I don't want to delete this post since Liam has written such an excellent response to the article I had linked. I'm very grateful for the additional information.
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
Hey there!
Liam the English n Welsh lawyer here, I have not read the article as I can't seem to access it but I have read an article explaining the article.
Aviv (the author) seems to base her argument off of a practice of using maths to prosecute nurses. Normally this works in so far as prosecutors argue that so many patients under a certain nurses care died that mathmatically it'd be impossible nothing went on.
This is a very common pitfall of medical prosecutions.... in America. That seems to be what Aviv fails to grasp. In this country we have stringent protections and as much as the prosecution did employ the maths of the situation they primarily used Letbys own diaries and written statements, which paint a disturbing picture.
So, in my opinion based on my understanding of the law, Letby is an evil fuck who should rot in jail.
Tldr: New Yorker career writer argued the case used a pitfall common in America but I don't say they did.
Do these links work for you to access the article? https://archive.ph/AWpyz or https://archive.is/oPGez
The article addresses the diaries, as well as some of the other evidence beyond statistics/maths.
Thank yee for sharing, I'll give em a read now!
This is an archived link of the article that is supposed to work past the UK’s geoblock if you feel like reading the whole thing. Like the OP already, the piece goes into more than just the statistics used to convict Letby.
Thank yee for sharing, I'll give em a read now!
Agreed she is a evil fuck. If it was up to me she would get a short rope and a long drop.
Admittedly, I don't know how accurately the writer characterized and contextualized some of the evidence, but there was far more to it than just the math, which comprised only a small part of the argument.
So, it's hard for me to address everything that's said cause the article is banned in this country (and to be honest it's a major fucked up move they published this article when a jury is due to be sworn in) but from what I saw the evidence looks more than solid.
She was discovered to have several writings outlining her guilt over the death of her patients, there's evidence to say she showed pleasure at their deaths and her co-workers all stand in agreement against her.
As an ex police officer with a law degree I agree. In the article she also misses out thinks like Lucy keeping hospital records at her house, her relationship with the doctor and many other elements. I’ve been trying to point people in the direction of The Trial of Lucy Letby podcast by the Daily Mail (I know but it’s a genuinely fantastically well done podcast) if they want a thorough explanation of how and why she was prosecuted and found guilty.
Edit: I see you’ve read the article now and provided a full response! 100% with you on this.
Thank yee!
One thing with this is that the authors arguments are normally right, its normal for the media to jump the gun and presume guilt but Letby just isn't it. I think what people arent getting is any case has a decent defence argument and decent prosecution argument, the fact she says she didnt do it doesnt mean she didnt, she very much could be (and i think is) just a liar.
Thank you u/solodarlings and u/danger-egg for giving me the links to the article.
I wrote a massive response and then reddit wouldn't let me post, i copied and pasted it to try and get it to work and now it's gone. (I spent an hour on it so yay)
In short - I have major issue with several things the author said and often found her just misrepresenting the case. She misstates the importance of the graph in both the case and the media, massively understated the mortality rate and overstates the level of stress in the NHS. (At least at that particular hospital) I see no reason to doubt the verdict and from everything I saw she did those crimes.
Here's the bit of my argument that survived -
I really need to pop off to work so I need to surmise my opinions.
None of what the author says actually addresses the evidence against Letby, she states the diaries were found but doesn't explain them diaries where she expressed guilt several dozen times. No explanation of why Letby didn't seek work place support (as nurses and doctors often do, particularly when facing the difficulties Letby claimed she did). No explanation is given of just why the cases lined up like they did other than chance, which is possible but it's also possible it wasn't chance.
The author barely discusses the other key evidence such as:
- She wrote on a post it note found in her bedroom "I killed them on purpose" - the author discusses this briefly but doesn't go into any great explanation beyond Letby's explanation that she was speaking in metaphor.
- She searched the parents of her victims on Facebook. - the author claimed that this can be disregarded because Letby searched thousands of people. What she doesn't cite is what percentage of those thousands of people were her patients. It's a rule of the law or medicine that you do not contact or search for your clients/patients on social media. It's unprofessional and not a good look. Plus, to make it all the more damming, whereas Letby searched the parents of the babies other co-workers were quoted as saying that there was "nothing notable" or "out of the ordinary" that made those babies memorable to them. ( BBC article on the facebook searches)
- Letby claimed she liked to "collect paper" and regularly took documents home from work. (Again, another thing you just don't do) In that paper was included 257 different confidential documents, including numerous documents relating to babies she was convicted of harming.
Overall, the judge in the case ruled Letby has a 'fascination' with the babies involved ( sky news ain't great but it's good enough article ) she has several disturbing notes, which she claimed were due to mental health issues that she just never raised with any of the numerous work aide programs available to her from when she began work to the beginning of the trial. (She sought help after being put into custody but only after she was accused) She had documents she shouldn't have had, she searched victims' families up and several of her co-workers stood by the idea she was a murderer. (Others didn't but it wasn't clear cut)
Add to that the fact that the mortality rate at an otherwise normal hospital was far from what it should have been in the neonatal unit, the key connecting factor of Letby and in particular the insulin killings. I see no reason to doubt her prosecution, not least because, in my opinion, the article is just poorly put together and makes may mistakes. (See above)
PS - added this before I sent cause i remembered it. The Author doesn't address the times eye witnesses literally caught Letby. ( like when one of the victims' mother walked in on her attempting to inject a baby )
Here's some other points I remembered: the author claimed stress at that hospital might explain the deaths but the deaths at that hospital were far above the norm. It was nearly the highest in the country and doubled from 2014 to 2015, a year where a lot of other evidence linked Letby to baby deaths ( local news story | national news story )
Now, that higher mortality could be explained if that hospital was more stressful but it's well documented that the NHS is massive overstressed as it is, so that hospital wasn't anything special. ( don't believe me? Here's a study on it | here's a national article of NHS workers' views on it | here's the NHS's own words on it ).
So there's no reason to think that hospital was any worse than any other, so no reason to think that explains the mortality.
Thanks for the response! I'm not super familiar with the case, so interesting to read your perspective.
Thank you! I am mad reddit cocked up because I had loads more written.
Did you read the whole article? It addressed things like the diary entries and the facebook searches in-depth.
I always thought the diary entries were extremely uncompelling as evidence – plenty of people use journalling as a way to process difficult emotions and traumatic experiences in this way, and often write far worse.
I did and I found it's answers lacking.
The Searches
Searching 31 out of over 2000 sounds like it doesnt matter but there's two issues:
we don't know how many of those 2000 searches were her patients, we know 31 were patients involved with babies who were injured or died. There could have been more. The article doesn't explore this.
It's strictly forbidden to search patients on personal social media and especially forbidden to follow up on them. She sent a letter to one babies family on the day of the funeral. The judge described Letby as obsessed with the babies who died under her care, a description backed up by psychiatrists and other witnesses.
There was no good reason for her to search those families and in line with the other evidence it only supports her guilt.
The Diary
The diary evidence, if alone would be uncompelling I agree but it wasn't alone. It was with all the evidence I mentioned in the bulletpoint list above. The notes tell the story of an extremely distressed woman, one who was often caught out of place and on more than one occasion was seen acting suspicously.
Neither of these pieces are hook line and sink her but they are both compelling evidence when taking into account with everything else.
Yes she did, it was 31 times out of 2,287.
None of your other points are really evidence either.
Why didn't she seek official work place support?
Idk, because she didn't
She violated the company policy by searching up her previous patients on facebook!
Like... ok?
So you seem to have misunderstood what was said.
31 of 2,287 Facebook searches were family members of the victims. That doesn't answer how many of those 2,287 were patients who werent family members of the victims of the crimes she was indicted on. So my attack on the author is she didn't have proper foundation to say that's a problem. Also, searching 31 of the victims families is completely improper (which I'll address in a minute) and has no good explanation of why she did it. The prosecution allege she became obsessed and that definitely seems to be supported, doesn't it? (To be clear there was other evidence pointing to obsession, including hoarding medical records, this was just part of it)
The work place support point.
She was a trained medical professional with a duty of care, as part of that duty if she was facing mental anguish she has a duty to reach out for help. She worked for the NHS and could have very very easily got that care, at a much higher quality than most people. Yet she didn't but when arrested she claimed she had had mental health problems relating to the babies deaths for a very long time. It just doesn't add up.
The 'violated company policy' point.
It's not 'company policy,' it's the standards we expect from medical practioners. It's enough that the Royal College of Nursing could have very easily struck her off for what she did. That points to her taking action which is against the rules, towards the families of victims who died under her care, victims that eye witnesses place her as acting suspicously over.
My point was that the author portrays all these things as innocent but they are not clearly innocent and can quite reasonable construe guilt when taken into account with everything else.
Seeing as you seem to disagree, why do you think she was innocent?
You literally changed what you initially said
What she doesn't cite is what percentage of those thousands of people were her patients.
The article paints a much different picture of the quality of the NHS than you are lol
I think the fact that you're using this as evidence in a mass murder case kinda demonstrates how light on evidence you are. I don't even know that she's innocent, but the fact that there's zero physical evidence, the fact that the expert witness is a total quack, the fact that the prosecution abused statistics to draw conclusions, the fact that nobody even seems to be quite sure of how many different methods of killing she used, the fact that the judge decided to only require 10 out of 12 jurors to vote guilty, the fact that the police immediately signed a Netflix deal to make a documentary about how they're the heroes, the fact that it would apparently be a crime to express skepticism at this whole thing in the UK right now due to press gag laws.... this whole thing smells rotten.
TLDR: Liam has enough of this user who clearly knows nothing.
I tried to be polite but you just exposed you don't even understand what's being said.
The quality of NHS care is not what was put into doubt, the level of stress NHS workers are under was mentioned. Even then different NHS care has different standards and their workplace aide scheme, particularly around deaths, is among the best.
The evidence? You don't even know it.
The prosecution didn't use statistical evidence! That didn't happen. They used a graph in their opening argument but that's not evidence. The media used the graph but the media don't test evidence. The expert witness seems no more a quack than any other expert. Why would the fact they don't know the method of killing matter? We don't need to know the method just who did it.
The fact the judge only needed 10 out of 12 jurors.... do you even understand what you're saying. 10 jurors as a majority verdict is common and perfectly normal and the data does not support that a verdict would be any less safe.
The netflix deal has no weight on the evidence.
Also the gag order? Do you even understand why, cause it's clear you don't.
There is a retrial coming, as part of that retrial jurors needs to be called, so the press cant report on the previous case because jurors may hear or see that reporting and then pre-conclude she's guilty.
THE GAG ORDER IS FOR HER PROTECTION YOU ABSOLUTE SPANNER! NOT TO HIDE A COVER UP.
But seeing as you have demonstrated you don't understand what the evidence was, here's the evidence:
A heightened rate of infant mortality when Letby worked at the unit that doubled previous years' rates. A rate that returned to normal when she was removed.
Eye witness testimony from a victims mother seeing Letby leave a victims bedroom just before the victim siezed and nearly died.
Several coworkers reporting Letby wasn't acting normally around the death of the babies.
An internal investigation concluding more had to be done and that there was some failing.
A report by the college of pediatrics concluding that there was substantial cause for believing the deaths needed investigation.
Notes found in Letbys home where she BASICALLY ADMITTED TO THE KILLINGS. One stating "I did this" and another stating "I killed them."
Evidence that Letby had facebook stalked the victims families, often soon after their death and that she SENT A LETTER TO ONE OF THE FAMILIES ON THE DAY OF THE FUNERAL. - Other nurses and doctors stated not only that this was very very very abnormal but they didn't even remember these babies as it was just another day. To a normal nurse these babies deaths should have been unfortunate but iremarkable.
Letby was also often caught out where she wasn't meant to be, including in places where the babies were kept. She was caught by other nurses and her superior and never once presented an excuse to why she was there. Often with tragedy occuring soon after she was spotted there. (This is probably the most important point)
Letby was in the right time and right place, she had the means, she was a fucking creep (see facebook and the notes) and clearly disturbed (see notes and her admission that she was disturbed).
Is it the strongest case ever? No, is it strong enough for a conviction? Yes.
You have yet to address the actual evidence, just what the author got wrong.
EDIT: Forgot other evidence.
There's some weird 'free lucy letby" communities around the Internet which i bumped into that honestly verge on conspiracy theorism. Some pretty unhinged takes by true crime enthusiasts and arm chair sleuths.
The New Yorker isn't exactly the most reliable source, it's a literary magazine more than straight reporting, there's a reason it's currently blocked in the UK as it relates to the case.
To be fair, it's blocked because there is going to be a retrial and it's illegal to publish on an ongoing case in a manner that may influence a jury here, it's banning is not a comment on the rigor of the article. Not that I disagree on your assessment of the New Yorker.
It does tons of reporting and has won major awards for reporting, what are you talking about?
The author was not present at the case, which she could have sat in. Claims to have reviewed confidential documents (which the acquisition of would be criminal and means we can't assess them) and this piece makes several just complete errors in stating what happened.
It’s not criminal in the US and she certainly did acquire and assess them. Not only that, she spoke to the doctor who wrote the key, only paper about air embolisms and he told her that the evidence was flawed. This piece is groundbreaking because Aviv’s reporting unearths new findings that legitimately discount much of the prosecution’s case. Major miscarriage of justice by the British courts.
Her reporting doesnt even address the case. It says nothing on the witnesses to the crimes.
Not strictly on topic but I was blown away at how quickly they managed to release this episode after her sentencing. Kudos to everyone!
I will pass that onto Dave! I don't know if he uses Reddit much but I know he worked through the night to get it done.
She wasn’t convicted on maths. This article is nonsense.
The article isn't about math. You haven't read the article.
The article is still wrong.
Also I just saw the edit, thank you! Also thank you for bringing this to all of our attention!
The case is weak.
How so?
They were concerned about 37 cases (either deaths or crashes). They nailed her for 17 of these. The ones she was on shift for. They presented this as her being present for.100% of the cases, but she wasn't, it was more like 50%. They didn't prosecute her for the other 17.
Those extra 17 signal serious failing on the ward, that were not involving her.
Also, she was on shift all the time. Yes she was young and single, she worked all the time, compared to part time colleagues.
There were no cases after she left...? yes, because the unit was down graded so didn't take such serious cases, they could now cope, less deaths.
The unit was chronically under staffed and out of its depth. It smacks of systemic failure, not a serial killer.
She had weak defence, they should have torn up the statistical arguments.
(I say 17 and 34, I should google the case for exact, numbers but on my phone, they're ball park).
The reason the defence didn't tear up the statistical argument was because it wasn't made. The statistical argument was a vehicle for the opening argument and for the media, the actual argument was based on Letby's own statements, witnesses and linking Letby to specific circumstances.
The unit was understaffed, as is the entire NHS. There is no suggestion that unit was particularly understaffed in comparison to average NHS units and yet it's mortality rate was significantly above the average. So understaffing doesn't explain the deaths there.
Only pursuing some cases out of the collection is very normal, it comes down to who is willing to provide testimony and what evidence they can find. The fact there were 20 other cases is immaterial, that's just how these things go.
The prosecution was based on suspect behaviour on Letby's part, self incriminating statements, eye witness testimony and suspicious deaths. The investigation was aided with review of who was where.
This prosecution simply wasn't weak.
Really? Was it higher to a statistically significant degree?