Nurse murdered seven babies

[spen666]

There is a very different take on this case in the Double Jeopardy Podcast by Ken MacDonald KC, a former DPP and Tim Owen.


View: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5XpX9FCNY270ErMnoQDYRA?si=b6c6047c463b4795



It's well worth listening. For example, they point to the fact that those writing the Private Eye argument had not heard the evidence put before the Court of Appeal, nor have they had the benefit of reading the 50+ page judgement of the Court of Appeal before picking on one small part of the evidence in isolation.

Well worth a listen

 

[icowden]

A quick update, there is now a part 3 and 4 to MD's Lucy Letby columns where this is somewhat put to bed given the number of experts - including those called at trial that MD has spoken to. And MD is not picking on one small part of the evidence in isolation but many different parts of it - the statistical information, the clinical expert evidence about cause of death which was completely missed in every post mortem, the similar cases of deaths where Lucy Letby was not on duty including one infant who exhibited exactly the same symptoms of an insulin overdose etc etc.

 

[albion]

It is now been reported that most the stats are abused statistical junk and that the death rate is not much different to comparable units.
Letby was the specialist practioner meaning she was also most likely to get called to attend the sickest.

To nail home the conviction more suspicious 'stats' were this week rolled out from when she was a student.

 

[albion]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78dvpp65vwo.amp

Interesting background info. Mentally, I think most of the hospital must have hit the cliff edge.
Chicken and egg ......

 

[icowden]

It is now been reported that most the stats are abused statistical junk and that the death rate is not much different to comparable units.
Letby was the specialist practioner meaning she was also most likely to get called to attend the sickest.

There does seem to be a large group of experts who are concerned about the "expert" evidence and whilst they are not saying that she is not guilty, they are questioning whether the evidence presented supports the guilty charge. MD reports that it is also raising the concerns of other specialist practitioners and leading to calls for CCTV to be used in SCBU.

 

[albion]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2438pml4rgo.amp

More background info. By then it looks like it was safer to do an ostrich impersonation.
All very sad.

 

[albion]

One heck of a farce.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ng-case-raises-new-concerns-about-convictions

 

[C R]

One heck of a farce.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ng-case-raises-new-concerns-about-convictions

The most baffling part to me is that there seems to have been very little effort by the original defence team to mount any kind of defence.

 

[Beebo]

The most baffling part to me is that there seems to have been very little effort by the original defence team to mount any kind of defence.

It seems odd given that it was a 10 month trial.
What were they doing for that long.

 

[icowden]

The most baffling part to me is that there seems to have been very little effort by the original defence team to mount any kind of defence.

Agreed - and the main expert witness for the defence is similarly baffled as to why he didn't get called to give evidence - according to MD in Private Eye. None of the Nurses who worked with Letby were called by the defence either. There are *lots* of questions.

 

[spen666]

It is easy to pick individual items of a case and blow them out of proportion.

In any criminal case it is always possible to make an argument based on a tiny fraction of the evidence. Someone said this case lasted 10 weeks. If so, the statistical evidence formed a tiny fraction of that 10 week trial, and is not the only evidence relied upon by the prosecution

The podcase I referred to Double Jeopardy gives a balanced view as to how this came about and why the statistical point is not necessarily important or even relevant.

It is well worth a listen to

https://open.spotify.com/episode/5XpX9FCNY270ErMnoQDYRA?si=b6c6047c463b4795


They do in that podcast look at all sides of the argument and raise the issue of the defence team making wrong/ poor calls.



PS I am not saying Letby is guilty or otherwise. Just injecting a bit of balance into the debate. At the end of the day, a jury of 12 men and women drawn from the public were satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt she was guilty after hearing all the evidence presented

 

[icowden]

It is well worth a listen to
https://open.spotify.com/episode/5XpX9FCNY270ErMnoQDYRA?si=b6c6047c463b4795

It might be, but that link doesn't seem to work.

 

[spen666]

It might be, but that link doesn't seem to work.

View: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5XpX9FCNY270ErMnoQDYRA?si=279f89ac02414fc5



View: https://open.spotify.com/episode/6RUbeQJjbDPjtoaAvWURRd?si=e2d482777ba04087



Try those links. There are 2 episodes.
If they don't work its the Double Jeopardy Podcasts of 16 August 2025 and 27 August 2025

 

[Bromptonaut]

At the end of the day, a jury of 12 men and women drawn from the public were satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt she was guilty after hearing all the evidence presented

She was not convicted by 12 jurors. They were majority verdicts after the jury could not agree and, if I remember rightly, only after one juror, probably one of the dissenters, was discharged.

I'm not saying that makes her less guilty in law but it indicates that the jury struggled with the task with which they were charged.

That fact is part of the background that makes me uncertain that the verdict is 100% safe. I'm not even saying she didn't do something or that she's not a 'rum 'un' but I have worries about whether her guilt was really 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

If a jury, in a case where the defence has, for whatever reason perhaps not played its strongest cards, wobbled over whether to convict then I worry about the safety of the convictions.

As I said before I think this case is going to the CCRC and probably back to the courts. If that's the case it would be intolerable if it were to drag on for decades as too many cases in the past did.

 

[All uphill]

One of the things the Sally Clark case showed up years ago is that the use of statistical information can be troublesome.

Statistics are probably not an important part of a barrister's training, not intuitive to jurors and are very easy to misinterpret and misunderstand, so I wouldn't find it surprising if the defence counsel and jury drew a dubious conclusion even after weeks of detailed presentation.