Lucy Letby - this has the potential to be huge

[s'nic]

Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence

Exclusive: Doubts raised over safety of convictions of nurse found guilty of murdering babies

www.theguardian.com

The nurse jailed for murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others may have been convicted on insufficient evidence.
A few snippets ...

"There was no forensic evidence to prove her guilt and no one saw Letby – who continues to maintain her innocence – causing harm."
"In 2013-14, the CoC neonatal unit had four deaths each year. Then, between June 2015 and June 2016, an unusual cluster of 13 deaths occurred ... After further deaths in late June 2016, Letby was removed from neonatal duty. Around the same time, the hospital management downgraded the unit, so that it stopped taking the most premature babies with the highest risk of mortality. The number of deaths fell thereafter."

Insulin used to kill ...
" ... Prof Alan Wayne Jones, who is one of Europe’s foremost experts on toxicology and insulin. He has written about the limitations of immunoassay tests in criminal convictions, and said they needed to be verified by a more specific analytical method to provide binding evidence in criminal cases.The defence never asked the biochemists whether the test was the right kind to prove insulin poisoning. "

"A key plank of the prosecution was that it was always Letby who was there when the babies collapsed or died unexpectedly.
.... However, the jury was not told about six other deaths in the period with which Letby was not charged. They were omitted from the table."

" .. six of the seven babies found to have been murdered had postmortems at Alder Hey hospital, a centre of excellence. These pathologists had had the advantage of physically examining the babies and reported no unnatural findings."

 

[s'nic]

I have no interest in discussing the crime/evidence as I have no interest in reading deeply enough to become that knowledgable about it all.
I also have no specific view as regards her guilt or innocence.

My interest in this is due to the potential outcome, ie in the long term (could be years in the future). The outcome could be ...

a) nothing happens​

b) the conviction is overturned due to flaws in the evidence / trial​

In the case of b) either a guilty person is set free (boo), or an innocent person is set free (yay). So I personally will be interested to see further developments.

‘I am evil I did this’: Lucy Letby’s so-called confessions were written on advice of counsellors

Prosecutors used densely written Post-its to build case against nurse, but she was told to write down her feelings to cope with extreme stress, sources say

www.theguardian.com

 

[Amity Island]

I have no interest in discussing the crime/evidence as I have no interest in reading deeply enough to become that knowledgable about it all.
I also have no specific view as regards her guilt or innocence.

My interest in this is due to the potential outcome, ie in the long term (could be years in the future). The outcome could be ...

a) nothing happens​

b) the conviction is overturned due to flaws in the evidence / trial​

In the case of b) either a guilty person is set free (boo), or an innocent person is set free (yay). So I personally will be interested to see further developments.

‘I am evil I did this’: Lucy Letby’s so-called confessions were written on advice of counsellors

Prosecutors used densely written Post-its to build case against nurse, but she was told to write down her feelings to cope with extreme stress, sources say

www.theguardian.com

I'd like those on trial to just tell the truth, it would make things a lot simpler. Unfortunately, criminals are unlikely to admit their guilt.

The only person that knows the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is Lucy Letby..

In a way, a trial gets in the way of the truth. It's all a game between the prosecution and defence, Who presents the most convincing (not necessarily the most truthful or honest) version of events often "wins".

All we really want is the truth.

 

[42istheanswer]

The Thirlwall Inquiry is about to start properly and will look at the role of management as well, so we could see corporate manslaughter charges against the higher level managers of the Countess of Chester NHS foundation trust as well. I think there's been a lot of debate about the convictions, but the high court has refused Lucy Letby's application to appeal. I think it's also important to remember that although these babies were vulnerable, in many cases they were doing well and had unexpected collapses. These weren't "unsurprising" deaths. It's entirely possible that the other deaths which she wasn't charged with were unsurprising - babies who were already becoming more poorly before they died. Neonatal medicine is an area where risk of death is higher than the average hospital patient, especially with micro-preemies, which is why it took a few extra deaths above the normal rate for anyone to become suspicious.

 

[Inka]

Lucy Letby: Families of victims want inquiry live streamed to stop 'grossly offensive' conspiracy theories

Medical staff are said to be very anxious their evidence might be live streamed, but lawyers for the families say it's essential to stop wild theories circulating.

news.sky.com

“Lawyers for the families of Letby's victims told a preliminary hearing that the inquiry should be live streamed to the public to prevent the spread of "grossly offensive" conspiracy theories.”

 

[Amity Island]

Lucy Letby: Families of victims want inquiry live streamed to stop 'grossly offensive' conspiracy theories

Medical staff are said to be very anxious their evidence might be live streamed, but lawyers for the families say it's essential to stop wild theories circulating.

news.sky.com

“Lawyers for the families of Letby's victims told a preliminary hearing that the inquiry should be live streamed to the public to prevent the spread of "grossly offensive" conspiracy theories.”

I'm all for making it public. Not sure what they mean in this instance by "conspiracy theories". Do they literally mean conspiracy theories (like aliens, people conspiring) or are they actually refering to peoples freedom of speech, opinion and being allowed to ask questions?

I know with the pandemic at least, opinion was literally taken down (censored) off the net along with doctors being deplatformed who had opinions not in line with the main narrative.

 

[s'nic]

I always stay away from conspiracy theories, and get news from reputable sites personally. New information which has come to light has the potential to be important.

New piece about the Thirlwall Inquiry

Lucy Letby victims’ families call for CCTV on neonatal wards

Lawyer for relatives says Thirlwall inquiry into case of killer nurse, due to begin next week, is ‘vitally important’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Inka]

I'm all for making it public. Not sure what they mean in this instance by "conspiracy theories". Do they literally mean conspiracy theories (like aliens, people conspiring) or are they actually refering to peoples freedom of speech, opinion and being allowed to ask questions?

I know with the pandemic at least, opinion was literally taken down (censored) off the net along with doctors being deplatformed who had opinions not in line with the main narrative.

I imagine they’re not referring to genuine questions about evidence details and the like, but to the sites on the internet which are promoting untruths or partial ‘facts’ in order to undermine the court judgements. I’ve read a number. Some are simple misconceptions but some are Chinese Whispers or occasionally outright misinformation which then can lead others to mistakenly draw wrong conclusions.

For some reason this case attracted the attention of internet sleuths and conspiracists in a not dissimilar to the recent drowning case (purposely not saying her name) where all manner of ‘facts’ were constructed out of nothing.

What irritates me personally are discussions where people give opinions and can’t explain why they believe that, basing it all on ‘gut feelings’. We (you and me) discussed the insulin evidence: it was a genuine discussion, with both of us backing up or explaining why we said or thought certain things. We might agree, we might not, but we both saw the other person’s point even if we didn’t agree.

I also find in some of the discussions that facts are omitted and a partial story put forward which those reading might form one opinion from whereas if they had had the additional fact(s), they’d have thought the opposite.

 

[Amity Island]

I imagine they’re not referring to genuine questions about evidence details and the like, but to the sites on the internet which are promoting untruths or partial ‘facts’ in order to undermine the court judgements. I’ve read a number. Some are simple misconceptions but some are Chinese Whispers or occasionally outright misinformation which then can lead others to mistakenly draw wrong conclusions.

For some reason this case attracted the attention of internet sleuths and conspiracists in a not dissimilar to the recent drowning case (purposely not saying her name) where all manner of ‘facts’ were constructed out of nothing.

What irritates me personally are discussions where people give opinions and can’t explain why they believe that, basing it all on ‘gut feelings’. We (you and me) discussed the insulin evidence: it was a genuine discussion, with both of us backing up or explaining why we said or thought certain things. We might agree, we might not, but we both saw the other person’s point even if we didn’t agree.

I also find in some of the discussions that facts are omitted and a partial story put forward which those reading might form one opinion from whereas if they had had the additional fact(s), they’d have thought the opposite.

A straight out confession (yes or no) for me would be the most satisfactory, but just so unlikely.

I wonder why we don't use polygraph tests in court cases? We do use them, but not in court.

Mandatory polygraph tests factsheet

www.gov.uk

 

[Inka]

Because they’re not reliable? Even if we did use them, they couldn’t be taken as definite proof due to the possibility of error or manipulation.

 

[Satan’s little helper]

I'm all for making it public. Not sure what they mean in this instance by "conspiracy theories". Do they literally mean conspiracy theories (like aliens, people conspiring) or are they actually refering to peoples freedom of speech, opinion and being allowed to ask questions?

I know with the pandemic at least, opinion was literally taken down (censored) off the net along with doctors being deplatformed who had opinions not in line with the main narrative.

It’s my understanding at the time, concerns were raised about the nurse higher in the chain of command regarding possible alleged wrongdoing. But nothing was followed up? So I’m assuming a live streamed account in this enquiry would dispel these elements.

A straight out confession (yes or no) for me would be the most satisfactory, but just so unlikely.

I wonder why we don't use polygraph tests in court cases? We do use them, but not in court.

Mandatory polygraph tests factsheet

www.gov.uk

From memory they are something like 50/60% reliable? Jeremy Kyle show claimed 90% accuracy. & it’s well documented debacle regarding the sorry tragic results of “guests” submitting to “that.”

 

[Amity Island]

Because they’re not reliable? Even if we did use them, they couldn’t be taken as definite proof due to the possibility of error or manipulation.

I agree, but there again, how reliable is some of the so called "evidence". How reliable have many trials and evidence been, how reliable are testemonies, jury decisions, expert witnesses, evidence from scenes of crime etc etc

I'm not defending anybody here, just talking about the legal system.

 

[Inka]

I think the concern would be that jurors could put too much weight on the polygraph result and allow it to colour their overall judgement @Amity Island

 

[Amity Island]

I think the concern would be that jurors could put too much weight on the polygraph result and allow it to colour their overall judgement @Amity Island

I agree with you on this. Just pointing out that although polygraphs are seen as not that reliable, neither are a lot of things used in trials. So in the grand scheme of things, no reason it couldn't be used along with every other thing. It would certainly make very interesting viewing.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Wikipedia isn’t keen and has 4 citations which question their usefulness and accuracy.

Assessments of polygraphy by scientific and government bodies generally suggest that polygraphs are highly inaccurate, may easily be defeated by countermeasures, and are an imperfect or invalid means of assessing truthfulness.[12][13][6][14] A comprehensive 2003 review by the National Academy of Sciences of existing research concluded that there was "little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy."[6]

I’m not sure what benefit there would be in introducing a measure which is known to be ineffective and open to manipulation?

 

[Amity Island]

Wikipedia isn’t keen and has 4 citations which question their usefulness and accuracy.

Assessments of polygraphy by scientific and government bodies generally suggest that polygraphs are highly inaccurate, may easily be defeated by countermeasures, and are an imperfect or invalid means of assessing truthfulness.[12][13][6][14] A comprehensive 2003 review by the National Academy of Sciences of existing research concluded that there was "little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy."[6]

I’m not sure what benefit there would be in introducing a measure which is known to be ineffective and open to manipulation?

I agree with you on this. Just pointing out that although polygraphs are seen as not that reliable, neither are a lot of things used in trials. So in the grand scheme of things, no reason it couldn't be used along with every other "not that reliable" thing.

Our government does use them btw.

Mandatory polygraph tests factsheet

www.gov.uk

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Our government does use them btw.

Yes it looks like they are piloting them to see if they work? And maybe the number of false positive and false negatives will be deemed acceptable.

Odd that something with such a reputation for fallibility and unreliability still has quite so much support.

One of the articles suggested part of their use was in convincing people that they worked, and that added stress made their lies easier to spot?

Polygraphs feel like something out of 70s - 80s spy dramas to me. I thought they’d pretty much gone by the wayside!

 

[Amity Island]

One of the articles suggested part of their use was in convincing people that they worked, and that added stress made their lies easier to spot?

Similar to the use of hypnosis regression. Not everyone believes it's reliable and some say, it's down to whether the person being hypnotised believes in it or not.

 

[MikeyBikey]

Here is a good read in the case: https://gill1109.com/?amp=1

BTW I think Jeremy Bamber's conviction is unsound and he has already served nearly 40 years.

And finally I think that the nurse Helen Smith was murdered and there a cover up!

 

[Inka]

It’s just speculation and one of the blogs that has been criticised.