Lucy Letby

There was an interesting online article yesterday that described what her prison life is likely to be like both in the first 12 months and then over the rest of her life. She will be on 24 hour suicide watch for the next few months, various assessments made and will be in solitary confinement. She us unlikely to be released into the general pruson population for least 6 months. She will not share a cell and is likely to be in it for 22 hours a day, with two hours out for exercise, meals, showers. She will be allowed 2 one-hour visits per month, with people vetted by the police, allowed books, newspapers and radio / TV in her room. She will be allowed limited phone calls but only to people vetted by the police and limited capacity for vetted emails. She will have unlimited freedom on writing letters and receiving letters, but these will be opened and vetted. Over time she may be allowed to join some prisoner classes.
It also said, because of the nature of her crimes, she is likely to be bullied and intimidated, AT BEST!
 
I hear medical profesionals are astounded how she has been found guilty on the evidence provided. Much evidence has not been heard. Hospital under staffed and many deaths occured whilst she was away. What reason is there for not hearing all evidence.
 
Archibald Knox said:
My experience is in working in the nuclear and chemical industries for the last 40 years. Ever since Chernobyl, the culture has been inculcated that a questioning attitude is positively encouraged. Every challenge about safe operation from no matter whom, whether they be the poorest paid technician or the CEO, must be taken seriously and fully addressed. If that does not happen you can get incidents like Fukushima.
Click to expand...
Explain to me how organizational culture can lead to earthquakes and tsunamis, please.
 
todayistheday said:
I hear medical profesionals are astounded how she has been found guilty on the evidence provided. Much evidence has not been heard. Hospital under staffed and many deaths occured whilst she was away. What reason is there for not hearing all evidence.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid the courts have form for poorly handling cases that hang on mathematical and statistical evidence, the judges and lawyers to a man have little or no training in the area, and thus they are not in a position to adequately challenge this sort of evidence.

Sally Clark being the case that immediately jumps to mind.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Explain to me how organizational culture can lead to earthquakes and tsunamis, please.
Click to expand...
You do not understand. The utility operating Fukushima, Tepco (Tokyo Electric Power) was repeatedly warned over a 10 year period by reviewers and regulators that…
1) the sea wall was not high enough to cope with the highest tsumami that was possible
2) all the Essential Diesel Generators were in the basement of the Aux Bldg and liable to flooding. They needed to be > 10metres above sea level at least, they were below sea level.

Tepco argued against those improvements saying the station only had 10 more years operational life and they did not want to spend the money.

Consequently, when that tsunami arrived Fukushima lost all grid power and all EDGs failed to start up as they were all completely under water. So they had no power to run the essential cooling water pumps to cool the reactors and reactor meltdowns followed.

THAT was the direct result of arrogant management ignoring safety challenges to save money. All the Tepco directors had to resign. Now do you understand safety culture?
 
Last edited:
todayistheday said:
I hear medical profesionals are astounded how she has been found guilty on the evidence provided. Much evidence has not been heard. Hospital under staffed and many deaths occured whilst she was away. What reason is there for not hearing all evidence.
Click to expand...
I must admit I thought this may happen. There wasn't any ‘real‘ evidence at all. Even her written ramblings weren‘t at all conclusive if they were all
read .
 
Lala said:
I must admit I thought this may happen. There wasn't any ‘real‘ evidence at all. Even her written ramblings weren‘t at all conclusive if they were all
read .
Click to expand...
Circumstantial evidence was overwhelming. Her reactions to the evidence and sentence were bizarre to say the least
 
Spend It Like Henderson said:
Circumstantial evidence was overwhelming. Her reactions to the evidence and sentence were bizarre to say the least
Click to expand...
I hear someone won the lottery on Saturday, the odds of that happening are one in forty-five million, therefore they must have somehow rigged it - ARREST THEM!!!.

The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
 
The other aspect of Fukushima was that the Japan Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) was in deference to Tepco and subservient. They did not make their valid safety challenges strongly enough.

This was because Tepco has been, since WW2, one of the most powerful companies in Japan driving their industrial growth. In a very hierarchical culture like Japan, this meant Tepco was controlling the nuclear regulator which was effectively NOT independent. Which is why these safety challenges to Fukushima were ignored or deferred for years.
 
Archibald Knox said:
The other aspect of Fukushima was that the Japan Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) was in deference to Tepco and subservient. They did not make their valid safety challenges strongly enough. This was because Tepco has been, since WW2, one of the most powerful companies in Japan driving their industrial growth. In a very hierarchical culture like Japan, this meant Tepco was controlling the nuclear regulator which was effectively NOT independent. Which is why these safety challenges to Fukushima were ignored or deferred for years.
Click to expand...
A recurring problem in Asian cultures, it often crops up in aviation (less so now), there have been cases where first officers would literally prefer to allow the captain to fly the aircraft into the ground and kill them all rather than challenge him.
 
In Letby’s case, I believe the Shift Log that showed her on shift in all 34 (?) cases where babies were harmed will be challenged. That sheet of evidence was compiled by the Prosecution on the basis that the ONLY shifts selected were those on which Letby worked and was used to show others could not have done all the harm.

BUT I understand there were some other shifts where babies suffered incidents and Letby was not at work but were NOT included on the evidence sheet. That is self-selection of statistics to reach a desired outcome and not valid, so should be re-examined. It is said that her defence lawyers and the Judge were useless at maths and did not realise this.

That’s not to say she did not commit these murders, there is a fairly large amount of circumstantial evidence, but there is no direct evidence. I suspect her own lawyers might have thought her guilty too.
 
Last edited:
Archibald Knox said:
In Letby’s case, I believe the Shift Log that showed her on shift in all 34 (?) cases where babies were harmed will be challenged. That sheet of evidence was compiled by the Prosecution on the basis that the ONLY shifts selected were those on which Letby worked and was used to show others could not have done all the harm.

BUT I understand there were some other shifts where babies suffered incidents and Letby was not at work but were NOT included on the evidence sheet. That is self-selection of statistics to reach a desired outcome and not valid, so should be re-examined. It is said that her defence lawyers and the Judge were useless at maths and did not realise this.

That’s not to say she did not commit these murders, there is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence, but there is no direct evidence. I suspect her own lawyers might have thought her guilty too.
Click to expand...
7 consultants recognised a 'wrong'un'.

One thing that is evident however is her close circle of friends described her in favourable terms. A friend of mines granddaughter went to Uni with her and said the same.
 
There was certainly enough Consultants’ suspicion in mid-2015 to get her taken off duty or transferred, but the admin management protected her.
 
The aspect that makes me think Letby is guilty is that she did not scream her innocence from the rooftops. She seemed to accept that the babies had been poisoned with insulin or had air injected into them but only said it must have been someone else. Who, then? The daily cleaner?
 
Lost Seasider said:
Hi,

Do you have an A-Level in mathematics? If not, please think harder.
Click to expand...
I don't actually, no, only an 'O' level. What I do have however is several decades experience, many of which is first hand of the British Legal System, Courts (Both Mags and CC), CPS and when some fecker is guilty, of which circumstantial or not, Letby killed those kids.
 
Malced said:
You say she seemed to accept…..how the kids were killed. But why wouldn’t she? There was medical proof of how the kids died.

If I was accused of stabbing someone to death, and I was innocent, my reaction would be to claim I hadn’t done it. Not to question the coroner on the cause of death.
Click to expand...
You assume PMs were carried out on every dead baby. Which is not true.
As far as I know there have been no inquests. They were postponed after the arrest and murder charges. So no coroner has adduced cause of death since that would have prejudiced the trial.

Only the consultants’ witness statements in court ascribe CoD and not in all cases.
 
Last edited:
Spend It Like Henderson said:
I don't actually, no, only an 'O' level. What I do have however is several decades experience, many of which is first hand of the British Legal System, Courts (Both Mags and CC), CPS and when some fecker is guilty, of which circumstantial or not, Letby killed those kids.
Click to expand...
What about Sally Clark, did she kill those kids or not?
 
Spend It Like Henderson said:
Honestly, I don’t know about her case LS
Click to expand...
The courts found her guilty of murdering her two children, on the basis of "statistical evidence", only for the conviction to be overturned on appeal about 10 years later when it turned out the evidence was total bulls***.

A very sad case, she died not long after, heartbroken at having lost 2 children and then spending 10 years inside, the case is a good example of the limits of circumstantial evidence, if you have a few minutes look it up.
 
Lost Seasider said:
The courts found her guilty of murdering her two children, on the basis of "statistical evidence", only for the conviction to be overturned on appeal about 10 years later when it turned out the evidence was total bulls***.

A very sad case, she died not long after, heartbroken at having lost 2 children and then spending 10 years inside, the case is a good example of the limits of circumstantial evidence, if you have a few minutes look it up.
Click to expand...

From what I recall, lawyers on both sides and field 'experts' didn't understand that if someone had a genetic predisposition towards cot death then they could not treat the two deaths of siblings as if they were independent events. The prosecution came up with a number based on this false idea, saying that there was say a 1 in 15 million chance of this happening by chance [or some other very high number like that, I can't remember what it was], basically by multiplying the probabilities together.
I would suggest politely that the Letby case is quite a different scenario as the victims really were genetically independent of each other as they were from different families ruling out some underlying unknown condition.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
From what I recall, lawyers on both sides and field 'experts' didn't understand that if someone had a genetic predisposition towards cot death then they could not treat the two deaths of siblings as if they were independent events. The prosecution came up with a number based on this false idea, saying that there was say a 1 in 15 million chance of this happening by chance [or some other very high number like that, I can't remember what it was], basically by multiplying the probabilities together.
I would suggest politely that the Letby case is quite a different scenario as the victims really were genetically independent of each other as they were from different families ruling out some underlying unknown condition.
Click to expand...
IIRC the Clark case was more about the use of statistics than genetic predisposition.

With Letby, AFAIK, there is no direct evidence that any crime has been committed or that any of these babies died from anything other than natural causes, so again it's a case based on statistics that may or may not be being used correctly.
 
Lost Seasider said:
IIRC the Clark case was more about the use of statistics than genetic predisposition.

With Letby, AFAIK, there is no direct evidence that any crime has been committed or that any of these babies died from anything other than natural causes, so again it's a case based on statistics that may or may not be being used correctly.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I think you are mistaken on both points.
El Burro is correct, the SC case was about both genetic disposition to cot death and the mistaken use of simple statistics, just as he described.

In the Letby case, there was medical evidence for the babies’ harm such as extremely high insulin in the blood (without the corresponding C-peptide that would have indicated natural causes), air in the spinal column, vomiting from overfeeding, unusual skin appearance common to most babies harmed by air injection, bruising and bleeding etc. The circumstantial aspect is that these happened when Letby was on shift, often working alone at night. The statistics were limited to work shift patterns, and I believe there were some errors in application but would not totally dismiss the inferences drawn.
 
Last edited:
In the Sally Clark case and several similar infant death court trials, the infamous paediatrician with an ignorance of statistics but who claimed to be an expert was Sir Roy Meadow. He was the chap who invented the “Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy” diagnosis for mothers accused of harming their children to gain attention for themselves. Even his ex-wife said that he saw MSbP in almost every case and that he probably just did not like women.

Roy Meadow - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top