literally every way.
R.I.P to those babies and I hope their families are recovering and healing.
Incredibly sad, in literally every way.
I don't get how people could doubt her guilt/innocence from reading 1 or 2 articles? This trial went on for 10+ months. It's been in the public domain so would be fully scrutinised. Her defense would of covered every angle possible as would the prosecution. There is also A LOT of information/evidence which has not and won't be disclosed to the public.
I am glad she will spend the rest of her life in prison. She is in a position of trust. There are parents and children who are now impacted on a day to day basis - I just hope Lucy has it worse.
I am glad she will spend the rest of her life in prison. She is in a position of trust. There are parents and children who are now impacted on a day to day basis - I just hope Lucy has it worse.
Neither of the 2 children allegedly poisoned with insulin died.
I expect, on the balance of probability, that she is guilty but that's not how UK law is supposed to work. I don't think I know the case well enough to make any other judgement; the narrative from day 1 in the media has been that she is guilty. I'm just being honest that I don't know for sure.
I think what is being argued is that she may not have received a fair trial. Not that the verdict would be different, necessarily.
Ok. Attempted murder. Same concept.
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.Ok just BBC stats then?
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.
It is, but it's being argued that the test used to confirm insulin poisoning may not have been correctly applied and it's also argued that she may not have physically had the opportunity.
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.
M.O. is a wider concept than that. Taking steps to evade detection in that setting would necessitate a change of method.
We don't know all of the evidence because a lot of the trial wasn't public. It's been reported that she took logs of shifts where she killed the babies home with her to hide what she did, as well as other items as trophies and that when a baby escaped her she would be visibly angry.. she also had her mental ramblings.
I doubt it is an entirely statistical case.
I doubt it is an entirely statistical case.