Nurse murdered seven babies

[C R]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ivilege-to-ask-why-lucy-letby-story-blocked-i
The very long New Yorker article details the case suggesting via quoting a prominent scientific researcher that the police ignored statistics when the stat they had was that Letby was the only nurse connected with the deaths now designated as murder.

It sort of looks Post Office like with the only evidence, that 'only one on duty' seemingly being produced by cherry picking both the timeline and the events that produced the coincidence/guilt.

And what is the intention of the UK block ?

Are they suggesting there's something going on with the statistics similar to the Sally Clark case? Wouldn't the defence have brought it up?

 

[Beebo]

The initial trial was 10 months long. One of, if not, the longest murder trial ever.
The entire case was based on circumstantial evidence.
But over 10 months you would expect the defence to have covered all their bases.
The indisputable fact is that babies died when she worked and these deaths suddenly stopped when she didn’t.
I know it’s circumstantial, but what else do they have to go on, other than her own written confessions they found at her house?

 

[Bromptonaut]

Are they suggesting there's something going on with the statistics similar to the Sally Clark case? Wouldn't the defence have brought it up?

If only we could read the article!!!

 

[albion]

The initial trial was 10 months long. One of, if not, the longest murder trial ever.
The entire case was based on circumstantial evidence.
But over 10 months you would expect the defence to have covered all their bases.
The indisputable fact is that babies died when she worked and these deaths suddenly stopped when she didn’t.
I know it’s circumstantial, but what else do they have to go on, other than her own written confessions they found at her house?

They never stopped. There was simply a statistical rise in deaths over a period. There was one piece of supposed evidence, and I do not even think that said suspicous event was even noted at the time.

Give it 20 years and the case might get a second look.
Restrictions are said to be lifted so this was the questioning print long essay.
https://londonletter.substack.com/p/special-edition-the-lucy-letby-new

 

[albion]

"Doubts raised over safety of convictions of nurse found guilty of murdering babies"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question

Stating the obvious, the strangest thing being that for that light and most damning evidence, she was not even rostered.
Added to the mix of a defence argument of 'statistical quirk', a staff shortage is now reported as another influence to the lower standard of care.

Another possibly very strange thing there is there was an expert defence witness who attended every day who was not even called.
Also, the 'disputed' expert witness who seemingly secured the prosecutions was said to be a none practicing 'witness for hire' type.

 

[C R]

"Doubts raised over safety of convictions of nurse found guilty of murdering babies"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question

Stating the obvious, the strangest thing being that for that light and most damning evidence, she was not even rostered.
Added to the mix of a defence argument of 'statistical quirk', a staff shortage is now reported as another influence to the lower standard of care.

Another possibly very strange thing there is there was an expert defence witness who attended every day who was not even called.
Also, the 'disputed' expert witness who seemingly secured the prosecutions was said to be a none practicing 'witness for hire' type.

The defense seem to have dropped the ball big time if all the contradictory evidence is there.

 

[Ian H]

The defense seem to have dropped the ball big time if all the contradictory evidence is there.

It dos put the focus on how a court determines what is expert testimony. Weren't there some cases of mothers convicted for what turned out to be cot-deaths, on the evidence of a self-declared 'expert'? But this appears to be a tricky case even if you're in possession of all the details - and I'm not.

 

[Regular.Cyclist]

It dos put the focus on how a court determines what is expert testimony. Weren't there some cases of mothers convicted for what turned out to be cot-deaths, on the evidence of a self-declared 'expert'? But this appears to be a tricky case even if you're in possession of all the details - and I'm not.

‘Expert witness’ is, in my opinion, subjective. Not a criminal court but a coroner’s one but I do have real world experience of them. The trust I worked for put forward an expert witness to answer questions on a specific topic. Said expert phoned me more than 10 times during pauses in proceedings to ask me questions that they were unable to answer themselves!

 

[Regular.Cyclist]

I’ve not read the whole Guardian article but in terms of the ventilator, and alleged tampering with it, it would not have been possible to gather any evidence from the ventilator itself. That particular unit, an SLE 5000, has no logging abilities unlike some other brands. It does have an alarm history only but it is stored in volatile memory and would not survive a reboot.

Any evidence presented on that matter would need to come from elsewhere.

 

[BoldonLad]

‘Expert witness’ is, in my opinion, subjective. Not a criminal court but a coroner’s one but I do have real world experience of them. The trust I worked for put forward an expert witness to answer questions on a specific topic. Said expert phoned me more than 10 times during pauses in proceedings to ask me questions that they were unable to answer themselves!

"Expert" is an over used adjective

 

[C R]

I’ve not read the whole Guardian article but in terms of the ventilator, and alleged tampering with it, it would not have been possible to gather any evidence from the ventilator itself. That particular unit, an SLE 5000, has no logging abilities unlike some other brands. Any evidence presented on that matter would need to come from elsewhere.

It boils down to the evidence being mostly circumstantial and the statistical evidence being arguable. Not so much that she is obviously innocent, but that any evidence of her guilt is somewhat suspect, so there's a reasonable doubt. A bit like the Sally Clark case.

The weirdest thing to me is why the defence didn't call in the expert they had instructed. This failure to bring opposing evidence at trial seems to have been the main reason the appeal failed, because the defence could have brought it up at trial but didn't.

 

[Bad Company]

There’s an article in today’s Telegraph showing the weakness of the case against Letby. Makes me very uncomfortable that the verdict could be wrong.

 

[Regular.Cyclist]

There’s an article in today’s Telegraph showing the weakness of the case against Letby. Makes me very uncomfortable that the verdict could be wrong.

I fear the same but really do hope that isn’t the case as, if the verdict is wrong and ever gets overturned, it will already have destroyed Letby’s life and career as well as creating further trauma for the families of the babies involved.

 

[stephec]

"Expert" is an over used adjective

And how do you know, are you some kind of expert on that?

 

[Regular.Cyclist]

Another interesting article in the Telegraph today about how staff who worked with Letby, with one stating they were asked to be a character witness by the defence but their NHS Trust advised against them getting involved. The nurse in question stated that she believed Letby was innocent, and had been made a scapegoat for bad practice on the neonatal ward, which she witnessed first hand.