Could Lucy Letby be innocent?
Discussion
Rufus Stone said:
AdeTuono said:
12 people sat through a 10 month trial, were presented with all the evidence, and came to a guilty verdict.
What do you know that they don't?
Because juries have never made mistakes before.What do you know that they don't?
greygoose said:
I read an article the other day that she does fit the profile of female serial killers. The lack of action by the management may have lead to more victims being attacked by her but she was the one killing those babies.
I read the Guardian article, and the article it referenced is statistics based, but from a very small sample. It also states that female serial killers tend to work in "stereotypically feminine jobs" which, if not circular reasoning, Is tautological.The management failings I was referring to were not 'failing to stop staff killing babies', they were for other failings that have led to infant deaths. There have been a few maternity wards been in the news for inadequate care lately, none have been put into special measures for failing to prevent nurses killing babies.
Pistom said:
AdeTuono said:
12 people sat through a 10 month trial, were presented with all the evidence, and came to a guilty verdict.
What do you know that they don't?
Not having spent 10 months in a trial that was focused on statistical probability and treating that as fact is one advantage. It's very easy to be sold a lie. It's happened before and will happen again.What do you know that they don't?
I've no idea if it happened on this occasion but the simple fact is she's been found guilty and now for that to be overturned, something significant is going to have to happen.
The cause was presented as being Letby. There were no other realistic explanations presented. The jury believed that rationale, with no reasonable doubt.
Sway said:
If there's a statistical outlier, especially over a large population, there is a cause.
The cause was presented as being Letby. There were no other realistic explanations presented. The jury believed that rationale, with no reasonable doubt.
It wasn't a statistically significant outlier.The cause was presented as being Letby. There were no other realistic explanations presented. The jury believed that rationale, with no reasonable doubt.
It wasn't a large population.
'We can't find an alternative cause' isn't evidence.
BoRED S2upid said:
Haven’t really followed it but wouldn’t be at all surprised if in 20 years she is let off and innocent of all murders.
I don’t believe she is a mass murdered. Very bad nurse no doubt.
Iirc the department she worked in was severely understaffed, not enough nurses or doctors.I don’t believe she is a mass murdered. Very bad nurse no doubt.
"Most NHS maternity units not safe enough, says regulator - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-67238868.amp
A BBC article citing a report on inadequate maternity provision in the uk
A BBC article citing a report on inadequate maternity provision in the uk
BikeBikeBIke said:
She seems to have been largely convicted on statistics but that makes it a quantifiably safe conviction.
There are stastically lottery odds of her being not-guilty. That meets my definition of beyond reasonable doubt.
The data set is nowhere large enough to make such conclusions.There are stastically lottery odds of her being not-guilty. That meets my definition of beyond reasonable doubt.
BikeBikeBIke said:
She seems to have been largely convicted on statistics but that makes it a quantifiably safe conviction.
There are stastically lottery odds of her being not-guilty. That meets my definition of beyond reasonable doubt.
The statistical evidence seemed weak to me but this was a small part of a nine month trial.There are stastically lottery odds of her being not-guilty. That meets my definition of beyond reasonable doubt.
AdeTuono said:
12 people sat through a 10 month trial, were presented with all the evidence, and came to a guilty verdict.
What do you know that they don't?
How convinced would you have been just after conviction about the guilt of Sally Clark or Andrew Malkinson? 12 jurors sat through the trial and were presented with all the evidence and came to a guilty verdict.What do you know that they don't?
Sway said:
If there's a statistical outlier, especially over a large population, there is a cause.
The cause was presented as being Letby. There were no other realistic explanations presented. The jury believed that rationale, with no reasonable doubt.
Sally Clark's case and the previous Netherlands case as mentioned above here shows that isn't the case that a statistical outlier has to have the cause as being presented at the trial.The cause was presented as being Letby. There were no other realistic explanations presented. The jury believed that rationale, with no reasonable doubt.
Can't say for sure yes or no. But if I was a jury I definitely couldn't see myself deciding on a guilty verdict in face of all the arguments and circumstantial evidence presented. The work of the defence in particular seems very sloppy. In a case of this scientific and statistical complexity the only defence witness was a plumber???
It has all the hallmarks of going to end in the history books as a reference case in miscarriage of justice.
It has all the hallmarks of going to end in the history books as a reference case in miscarriage of justice.
There is a guy on YouTube who has the transcripts from her cross-examination in court & updates the case including the latest re-trial.
She honestly doesn't come across well, at all i.e. having memory loss when it suits her, explaining why she had confidential documents at home etc
I've no idea why she took the stand, I guess it was her choice. She should have just said nothing at all!
She honestly doesn't come across well, at all i.e. having memory loss when it suits her, explaining why she had confidential documents at home etc
I've no idea why she took the stand, I guess it was her choice. She should have just said nothing at all!
Wacky Racer said:
That isn't a confession, apparently lots of people set out their internal angst that way.If you were murdering babies and that writing was a factual statement admitting guilt it would be more likely you'd burn it than leaving it around.
IIRC that writing was a pretty small part of case.
Wacky Racer said:
The image quoted above bugged me when I saw it. My own personal experience of grief, particularly with unexpected death, is that blaming yourself for what you did/didn’t do can knaw away at you. I have definitely in the past written things down to attempt to make sense of what happened, and if someone were to stumble upon them they could easily get the wrong impression.
I don’t know if she did it or not, I didn’t pay much attention to the trial.
I know she was painted as a particularly caring nurse, is it possible she “took her work home with her” a bit too much?
This Telegraph article mentions the statistical evidence, and more:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-l...
What would be interesting is to get the same data for all other maternity wards over, say 20 years, and see if any other nurses fit the pattern. Either they are also serial killers or it's not statistically significant.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-l...
What would be interesting is to get the same data for all other maternity wards over, say 20 years, and see if any other nurses fit the pattern. Either they are also serial killers or it's not statistically significant.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff