New Yorker banned article on Lucy Letby | Page 2 | FMTTM

New Yorker banned article on Lucy Letby

Marvanelli said:
That is a very interesting read and one that has opened my eyes to the possibility that she may actually be innocent.
Click to expand...

yes - certainly opened my eyes.
I remember that Sally Clarke case too - dreadful miscarriage of justice.
 
Well, I read the article. I have always had a bad feeling about this case and I think I actually posted on here to say I just cant believe anybody could do it.

If that article is correct, then Letby was convicted on assumptions and without much evidence. The point being made repeatedly is that it is easier to accept that one, evil murderer was responsible rather than the chronic under-funding and over working of staff.
It also mentions that the maternity unit in the same hospital had a spike in mortality but it was accepted that it was due to the performance of the department. Also, the point was made that the defence team to be working on the assumption that the case would be dismissed and that's why they failed to call many witnesses.

One point that resonated with me was that one person who took part in an NHS investigation seemed to think that the consultants who raised concerns should have a look at themselves and that they might not be as good as they thought themselves to be.

The unit has seen a decreased mortality rate since Letby left but that is more likely due to the fact that they changed from a Level 1 unit which meant they would not be caring for such vulnerable children as they did when at Level 2.
 
exeterboro said:
Alternatively the majority of the jury didn't sufficiently understand how to be critical of the evidence or the data contained within it. Which from my perspective would fit in with the reports I read of the verdict and a summary of the evidence, but yes before anyone say that isn't comprehensive report and yes my opinion is subjective as well.
So the next question is how do the police and the CPS get it so wrong ( if they do) to take it to trial, I'm not sure? but after seeing the recent cyclist and pedestrian case, and for anyone who even has a little understanding or an open mind to the defendants diagnosis in that case then for me it feels like any situation could come to trial no matter what mitigating circumstances there are.
Click to expand...
It's a disturbing read. I'm unconvinced that most of the people involved in the investigation i.e. police, legal, medical professionals, and the jury, would have a sophisticated understanding of statistical inference, probability, and bias.
More generally, the case shares some of the characteristics of those complex fraud trials where much of the evidence is both arcane and abstruse. I'm not sure we could reasonably expect a jury drawn from the usual pool to assess the evidence.
 
Thanks for posting that. Really interesting read. I'd caught bits of the story but never really read much around it.

I think it would be great to have a similar themed counter-piece to say why she may be guilty. I felt the same with making a murderer. They feel like exercises in selling a narrative which often doesn't shine a light on all the facts or narrative.

Certainly, and rightly we have a process of appeal, especially if there isn't certainty. There have been plenty of miscarriages of justice, but i'd need a lot more information before I let this article take me down that route. Thought provoking.
 
MoggasDog said:
Also, the point was made that the defence team to be working on the assumption that the case would be dismissed and that's why they failed to call many witnesses.
Click to expand...
I haven’t read the article but -

Did the defence apply to have the case dismissed?

Why would they assume a case where a person is charged with multiple counts of murder the case would just be dismissed? And if it was going to be dismissed it would be at the latest on completion of the prosecution case therefore even if they assumed it was going to be dismissed they had ample time to call any witnesses especially as Letby will have been their 1st witness and she gave evidence for weeks.

The trial lasted many months - perhaps the defence had ample opportunity to realise it wasn’t going to be dismissed?

You say the defence didn’t call many witnesses, did they have many if any witnesses to call? You do realise that often expert witness agree with each other (The defence often try a number of experts in an attempt to find one who disagrees) so the defence are not going to call an expert that agrees with the prosecution, it doesn’t loook good!!
 
Interesting article.

There does seem to have been an undue reliance on the fact that she was on duty when these deaths occurred. Yet, she was the nurse that the hospital knew they could call on to do those extra shifts.

Worrying.
 
allied_assault said:
How many deaths since Letby was in prison though?
Click to expand...
That's not relevant though, because after she was no longer working there, the unit changed its function and stopped accepting the kinds of seriously-ill babies younger than thirty-two weeks they had been treating while Letby was there. They also added more consultants to the staff.

The fact that they no longer accept such babies is a tacit admission that the unit was not in fact capable of providing the level of care they required.

Also, while the mortality rate in the newborns they now accept (who are older and less seriously-ill) has indeed dropped, there has been a spike in adverse events on the maternity unit.
 
Last edited:
The_Lizards_Jumpers said:
Well the initial part I read painted a picture like something out of Charles Dickens or a 3rd world country. Even if you ignore the main content of the argument, it paints a very one sided picture of the NHS for an American audience.
Click to expand...
I mean I eead the opening gambit of the piece and I can’t see anything that describes as you say

Worst I could find is that there is staff shortages caused by underfunding.
 
ForssAwakens said:
I mean I eead the opening gambit of the piece and I can’t see anything that describes as you say

Worst I could find is that there is staff shortages caused by underfunding.
Click to expand...
You have to get to paragraph 5 before there's anything remotely to do with criticism of the hospital and that is:

"Letby had worked on a struggling neonatal unit".

That's it, then nothing else till paragraph 10.

As you say there's a fair bit on staff shortages, but nothing in the article that unfairly talks down the NHS.
 
Cambsred said:
I think it would be great to have a similar themed counter-piece to say why she may be guilty.
Click to expand...
The whole trial that lasted nearly a year and the press articles released immediately following the guilty verdict.

A lot I have read about it seems to suggest that there were unsafe presumptions made about the 2 insulin cases and it was almost like they were the smoking gun. That bothers me, but so does the fact that no defence on the medical facts presented against her was made, that just seems odd and there has to be a reason for that.
 
Don't free-write a journal if you're feeling down and you work on a failing neo-natal care unit in the county of Shipman!

Poor girl. She seems so caring and dedicated from those texts. I can't believe she isn't completely innocent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top