New Yorker on Lucy Letby: Did She Do It?
May 16, 2024 10:13 AM Subscribe
The New Yorker takes on the dubious evidence that led to Letby's conviction and the bizarre UK media restrictions that governed coverage of the case. [CW: infanticide] Rachel Aviv's article paints a picture of a neonatal intensive care unit undergoing the same catastrophic deterioration as the rest of the National Health Service—a topic the magazine has covered recently—and how an especially competent and determined nurse might just end up at the scene of several patients' deaths because she was called in to help on virtually all difficult cases.
The case against her gathered force on the basis of a single diagram shared by the police, which circulated widely in the media. On the vertical axis were twenty-four “suspicious events,” which included the deaths of the seven newborns and seventeen other instances of babies suddenly deteriorating. On the horizontal axis were the names of thirty-eight nurses who had worked on the unit during that time, with X’s next to each suspicious event that occurred when they were on shift. Letby was the only nurse with an uninterrupted line of X’s below her name. She was the “one common denominator,” the “constant malevolent presence when things took a turn for the worse,” one of the prosecutors, Nick Johnson, told the jury in his opening statement. “If you look at the table overall the picture is, we suggest, self-evidently obvious. It’s a process of elimination.”
But the chart didn’t account for any other factors influencing the mortality rate on the unit. Letby had become the country’s most reviled woman—“the unexpected face of evil,” as the British magazine Prospect put it—largely because of that unbroken line. It gave an impression of mathematical clarity and coherence, distracting from another possibility: that there had never been any crimes at all.
Vanity Fair recently published a piece coming from a more pro-guilt perspective, but retracted that article due to the same strange British press laws that somehow prevent any coverage which might doubt the efficacy of the court system or the quality of the prosecution but didn't prevent wall-to-wall coverage alleging Letby's guilt before and during the trial (the best I could do was a Google Drive link to scans of the article; if we can find a better version, I'd ask the mods to add it in here).
Especially strange from the New Yorker piece were Letby's attorneys' decisions not to put the NHS on trial—Letby's most obvious trial defense—and instead to insist, along with the prosecution, that the service was getting along fine. Likewise, not to present a single defense medical expert after months of prosecution medical testimony that was...assailable:
The prosecution’s pathologist, Andreas Marnerides, who worked at St. Thomas’ Hospital in London, wrote that the child had died of natural causes, most likely of pneumonia. “I have not identified any suspicious findings,” he concluded. But, three years later, Marnerides testified that, after reading more reports from the courts’ experts, he thought that the baby had died “with pneumonia,” not “from pneumonia.” The likely cause of death, he said, was administration of air into his stomach through a nasogastric tube. When Evans testified, he said the same thing.
“What’s the evidence?” Myers asked him.
“Baby collapsed, died,” Evans responded.
“A baby may collapse for any number of reasons,” Myers said. “What’s the evidence that supports your assertion made today that it’s because of air going down the NGT?”
“The baby collapsed and died.”
“Do you rely upon one image of that?” Myers asked, referring to X-rays.
“This baby collapsed and died.”
“What evidence is there that you can point to?”
Evans replied that he’d ruled out all natural causes, so the only other viable explanation would be another method of murder, like air injected into one of the baby’s veins. “A baby collapsing and where resuscitation was unsuccessful—you know, that’s consistent with my interpretation of what happened,” he said.
When so many of us now work in deteriorating systems, doing two or three times our share of work while other people's lives or livelihoods depend how well we do it, it is especially terrifying, if the New Yorker's take is to be believed, to see a single individual scapegoated and sentenced to life imprisonment for the failures of the system she worked in.
Or, if Vanity Fair (and, if Twitter replies are any indication, most of the British public) has the right of it, some justice may have been done.
The case against her gathered force on the basis of a single diagram shared by the police, which circulated widely in the media. On the vertical axis were twenty-four “suspicious events,” which included the deaths of the seven newborns and seventeen other instances of babies suddenly deteriorating. On the horizontal axis were the names of thirty-eight nurses who had worked on the unit during that time, with X’s next to each suspicious event that occurred when they were on shift. Letby was the only nurse with an uninterrupted line of X’s below her name. She was the “one common denominator,” the “constant malevolent presence when things took a turn for the worse,” one of the prosecutors, Nick Johnson, told the jury in his opening statement. “If you look at the table overall the picture is, we suggest, self-evidently obvious. It’s a process of elimination.”
But the chart didn’t account for any other factors influencing the mortality rate on the unit. Letby had become the country’s most reviled woman—“the unexpected face of evil,” as the British magazine Prospect put it—largely because of that unbroken line. It gave an impression of mathematical clarity and coherence, distracting from another possibility: that there had never been any crimes at all.
Vanity Fair recently published a piece coming from a more pro-guilt perspective, but retracted that article due to the same strange British press laws that somehow prevent any coverage which might doubt the efficacy of the court system or the quality of the prosecution but didn't prevent wall-to-wall coverage alleging Letby's guilt before and during the trial (the best I could do was a Google Drive link to scans of the article; if we can find a better version, I'd ask the mods to add it in here).
Especially strange from the New Yorker piece were Letby's attorneys' decisions not to put the NHS on trial—Letby's most obvious trial defense—and instead to insist, along with the prosecution, that the service was getting along fine. Likewise, not to present a single defense medical expert after months of prosecution medical testimony that was...assailable:
The prosecution’s pathologist, Andreas Marnerides, who worked at St. Thomas’ Hospital in London, wrote that the child had died of natural causes, most likely of pneumonia. “I have not identified any suspicious findings,” he concluded. But, three years later, Marnerides testified that, after reading more reports from the courts’ experts, he thought that the baby had died “with pneumonia,” not “from pneumonia.” The likely cause of death, he said, was administration of air into his stomach through a nasogastric tube. When Evans testified, he said the same thing.
“What’s the evidence?” Myers asked him.
“Baby collapsed, died,” Evans responded.
“A baby may collapse for any number of reasons,” Myers said. “What’s the evidence that supports your assertion made today that it’s because of air going down the NGT?”
“The baby collapsed and died.”
“Do you rely upon one image of that?” Myers asked, referring to X-rays.
“This baby collapsed and died.”
“What evidence is there that you can point to?”
Evans replied that he’d ruled out all natural causes, so the only other viable explanation would be another method of murder, like air injected into one of the baby’s veins. “A baby collapsing and where resuscitation was unsuccessful—you know, that’s consistent with my interpretation of what happened,” he said.
When so many of us now work in deteriorating systems, doing two or three times our share of work while other people's lives or livelihoods depend how well we do it, it is especially terrifying, if the New Yorker's take is to be believed, to see a single individual scapegoated and sentenced to life imprisonment for the failures of the system she worked in.
Or, if Vanity Fair (and, if Twitter replies are any indication, most of the British public) has the right of it, some justice may have been done.
If you asked to me write how my job makes me feel on a post-it, that's pretty much what I'd write. I never killed anyone.
posted by lefty lucky cat at 10:25 AM on May 16 [24 favorites]
posted by lefty lucky cat at 10:25 AM on May 16 [24 favorites]
This is geo-locked for people in the UK, as described in this Guardian article. An archive link will work for us, however. Thanks for posting; I read this earlier today and considered posting myself. I saw the original RSS article about Lucia de Berk and Daniela Poggiali in 2022 and thought the evidence quite compelling there.
posted by paduasoy at 10:32 AM on May 16 [4 favorites]
posted by paduasoy at 10:32 AM on May 16 [4 favorites]
Thanks paduasoy, I didn't realize the piece was blocked (and I know it's paywalled so I should've stuck that in there anyway).
I'm not going to threadsit, but the piece's take on the notes is, basically, that she's (1) super broken up about all the kids dying on the ward; and (2) that notes start coming out as a sort of piecemeal journalling when the hospital starts thinking that maybe she needs to be investigated:
The police spent the day searching her house. Inside, they found a note with the heading “NOT GOOD ENOUGH.” There were several phrases scrawled across the page at random angles and without punctuation: “There are no words”; “I can’t breathe”; “Slander Discrimination”; “I’ll never have children or marry I’ll never know what it’s like to have a family”; “WHY ME?”; “I haven’t done anything wrong”; “I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them”; “I AM EVIL I DID THIS.”
On another scrap of paper, she had written, three times, “Everything is manageable,” a phrase that a colleague had said to her. At the bottom of the page, she had written, “I just want life to be as it was. I want to be happy in the job that I loved with a team who I felt a part of. Really, I don’t belong anywhere. I’m a problem to those who do know me.” On another piece of paper, found in her handbag, she had written, “I can’t do this any more. I want someone to help me but they can’t.” She also wrote, “We tried our best and it wasn’t enough.”
After spending all day in jail, Letby was asked why she had written the “not good enough” note. A police video shows her in the interrogation room with her hands in her lap, her shoulders hunched forward. She spoke quietly and deferentially, like a student facing an unexpectedly harsh exam. “It was just a way of me getting my feelings out onto paper,” she said. “It just helps me process.”
posted by TheProfessor at 10:41 AM on May 16 [5 favorites]
I'm not going to threadsit, but the piece's take on the notes is, basically, that she's (1) super broken up about all the kids dying on the ward; and (2) that notes start coming out as a sort of piecemeal journalling when the hospital starts thinking that maybe she needs to be investigated:
The police spent the day searching her house. Inside, they found a note with the heading “NOT GOOD ENOUGH.” There were several phrases scrawled across the page at random angles and without punctuation: “There are no words”; “I can’t breathe”; “Slander Discrimination”; “I’ll never have children or marry I’ll never know what it’s like to have a family”; “WHY ME?”; “I haven’t done anything wrong”; “I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them”; “I AM EVIL I DID THIS.”
On another scrap of paper, she had written, three times, “Everything is manageable,” a phrase that a colleague had said to her. At the bottom of the page, she had written, “I just want life to be as it was. I want to be happy in the job that I loved with a team who I felt a part of. Really, I don’t belong anywhere. I’m a problem to those who do know me.” On another piece of paper, found in her handbag, she had written, “I can’t do this any more. I want someone to help me but they can’t.” She also wrote, “We tried our best and it wasn’t enough.”
After spending all day in jail, Letby was asked why she had written the “not good enough” note. A police video shows her in the interrogation room with her hands in her lap, her shoulders hunched forward. She spoke quietly and deferentially, like a student facing an unexpectedly harsh exam. “It was just a way of me getting my feelings out onto paper,” she said. “It just helps me process.”
posted by TheProfessor at 10:41 AM on May 16 [5 favorites]
This story is so, so, so sad.
posted by subdee at 10:46 AM on May 16 [11 favorites]
posted by subdee at 10:46 AM on May 16 [11 favorites]
She was completely monstered in the press. I don’t think there was any doubt about her guilt in the way it was presented in the news media - but, as ever, if a story is simple, it means you’re not being told the whole truth. The paragraphs towards the end from the statisticians and medical experts who were threatened with some kind of contempt charge or not called are particularly troubling.
posted by The River Ivel at 10:47 AM on May 16 [18 favorites]
posted by The River Ivel at 10:47 AM on May 16 [18 favorites]
There are so many horrible details in this article, but what's also sticking out to me is that hospital admin didn't take the case to the police initially. They transferred her to a desk job and she worked there for two years. The police investigation was only launched after she eventually filed a grievance about the transfer.
posted by subdee at 10:59 AM on May 16 [9 favorites]
posted by subdee at 10:59 AM on May 16 [9 favorites]
Something I keep coming back to reading this, as it relates to problems in our society as a whole, is that more information isn’t necessarily clarifying in cases like this. The deeper you go to gather information, the more emotionally attached you get to a certain outcome, the more you make connections of events that are unrelated. Sometimes an outsider with less information can more clearly see what’s going on, can more adeptly spot failures of thought, than those closest to the case with the most information.
I’m not entirely convinced of her innocence (or guilt), but it seems this is a pretty weak case built almost completely on circumstantial evidence. It’s possible she is still guilty! But the fervency of those convinced of her guilt, who can’t acknowledge even the smallest issues with the evidence, which seem pretty obvious as an outsider with little emotional investment in the case, gives this all a feel of a witch trial.
posted by scantee at 11:02 AM on May 16 [19 favorites]
I’m not entirely convinced of her innocence (or guilt), but it seems this is a pretty weak case built almost completely on circumstantial evidence. It’s possible she is still guilty! But the fervency of those convinced of her guilt, who can’t acknowledge even the smallest issues with the evidence, which seem pretty obvious as an outsider with little emotional investment in the case, gives this all a feel of a witch trial.
posted by scantee at 11:02 AM on May 16 [19 favorites]
You are leaving out important context: she was trying to get back to the infant ICU via the grievance, and the consultant doctors were absolutely terrified she would get her hands on babies again. One of them finally said go to the cops or I will do it myself.
posted by tavella at 11:04 AM on May 16 [14 favorites]
posted by tavella at 11:04 AM on May 16 [14 favorites]
There was absolutely no evidence that she killed anybody. The entire world has watched too many BBC murder shows. Babies die sometimes, and it's horrible, and there's nobody to blame but the universe.
posted by hydropsyche at 11:24 AM on May 16 [14 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 11:24 AM on May 16 [14 favorites]
As someone who has worked in a hospital, the public doesn't quite understand how much of a balancing act it is these days to just be fully staffed, or even partially so. Nurses and doctors and enviro and RTs don't magically show up. I was more mad about the fact the working conditions--especially for a NICU!--were so bad that even after someone complained about it, no one did anything.
Again, I worked in hospital staffing and this whole paragraph not only made my blood boil, but was so fucking familiar when I couldn't find CC nurses for shifts:
One of the senior pediatricians, Alison Timmis, was similarly distressed. She e-mailed the hospital’s chief executive, Tony Chambers, to complain that staff on the unit were “chronically overworked” and “no one is listening.” She wrote, “Over the past few weeks I have seen several medical and nursing colleagues in tears.” Doctors were working shifts that ran more than twenty hours, she explained, and the unit was so busy that “at several points we ran out of vital equipment such as incubators.” At another point, a midwife had to assist with a resuscitation, because there weren’t enough trained nurses. “This is now our normal working pattern and it is not safe,” Timmis wrote. “Things are stretched thinner and thinner and are at breaking point. When things snap, the casualties will either be children’s lives or the mental and physical health of our staff.”
Do I think Letby did it? Honestly, at this point, no. Or at the very least she was one of many many overworked nurses (shoutout to nurses!) who was singled out by the sheer fact she was working every single time. The detective work looks shoddy, and it sure as shit looks as though the hospital didn't give a fig about the working conditions then or now.
posted by Kitteh at 11:25 AM on May 16 [26 favorites]
Again, I worked in hospital staffing and this whole paragraph not only made my blood boil, but was so fucking familiar when I couldn't find CC nurses for shifts:
One of the senior pediatricians, Alison Timmis, was similarly distressed. She e-mailed the hospital’s chief executive, Tony Chambers, to complain that staff on the unit were “chronically overworked” and “no one is listening.” She wrote, “Over the past few weeks I have seen several medical and nursing colleagues in tears.” Doctors were working shifts that ran more than twenty hours, she explained, and the unit was so busy that “at several points we ran out of vital equipment such as incubators.” At another point, a midwife had to assist with a resuscitation, because there weren’t enough trained nurses. “This is now our normal working pattern and it is not safe,” Timmis wrote. “Things are stretched thinner and thinner and are at breaking point. When things snap, the casualties will either be children’s lives or the mental and physical health of our staff.”
Do I think Letby did it? Honestly, at this point, no. Or at the very least she was one of many many overworked nurses (shoutout to nurses!) who was singled out by the sheer fact she was working every single time. The detective work looks shoddy, and it sure as shit looks as though the hospital didn't give a fig about the working conditions then or now.
posted by Kitteh at 11:25 AM on May 16 [26 favorites]
There is shockingly zero evidence or motive for something the Brits all seem to be convinced is 100% true.
posted by teece303 at 11:28 AM on May 16 [9 favorites]
posted by teece303 at 11:28 AM on May 16 [9 favorites]
Neonatal deaths in the catastrophic deathtrap indistinguishable-from-a-serial-killer NHS: 3.8 per 1000 live births
Neonatal deaths in the US: 5.4 per 1000 live births
posted by Klipspringer at 11:44 AM on May 16 [48 favorites]
Neonatal deaths in the US: 5.4 per 1000 live births
posted by Klipspringer at 11:44 AM on May 16 [48 favorites]
But it all depends on the hospital. Some hospitals are much more understaffed, chaotically run, etc than others.
posted by subdee at 11:53 AM on May 16 [1 favorite]
posted by subdee at 11:53 AM on May 16 [1 favorite]
We went through something like this in 1981.
There were a series of deaths 36 in total . 33 were babies at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto
The deaths were suspected to be murders, overdoses of digoxin,
One nurse Susan Nelles was charged with murder.
She faced a very long preliminary inquiry and was aquitted.
Basically judge said she could not have done it
There was a lawsuit which she won.
Followed by a an inquiry;
The Royal Commission of Inquiry
into Certain Deaths at the Hospital for Sick Children
The Honourable Mr. Justice Samuel G. M. Grange
I'll leave a link here to the report. It's a 300 page pdf.
--
Being from Toronto I remember that case.
It really shook the city.
She was fortunate to have good lawyers and her family could afford them.
No one was ever held responsible.
posted by yyz at 11:56 AM on May 16 [16 favorites]
There were a series of deaths 36 in total . 33 were babies at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto
The deaths were suspected to be murders, overdoses of digoxin,
One nurse Susan Nelles was charged with murder.
She faced a very long preliminary inquiry and was aquitted.
Basically judge said she could not have done it
There was a lawsuit which she won.
Followed by a an inquiry;
The Royal Commission of Inquiry
into Certain Deaths at the Hospital for Sick Children
The Honourable Mr. Justice Samuel G. M. Grange
I'll leave a link here to the report. It's a 300 page pdf.
--
Being from Toronto I remember that case.
It really shook the city.
She was fortunate to have good lawyers and her family could afford them.
No one was ever held responsible.
posted by yyz at 11:56 AM on May 16 [16 favorites]
But it all depends on the hospital. Some hospitals are much more understaffed, chaotically run, etc than others.
And as reported in 2018, the Countess of Chester Hospital, where Letby worked, was one of "21 hospitals called upon to investigate higher than average death rates."
posted by AndrewInDC at 11:59 AM on May 16 [4 favorites]
And as reported in 2018, the Countess of Chester Hospital, where Letby worked, was one of "21 hospitals called upon to investigate higher than average death rates."
posted by AndrewInDC at 11:59 AM on May 16 [4 favorites]
Niels Högel (born 30 December 1976) is a German serial killer and former nurse who was sentenced to life imprisonment, initially for the murders of six patients, and later convicted of a total of eighty-five murders. Estimates of Högel's alleged victim count have increased since his first conviction; as of 2020, he was believed to have claimed 300 victims over fifteen years, making him the most prolific serial killer in the history of peacetime Germany.
posted by Klipspringer at 12:03 PM on May 16 [1 favorite]
posted by Klipspringer at 12:03 PM on May 16 [1 favorite]
You are leaving out important context: she was trying to get back to the infant ICU via the grievance, and the consultant doctors were absolutely terrified she would get her hands on babies again. One of them finally said go to the cops or I will do it myself.
This is I think, the only reason I'm not 100% on board with her being innocent. The investigations occurred waaaaaaay after the deaths. There wasn't any evidence collection, right? Everyone was trying to recall events from 4+ years prior.
There was a mention of corporate manslaughter being brought against the hospital and that is absolutely a charge I could get behind here. Someone at a very high level ignored an issue (staffing, crunch, poor practices, or killer) for years and years and years.
posted by Slackermagee at 12:07 PM on May 16 [8 favorites]
This is I think, the only reason I'm not 100% on board with her being innocent. The investigations occurred waaaaaaay after the deaths. There wasn't any evidence collection, right? Everyone was trying to recall events from 4+ years prior.
There was a mention of corporate manslaughter being brought against the hospital and that is absolutely a charge I could get behind here. Someone at a very high level ignored an issue (staffing, crunch, poor practices, or killer) for years and years and years.
posted by Slackermagee at 12:07 PM on May 16 [8 favorites]
I don't have enough information or expertise to have a really formed opinion, but it doesn't seem weird to me that someone would write out all the thoughts that were tormenting them, or that a responsible and caring person would second guess herself or worry that somehow she had done it. I'm an anxious person and while I've never had to worry about killing anyone, I've definitely worried about whether things that I knew weren't my fault and couldn't possibly have been my fault were in fact things I'd done by mistake, in a fugue state, etc. If the situation were innocent little babies died while I was trying to take care of them, I could see having a LOT of guilt and anxiety, no matter how good a carer I was.
posted by Frowner at 12:11 PM on May 16 [35 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 12:11 PM on May 16 [35 favorites]
I'd never heard of this case, and haven't read up in it, so many grains of salt... but speaking as someone whose kids spent two months in a NICU, and (separately) as a reporter who did a lot of statistical analysis in investigations-- I'd be wondering about how they selected on the 24 "suspicious events."
Because NICU babies' conditions deteriorate *all the damn time* -- like, pretty much every night I sat there with mine, multiple alarms would go off, nurses and even residents would intervene, sometimes with invasive or intense measures. (Including with mine. It's terrifying.)
So where you draw the line on what events are medically significant could make a big difference. Pick a few more, and suddenly Letby's not there for all of them, and that solid damning line isn't so solid or damning. Pick a few less, and suddenly you've got several nurses there for all the incidents, and multiple prime suspects.
posted by martin q blank at 12:32 PM on May 16 [27 favorites]
Because NICU babies' conditions deteriorate *all the damn time* -- like, pretty much every night I sat there with mine, multiple alarms would go off, nurses and even residents would intervene, sometimes with invasive or intense measures. (Including with mine. It's terrifying.)
So where you draw the line on what events are medically significant could make a big difference. Pick a few more, and suddenly Letby's not there for all of them, and that solid damning line isn't so solid or damning. Pick a few less, and suddenly you've got several nurses there for all the incidents, and multiple prime suspects.
posted by martin q blank at 12:32 PM on May 16 [27 favorites]
I do think there is also a third possibility, which is that Letby did directly contribute to the infants' deaths, but not out of any intent to commit murder or cause harm. It could be that the extreme stress and overwork was starting to cloud her judgement, and she was starting to make mistakes and cut corners under pressure in ways that were ultimately disastrous.
I think that is far more plausible than a nurse just suddenly deciding to murder babies at random with no evident motive. It would explain the post-it notes where she feels like she killed them, which reflect her being eaten away with guilt at mistakes she knew she had made.
In that case, it's both a condemnation of a medical professional who should have known to step away and of a medical establishment that wears its staff down like this.
posted by adso at 12:56 PM on May 16 [18 favorites]
I think that is far more plausible than a nurse just suddenly deciding to murder babies at random with no evident motive. It would explain the post-it notes where she feels like she killed them, which reflect her being eaten away with guilt at mistakes she knew she had made.
In that case, it's both a condemnation of a medical professional who should have known to step away and of a medical establishment that wears its staff down like this.
posted by adso at 12:56 PM on May 16 [18 favorites]
Again - not commenting on this specific guilt or not guilt - but comments like "the chart didn’t account for any other factors influencing the mortality rate on the unit." are really disingenuous. Because this stuff isn't just handed to the jury as gospel - the defence gets to argue it's incorrect, or irrelevant, or explained by other factors, or whatever. They get to show other departments and/or hospitals have well meaning nurses that can be seen in shift records to be working a a high proportion of higher risk shift/cases. They get to bring in statisticians and HR staff and rota planners, and anyone else to explain the diagram in 10 different ways. They get, in short, to find doubt in it.
So if a whole case hinges on a "bad" diagram then you probably only get found guilty if you have a bad defence or if you're shown guilty in other ways. This is literally one of the main reasons "the rich" convicted less often, with enough good lawyers you can cast doubt on anything.
Letby's defence was funded by legal aid (i.e. the tax payer) to the tune of at least £1.5million. So I've no idea if she if guilty or not, or if the diagram is good or bad statistics, ... but I keep seeing people online say "it was only 1 diagram and it swayed the jury and it was a bad diagram that left out the underlying facts" and that doesn't seem to match the scrutiny a £1.5million would bring to the case. She had a well funded team challenging the prosecution from her side. I've no idea if they were competent or rigorous, but they were well funded and incorrect representation isn't the grounds given for her appeal.
She is seeking an appeal/retrial. So it could all be tested again, and there has been even more time for analysis since then. If the New Yorker writer(s) have uncovered new insights they can be incorporated into the defence.
But even if the appeal/retrial isn't allowed (one judge has already said no, and now a panel of 3 judges is reviewing that afaik) there is also a separate large scale public enquiry scheduled for Sept: "The Thirlwall Inquiry has been set up to examine events at the Countess of Chester Hospital and their implications following the trial, and subsequent convictions, of former neonatal nurse Lucy Letby of murder and attempted murder of babies at the hospital."
And from the agreed scope it looks to be a pretty wide enquiry into the hospital and surrounding circumstances. Apparently at least 188 people/organisations have been contacted so far to present information.
The British court system is clearly deficient in many ways, and women and less privileged people often get a less than fair hearing. But this case was pretty in-depth as far as cases go, it wasn't a rapid Friday afternoon hearing or plea-bargain. The jury might well have come to the wrong verdict, it happens. I don't know and am not informed enough to speculate, but there was a LOT more evidence presented than any magazine article can summarise. A lot of resources were made available to the initial trial, and there is now a large public enquiry following that up.
posted by samworm at 1:14 PM on May 16 [18 favorites]
So if a whole case hinges on a "bad" diagram then you probably only get found guilty if you have a bad defence or if you're shown guilty in other ways. This is literally one of the main reasons "the rich" convicted less often, with enough good lawyers you can cast doubt on anything.
Letby's defence was funded by legal aid (i.e. the tax payer) to the tune of at least £1.5million. So I've no idea if she if guilty or not, or if the diagram is good or bad statistics, ... but I keep seeing people online say "it was only 1 diagram and it swayed the jury and it was a bad diagram that left out the underlying facts" and that doesn't seem to match the scrutiny a £1.5million would bring to the case. She had a well funded team challenging the prosecution from her side. I've no idea if they were competent or rigorous, but they were well funded and incorrect representation isn't the grounds given for her appeal.
She is seeking an appeal/retrial. So it could all be tested again, and there has been even more time for analysis since then. If the New Yorker writer(s) have uncovered new insights they can be incorporated into the defence.
But even if the appeal/retrial isn't allowed (one judge has already said no, and now a panel of 3 judges is reviewing that afaik) there is also a separate large scale public enquiry scheduled for Sept: "The Thirlwall Inquiry has been set up to examine events at the Countess of Chester Hospital and their implications following the trial, and subsequent convictions, of former neonatal nurse Lucy Letby of murder and attempted murder of babies at the hospital."
And from the agreed scope it looks to be a pretty wide enquiry into the hospital and surrounding circumstances. Apparently at least 188 people/organisations have been contacted so far to present information.
The British court system is clearly deficient in many ways, and women and less privileged people often get a less than fair hearing. But this case was pretty in-depth as far as cases go, it wasn't a rapid Friday afternoon hearing or plea-bargain. The jury might well have come to the wrong verdict, it happens. I don't know and am not informed enough to speculate, but there was a LOT more evidence presented than any magazine article can summarise. A lot of resources were made available to the initial trial, and there is now a large public enquiry following that up.
posted by samworm at 1:14 PM on May 16 [18 favorites]
So they did actually go into that in the article. The chart accusing Letby had 24 cases on it, but did not include 2 cases also flagged as suspicious where Letby wasn't on duty and 25 more cases that were also thought to be suspicious but no one appeared to have recorded whether Letby was on duty or not.
posted by Zalzidrax at 1:33 PM on May 16 [11 favorites]
posted by Zalzidrax at 1:33 PM on May 16 [11 favorites]
Police and UK press vs. a retired professor on a crusade - hard to fall back on the usual heuristics for deciding who to take as reliable here!
posted by atoxyl at 1:48 PM on May 16 [3 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 1:48 PM on May 16 [3 favorites]
Literally the only “evidence” in this case is that exactly someone you’d expect and want to be there for a really sick newborn was… there for some that died.
That’s it. Even if she did it, and I don’t think she did, absolutely no evidence was presented she did.
Not even in one case did the coroner or whomever think the death was suspicious
posted by teece303 at 1:59 PM on May 16 [13 favorites]
That’s it. Even if she did it, and I don’t think she did, absolutely no evidence was presented she did.
Not even in one case did the coroner or whomever think the death was suspicious
posted by teece303 at 1:59 PM on May 16 [13 favorites]
Pick a few more, and suddenly Letby's not there for all of them, and that solid damning line isn't so solid or damning.
Essentially what happened in The Susan Nelles case.
They exhumed a body ,found high levels of digoxin.
She was away from the hospital for days when that death occured.
So from the Royal Commission;
it became immediately apparent that it might be vital to the Defence for the simple reason that Susan Nelles was not on duty at the time of that baby's death or for some days previously. All concerned, i.e.. Crown Counsel, Dr. Tepperman, and the Police, agreed the body should be exhumed to determine if there was digoxin in her tissues. As we know, that is exactly what was found.
This was really the turning point of the Preliminary Inquiry. Up to that point, the theory of the Prosecution was that Susan Nelles had exclusive opportunity to kill Justin Cook and an opportunity to kill the others and there could be only one killer. After the exhumation of Stephanie Lombardo, the theory was no longer tenable. If there were only one killer it could not be she. If she killed Justin Cook there had to be either more than one killer or a conspiracy between her and another. The case was falling apart.
posted by yyz at 2:01 PM on May 16 [2 favorites]
Essentially what happened in The Susan Nelles case.
They exhumed a body ,found high levels of digoxin.
She was away from the hospital for days when that death occured.
So from the Royal Commission;
it became immediately apparent that it might be vital to the Defence for the simple reason that Susan Nelles was not on duty at the time of that baby's death or for some days previously. All concerned, i.e.. Crown Counsel, Dr. Tepperman, and the Police, agreed the body should be exhumed to determine if there was digoxin in her tissues. As we know, that is exactly what was found.
This was really the turning point of the Preliminary Inquiry. Up to that point, the theory of the Prosecution was that Susan Nelles had exclusive opportunity to kill Justin Cook and an opportunity to kill the others and there could be only one killer. After the exhumation of Stephanie Lombardo, the theory was no longer tenable. If there were only one killer it could not be she. If she killed Justin Cook there had to be either more than one killer or a conspiracy between her and another. The case was falling apart.
posted by yyz at 2:01 PM on May 16 [2 favorites]
None of the infant deaths shared any commonality. No indication any kind was ever given how Letby was supposedly causing these deaths, every single one of which was unique.
The case is textbook example of the U.S. idea of “reasonable doubt.”
It paints the UK Justice system in a very bad light.
posted by teece303 at 2:10 PM on May 16 [9 favorites]
The case is textbook example of the U.S. idea of “reasonable doubt.”
It paints the UK Justice system in a very bad light.
posted by teece303 at 2:10 PM on May 16 [9 favorites]
Samworm has said much of what I wanted to better than I would have.
The case is textbook example of the U.S. idea of “reasonable doubt.”
Courts in England and Wales use the same standard.
There's one thing I've seen quite a lot of in discussions this case - people who are better acquainted with the US legal system who see the British one doing things differently and reflexively assume that it is therefore automatically wrong or unjust. There are certainly problems, but remember: the US legal system is also highly imperfect (as is every other one), and just because something's foreign, it doesn't follow that it's wrong.
posted by Urtylug at 2:37 PM on May 16 [12 favorites]
The case is textbook example of the U.S. idea of “reasonable doubt.”
Courts in England and Wales use the same standard.
There's one thing I've seen quite a lot of in discussions this case - people who are better acquainted with the US legal system who see the British one doing things differently and reflexively assume that it is therefore automatically wrong or unjust. There are certainly problems, but remember: the US legal system is also highly imperfect (as is every other one), and just because something's foreign, it doesn't follow that it's wrong.
posted by Urtylug at 2:37 PM on May 16 [12 favorites]
I had no idea about this case prior to this post. But reading the article . . Nah, she didn’t do it. Or if she did, there was no evidence presented that she did. Basically a TV doctor’s words over a nurse’s. A gentle helping person ground down by a system that rewards the charismatic, powerful and connected over the striving, hard working and overly conscientious who have the misfortune of actually trying to do something substantive, real and useful in a world that takes advantage of that and then disposes of it as needed. Fuck.
posted by flamk at 3:48 PM on May 16 [6 favorites]
posted by flamk at 3:48 PM on May 16 [6 favorites]
I admire the New Yorker's record of reporting on miscarriages of justice. So I take this article very seriously. But there are some odd features of the article which make me question its overall reliability.
For example: Rachel Aviv wants us to believe that Letby was convicted on the basis of a single diagram. She tells us so early on:
Again: Aviv implies, without actually saying so, that the judge misdirected the jury by instructing them to ignore inconsistencies in the medical evidence:
Again: Aviv wants us to believe that Letby was a convenient scapegoat to distract attention from the institutional failures of the NHS. She makes this quite explicit:
Having said that, it's only fair to add that the article did change my view of the trial at several points. For example, Aviv explains the puzzling failure of Letby's defence to call any character witnesses for her. This was noticed at the time, and it didn't look good for her:
Aviv also questions one of the cases where Letby is alleged to have poisoned a baby with insulin, on the simple grounds that she wasn't there at the time: 'To connect Letby to the insulin, one would have to believe that she had managed to inject insulin into a bag that a different nurse had randomly chosen from the unit’s refrigerator.' It's hard to believe this wasn't exhaustively discussed at the trial, but still, prima facie, it does open up room for doubt.
There are other problems with the article, but I've already gone on long enough. I'll just add one thing: that if you go down the rabbit-hole of Lucy Letby speculation on the internet (and I don't recommend it), you very quickly find there is a correlation between belief in her innocence and anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, and for obvious reasons: it all fits into the same narrative of malpractice and cover-up by the medical establishment. That's not a reason to dismiss the New Yorker article out of hand. Just, y'know, be careful of the company you keep?
posted by verstegan at 4:51 PM on May 16 [20 favorites]
For example: Rachel Aviv wants us to believe that Letby was convicted on the basis of a single diagram. She tells us so early on:
The case against her gathered force on the basis of a single diagram shared by the police, which circulated widely in the media .. Letby had become the country’s most reviled woman—“the unexpected face of evil,” as the British magazine Prospect put it—largely because of that unbroken line.This seems a bizarre way of characterising a trial that went on for ten months and generated a staggering quantity of paperwork. As the Guardian reported at the time:
The medical notes of one baby alone ran to more than 8,000 pages. There were more than 5,500 pages of witness statements and 32,000 pages of exhibits, including text messages and photographs. Jurors were given a 25-page glossary of medical terms – such as “absent end-diastolic flow” and “biphasic positive airway pressure” – to help them understand the case.Now, it's conceivable that the sheer quantity of evidence alone might have created the conditions for a miscarriage of justice: that the jury were simply overwhelmed by the mountain of evidence put before them. Such things have happened. But I find it hard to accept Aviv's suggestion that the entire case against Letby rested on a single dodgy diagram.
Again: Aviv implies, without actually saying so, that the judge misdirected the jury by instructing them to ignore inconsistencies in the medical evidence:
He instructed the twelve members of the jury that they could find Letby guilty even if they weren’t “sure of the precise harmful act” she’d committed. In one case, for instance, Evans had proposed that a baby had died of excessive air in her stomach from her nasogastric tube, and then, when it emerged that she might not have had a nasogastric tube, he proposed that she may have been smothered.This is a rather selective quotation. If you look at the judge's full instructions to the jury, they give a very different impression:
If you are sure that someone on the unit was deliberately harming a baby or babies, you do not have to be sure of the precise harmful act or acts. In some instances there may have been more than one. To find the defendant guilty, however, you must be sure that she deliberately did some harmful act to the baby the subject of the count on the indictment and the act or acts was accompanied by the intent and, in the case of murder, was causative of death.In other words: 'If you are sure that she did a harmful act, then you do not have to be sure of the precise harmful act.' That's a bit different from Aviv's version, isn't it? And rather typical of her method in this article: short snippets of quotations which read differently when you put them back into context.
Again: Aviv wants us to believe that Letby was a convenient scapegoat to distract attention from the institutional failures of the NHS. She makes this quite explicit:
The public conversation about the case seemed to treat details about poor care on the unit as if they were irrelevant .. It seemed easier to accept the idea of a sadistic “angel of death” than to look squarely at the fact that families who had trusted the N.H.S. had been betrayed, their faith misplaced.I would say precisely the opposite. It's very much easier to blame NHS bosses for a coverup than it is to believe that the bright, smiling nurse in the maternity unit could have been a serial killer. That is why many people want to believe in Letby's innocence, and why this article has struck such a chord. Speaking personally, I would feel a huge sense of relief if it turned out that Aviv was right and 'there had never been any crimes at all'. I would love to believe that. But this article doesn't persuade me.
Having said that, it's only fair to add that the article did change my view of the trial at several points. For example, Aviv explains the puzzling failure of Letby's defence to call any character witnesses for her. This was noticed at the time, and it didn't look good for her:
The weakness of Letby’s defence was exposed when she failed to produce any medical expert, colleague, family member or friend to testify on her behalf. The only witness called by her legal team was a hospital plumber, who looked as bewildered by his presence in court as those watching.Aviv offers a plausible explanation: that it was a tactical error by Letby's counsel, who thought he could get the medical evidence dismissed without having to call character witnesses. Of course it could also be that witnesses didn't want to come forward for the reason suggested by another journalist: that 'being associated with this case, having your name in the press next to Letby’s, could be potentially career-destroying'.
Aviv also questions one of the cases where Letby is alleged to have poisoned a baby with insulin, on the simple grounds that she wasn't there at the time: 'To connect Letby to the insulin, one would have to believe that she had managed to inject insulin into a bag that a different nurse had randomly chosen from the unit’s refrigerator.' It's hard to believe this wasn't exhaustively discussed at the trial, but still, prima facie, it does open up room for doubt.
There are other problems with the article, but I've already gone on long enough. I'll just add one thing: that if you go down the rabbit-hole of Lucy Letby speculation on the internet (and I don't recommend it), you very quickly find there is a correlation between belief in her innocence and anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, and for obvious reasons: it all fits into the same narrative of malpractice and cover-up by the medical establishment. That's not a reason to dismiss the New Yorker article out of hand. Just, y'know, be careful of the company you keep?
posted by verstegan at 4:51 PM on May 16 [20 favorites]
In other words: 'If you are sure that she did a harmful act, then you do not have to be sure of the precise harmful act.' That's a bit different from Aviv's version, isn't it?
no, it isn’t. not at all.
at a certain level and seriousness of argument the innit rejoinder fails to function. it innit’nt. as it were.
posted by queenofbithynia at 5:04 PM on May 16 [12 favorites]
no, it isn’t. not at all.
at a certain level and seriousness of argument the innit rejoinder fails to function. it innit’nt. as it were.
posted by queenofbithynia at 5:04 PM on May 16 [12 favorites]
In other words: 'If you are sure that she did a harmful act, then you do not have to be sure of the precise harmful act.' That's a bit different from Aviv's version, isn't it?
No! Not even a little bit!
posted by adrienneleigh at 5:13 PM on May 16 [14 favorites]
No! Not even a little bit!
posted by adrienneleigh at 5:13 PM on May 16 [14 favorites]
Niels Högel (born 30 December 1976) is a German serial killer and former nurse who was sentenced to life imprisonment
so what
posted by knock my sock and i'll clean your clock at 6:26 PM on May 16 [10 favorites]
so what
posted by knock my sock and i'll clean your clock at 6:26 PM on May 16 [10 favorites]
Letby is, according to the UK legal system, one of the most brilliant serial killers in the history of history. Not only is no clue given as to how she carried out these killings, there is not even a semi plausible scenario of any kind in which she could have.
But why would you want something like that in a criminal trial?
posted by teece303 at 7:25 PM on May 16 [10 favorites]
But why would you want something like that in a criminal trial?
posted by teece303 at 7:25 PM on May 16 [10 favorites]
It's entirely okay to think "she might be guilty but she should never have been convicted on evidence this flimsy", but from what i've seen on social media and in British writing about the case, the entirety of England has decided to throw out Blackstone's Formulation entirely and also yell at anyone who still cares about it.
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:13 PM on May 16 [16 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:13 PM on May 16 [16 favorites]
I think true crime content is breaking people's brains because if you can look at the evidence in this case and think there isn't reasonable doubt you have to be in TV detective mode or something.
posted by zymil at 2:31 AM on May 17 [8 favorites]
posted by zymil at 2:31 AM on May 17 [8 favorites]
There was a mention of corporate manslaughter being brought against the hospital and that is absolutely a charge I could get behind here. Someone at a very high level ignored an issue (staffing, crunch, poor practices, or killer) for years and years and years.
I agree that someone high-level fucked up here, and that something ought to be done about it, but I do kind of wonder what would be an effective "punishment" for a publicly funded organization that provides a vital public service? According to Wikipedia, the sentencing guidelines for corporate homicide in England recommend a fine equal to 5% of annual turnover, but taking money away from the hospital would just seem to exacerbate the problem.
...from what i've seen on social media and in British writing about the case, the entirety of England has decided to throw out Blackstone's Formulation entirely and also yell at anyone who still cares about it.
Unsurprising, it's comforting to think that a lone monster has been eliminated and deeply saddening to consider the possibility that babies may continue to die because of systematic underfunding.
posted by nanny's striped stocking at 2:34 AM on May 17 [2 favorites]
I agree that someone high-level fucked up here, and that something ought to be done about it, but I do kind of wonder what would be an effective "punishment" for a publicly funded organization that provides a vital public service? According to Wikipedia, the sentencing guidelines for corporate homicide in England recommend a fine equal to 5% of annual turnover, but taking money away from the hospital would just seem to exacerbate the problem.
...from what i've seen on social media and in British writing about the case, the entirety of England has decided to throw out Blackstone's Formulation entirely and also yell at anyone who still cares about it.
Unsurprising, it's comforting to think that a lone monster has been eliminated and deeply saddening to consider the possibility that babies may continue to die because of systematic underfunding.
posted by nanny's striped stocking at 2:34 AM on May 17 [2 favorites]
I was really hoping this thread would make it clear why every Brit is foaming at the mouth about this article, the clear evidence they all knew about that it elided, but it's just made me more convinced that something is sus here. Even the commies are going "actually, I trust the Crown Prosecution Service..."
I meet one nice girl from Indiana, and a month later I'm siding with yanks about criminal trials, either I'm down way worse than I thought or something is rotten somewhere, in some state or another.
posted by Audreynachrome at 3:36 AM on May 17 [7 favorites]
I meet one nice girl from Indiana, and a month later I'm siding with yanks about criminal trials, either I'm down way worse than I thought or something is rotten somewhere, in some state or another.
posted by Audreynachrome at 3:36 AM on May 17 [7 favorites]
I don't have enough information or expertise to have a really formed opinion, but it doesn't seem weird to me that someone would write out all the thoughts that were tormenting them, or that a responsible and caring person would second guess herself or worry that somehow she had done it. I'm an anxious person and while I've never had to worry about killing anyone, I've definitely worried about whether things that I knew weren't my fault and couldn't possibly have been my fault were in fact things I'd done by mistake, in a fugue state, etc. If the situation were innocent little babies died while I was trying to take care of them, I could see having a LOT of guilt and anxiety, no matter how good a carer I was.
-Frowner
This here is part of what hit me so personally about the article. I am (despite a screen name I started using at like fourteen) a public defender, and I am intimately familiar with state work under caseloads that, even if you work every unpaid weekend, absolutely preclude practicing up to your ethical minimum standard, let alone the kind of defense you'd be able to give if you had, say, forty instead of ninety cases.
So in the end you have to triage. Low level misdemeanor clients who could win jury trials if we had them just are not going to get the kind of attention and expert testimony and prep that they'd need for those wins because we have to focus that effort and those resources on people who are looking at serious time.
But those low level misdemeanors start to build a criminal record or result in probation that they violate and which lands them in jail. And you absolutely torture yourself in the small hours thinking, "I did that. That was my fault. What if I'd worked Saturday and Sunday that week? What if I'd burned all my capital with that judge and pushed the client to demand a jury on a retail theft?"
And imagining being prosecuted myself for the failures the system forces me to produce, that's harrowing, man.
And then responding to verstegan (and some other's) comments:
Dude the defense strategy here was baffling. 1.5 million pounds could be eaten up by two lawyers just going over the incredibly voluminous discovery so I don't know what kind of budget they had for their own experts or laboratory reports but to not offer any rebuttal to what seems to have been pretty sloppy prosecution medical testimony (gas in the body? Only possible answer is murder. Baby deteriorated? Someone must have inflated the stomach to prevent breathing, a method of murder apparently no other doctor has literally ever seen before) is absolutely nuts.
Character witnesses seems as unforgivable but maybe more explicable; the article mentions that Letby's still-loyal friends have been subject to massive harassment. That only would have gotten worse if they'd testified (but those lawyers should've been leaning on them, and if they were real friends, in my experience, they would've done it anyway).
And finally, I don't take the position some on Twitter have that the UK medical or (in)justice systems are any worse than ours are in the US. Ours are terrible! It's the press stuff over there that's wild (like that you can't even read the NYer piece. In that environment it's no wonder the average Brit is convinced of guilt). And part of why both of our justice systems produce so many wrongful convictions is juries are awful at understanding or respecting reasonable doubt. They have a human reaction ('I mean, I think she did it') and they can't or won't put that aside and apply the actual legal test (are there any remaining legitimate doubts arising from the evidence or lack thereof).
Obviously the situation is pressing every button I've got.
posted by TheProfessor at 4:04 AM on May 17 [38 favorites]
-Frowner
This here is part of what hit me so personally about the article. I am (despite a screen name I started using at like fourteen) a public defender, and I am intimately familiar with state work under caseloads that, even if you work every unpaid weekend, absolutely preclude practicing up to your ethical minimum standard, let alone the kind of defense you'd be able to give if you had, say, forty instead of ninety cases.
So in the end you have to triage. Low level misdemeanor clients who could win jury trials if we had them just are not going to get the kind of attention and expert testimony and prep that they'd need for those wins because we have to focus that effort and those resources on people who are looking at serious time.
But those low level misdemeanors start to build a criminal record or result in probation that they violate and which lands them in jail. And you absolutely torture yourself in the small hours thinking, "I did that. That was my fault. What if I'd worked Saturday and Sunday that week? What if I'd burned all my capital with that judge and pushed the client to demand a jury on a retail theft?"
And imagining being prosecuted myself for the failures the system forces me to produce, that's harrowing, man.
And then responding to verstegan (and some other's) comments:
Dude the defense strategy here was baffling. 1.5 million pounds could be eaten up by two lawyers just going over the incredibly voluminous discovery so I don't know what kind of budget they had for their own experts or laboratory reports but to not offer any rebuttal to what seems to have been pretty sloppy prosecution medical testimony (gas in the body? Only possible answer is murder. Baby deteriorated? Someone must have inflated the stomach to prevent breathing, a method of murder apparently no other doctor has literally ever seen before) is absolutely nuts.
Character witnesses seems as unforgivable but maybe more explicable; the article mentions that Letby's still-loyal friends have been subject to massive harassment. That only would have gotten worse if they'd testified (but those lawyers should've been leaning on them, and if they were real friends, in my experience, they would've done it anyway).
And finally, I don't take the position some on Twitter have that the UK medical or (in)justice systems are any worse than ours are in the US. Ours are terrible! It's the press stuff over there that's wild (like that you can't even read the NYer piece. In that environment it's no wonder the average Brit is convinced of guilt). And part of why both of our justice systems produce so many wrongful convictions is juries are awful at understanding or respecting reasonable doubt. They have a human reaction ('I mean, I think she did it') and they can't or won't put that aside and apply the actual legal test (are there any remaining legitimate doubts arising from the evidence or lack thereof).
Obviously the situation is pressing every button I've got.
posted by TheProfessor at 4:04 AM on May 17 [38 favorites]
I really can't make up my mind on this. I do wonder how much the statistics actually played a role given the sentencing remarks, and given that convictions weren't reached on all 24 cases on the diagram, and she was convicted for 14 of them. That suggests the jury gave a fair bit of thought to each case individually, no?
posted by edd at 4:11 AM on May 17
posted by edd at 4:11 AM on May 17
It seems fairly basic that if the prosecution can't even figure out how the murder occurred, or a better motive than "aww, you've had a rough week, haven't you, have a biscuit", they probably shouldn't be able to lock in first degree murder.
posted by Audreynachrome at 4:23 AM on May 17 [10 favorites]
posted by Audreynachrome at 4:23 AM on May 17 [10 favorites]
I am very close to this situation. The facts are that she was a very hard working neonatal nurse. She would work any time she was asked especially as she lived on site and was only one of two neonatal nurses qualified on the unit the others were not.
This is a story of betrayal by the hospital management who allowed the doctors in charge to run a 'shitshow' literally and metaphorically. The neonatal unit was infected. The doctors in charge were not neonatologist and not interested in neonate. When the disaster happened, mixture of infection, medical negligence, management incompetence they had to blame someone and she was dumped on by the doctors. She was then further dumped on by a so-called medical expert and some others who wove a fantasy that she injected these babies with air. The whole thing is a barrage of lies and deceit and it will be proved in the near future. A group of doctors and scientists are working together to blow this whole sham apart. Lucy's appeal will probably fail initially as the Appeal Court is not interested in overturning verdicts and is politically directed. Once reporting restrictions are lifted the New Yorker story will look like Goldilocks and the three bears. Lucy Letby is guilty only of being a good nurse. She has been screwed by the establishment.
posted by Doctorknow at 6:18 AM on May 17 [29 favorites]
This is a story of betrayal by the hospital management who allowed the doctors in charge to run a 'shitshow' literally and metaphorically. The neonatal unit was infected. The doctors in charge were not neonatologist and not interested in neonate. When the disaster happened, mixture of infection, medical negligence, management incompetence they had to blame someone and she was dumped on by the doctors. She was then further dumped on by a so-called medical expert and some others who wove a fantasy that she injected these babies with air. The whole thing is a barrage of lies and deceit and it will be proved in the near future. A group of doctors and scientists are working together to blow this whole sham apart. Lucy's appeal will probably fail initially as the Appeal Court is not interested in overturning verdicts and is politically directed. Once reporting restrictions are lifted the New Yorker story will look like Goldilocks and the three bears. Lucy Letby is guilty only of being a good nurse. She has been screwed by the establishment.
posted by Doctorknow at 6:18 AM on May 17 [29 favorites]
...welcome to Metafilter!
posted by ominous_paws at 6:46 AM on May 17 [10 favorites]
posted by ominous_paws at 6:46 AM on May 17 [10 favorites]
Audreynachrome: yeah, i mean, my first thought when i learned about this shit (which was months before this New Yorker article; a friend of mine has been reading up on the conviction since December-ish and discussing the flaws in it) is "Does the UK not actually have corpus delicti???? Because in most of these cases they haven't actually proved what the cause of death was!"
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:09 AM on May 17 [2 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:09 AM on May 17 [2 favorites]
I would love to believe that. But this article doesn't persuade me.
Whats the evidence that persuaded you that she's guilty? If she did it, no one knows how she did it!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:52 AM on May 17 [3 favorites]
Whats the evidence that persuaded you that she's guilty? If she did it, no one knows how she did it!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:52 AM on May 17 [3 favorites]
Whats the evidence that persuaded you that she's guilty?
It sounds like the evidence is that people the commenter doesn't like think she's innocent.
posted by zixyer at 9:19 AM on May 17 [3 favorites]
It sounds like the evidence is that people the commenter doesn't like think she's innocent.
posted by zixyer at 9:19 AM on May 17 [3 favorites]
I'd be interested to see a chart of mortality rates over time plotted against the time Letby was working on the ward.
posted by eyeofthetiger at 10:57 AM on May 17 [1 favorite]
posted by eyeofthetiger at 10:57 AM on May 17 [1 favorite]
I'd be interested to see a chart of mortality rates over time plotted against the time Letby was working on the ward.
That would be almost useless. What could it possibly tell you?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:18 AM on May 17 [3 favorites]
That would be almost useless. What could it possibly tell you?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:18 AM on May 17 [3 favorites]
That would be almost useless. What could it possibly tell you?
Sorry to be more clear - with a significant time window pre and post the time Letby worked on the ward. It would be interesting to see the drop-off in mortality if and only if the only change was her presence. Correlation does not equal causation but a correlation in time could be of interest.
It would also give a relative scale of the number of deaths, and to gain an understanding of the frequency of such clusters.
posted by eyeofthetiger at 11:23 AM on May 17 [1 favorite]
Sorry to be more clear - with a significant time window pre and post the time Letby worked on the ward. It would be interesting to see the drop-off in mortality if and only if the only change was her presence. Correlation does not equal causation but a correlation in time could be of interest.
It would also give a relative scale of the number of deaths, and to gain an understanding of the frequency of such clusters.
posted by eyeofthetiger at 11:23 AM on May 17 [1 favorite]
I’m glad this was posted here. I found reading the article a horrifying experience. I admit that this is my only exposure to the case and it is obviously one perspective but it seems very troubling in many areas. It was especially interesting that researchers on statistical biases who had looked at other similar cases tried to flag this one to the prosecution, indicating that it bore many hallmarks of cases which later ended in exoneration for those accused.
It also seems like you have the one nurse with the proper experience, who lives literally on site and who keeps getting called in to situations that are going quickly bad with infants who probably shouldn’t even be at this facility, who then die because of various factors. Even Letby felt that she should not be seeing so many deaths on her watch. But she was being placed in what appears to be an impossible situation and then judged for not performing miracles.
The whole thing makes me feel awful, most especially for the parents who found Letby to be supportive and caring when they went through the awful experience of losing a child and were then told that this person was responsible. Ugh.
posted by dellsolace at 11:41 AM on May 17 [14 favorites]
It also seems like you have the one nurse with the proper experience, who lives literally on site and who keeps getting called in to situations that are going quickly bad with infants who probably shouldn’t even be at this facility, who then die because of various factors. Even Letby felt that she should not be seeing so many deaths on her watch. But she was being placed in what appears to be an impossible situation and then judged for not performing miracles.
The whole thing makes me feel awful, most especially for the parents who found Letby to be supportive and caring when they went through the awful experience of losing a child and were then told that this person was responsible. Ugh.
posted by dellsolace at 11:41 AM on May 17 [14 favorites]
If mortality spiked when she joined, it’s consistent with her being hired to handle the increasing mortality and with her killing the kids.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:08 PM on May 17 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:08 PM on May 17 [2 favorites]
If mortality spiked when she joined, it’s consistent with her being hired to handle the increasing mortality and with her killing the kids.
Certainly. I'd be interested in the data as the premise of the article is that you would see a general long term worsening trend.
The shape of the change after Letby left the ward would be key I think? A gradual decrease would suggest a multitude of causes being addressed, a sharper immediate step change perhaps a singular cause. You'd of course need to rule out changes happening at the same time to make the argument. No change would be pretty damning to the case she was involved.
posted by eyeofthetiger at 12:26 PM on May 17
Certainly. I'd be interested in the data as the premise of the article is that you would see a general long term worsening trend.
The shape of the change after Letby left the ward would be key I think? A gradual decrease would suggest a multitude of causes being addressed, a sharper immediate step change perhaps a singular cause. You'd of course need to rule out changes happening at the same time to make the argument. No change would be pretty damning to the case she was involved.
posted by eyeofthetiger at 12:26 PM on May 17
IMPO if any statistician did such an analysis for the court that would be malpractice---the thing you'd be plotting is so noisy, determined by so many other factors than the presence of one nurse, so easily misinterpreted by those without statistical training, that its a complete minefield.
You cannot look at the derivative of a time series and then suss out whether that time series has one or many causes.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:32 PM on May 17 [6 favorites]
You cannot look at the derivative of a time series and then suss out whether that time series has one or many causes.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:32 PM on May 17 [6 favorites]
There are certainly problems, but remember: the US legal system is also highly imperfect (as is every other one), and just because something's foreign, it doesn't follow that it's wrong.
What rly stuck out to me here was the juror who was discussing the case AT ALL and further implied that the jury had discussed the case amongst themselves prior to deliberating. I was on a jury for a rly intense case a while back (so intense the judge told us we could cite our experience on that particular case to be excused from future juries) - and the one EXTREME no-no was talking abt the case. ESPECIALLY amongst ourselves. It created a rly bizarre environment where nearly half the day the 12 of us would have to chat abt LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE other than the experience we were sharing. Deliberation was in many ways a relief to finally say the “Can you believe THIS thing? And the lawyer did THAT!” that we had all been thinking.
posted by sonika at 12:40 PM on May 17 [7 favorites]
What rly stuck out to me here was the juror who was discussing the case AT ALL and further implied that the jury had discussed the case amongst themselves prior to deliberating. I was on a jury for a rly intense case a while back (so intense the judge told us we could cite our experience on that particular case to be excused from future juries) - and the one EXTREME no-no was talking abt the case. ESPECIALLY amongst ourselves. It created a rly bizarre environment where nearly half the day the 12 of us would have to chat abt LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE other than the experience we were sharing. Deliberation was in many ways a relief to finally say the “Can you believe THIS thing? And the lawyer did THAT!” that we had all been thinking.
posted by sonika at 12:40 PM on May 17 [7 favorites]
The shape of the change after Letby left the ward would be key I think? A gradual decrease would suggest a multitude of causes being addressed, a sharper immediate step change perhaps a singular cause. You'd of course need to rule out changes happening at the same time to make the argument. No change would be pretty damning to the case she was involved.
eyeofthetiger: the problem here is that, as the article points out, the ward was downgraded at more or less the exact same time that Letby stopped working there. (Downgraded means, in this case, that they were specifically not tasked with the most difficult/emergent of the cases they had been handling before.) At that point, it's comparing apples to oranges, regardless of Letby's presence, and you can't get any kind of statistical correlation that means a goddamn thing.
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:20 PM on May 17 [12 favorites]
eyeofthetiger: the problem here is that, as the article points out, the ward was downgraded at more or less the exact same time that Letby stopped working there. (Downgraded means, in this case, that they were specifically not tasked with the most difficult/emergent of the cases they had been handling before.) At that point, it's comparing apples to oranges, regardless of Letby's presence, and you can't get any kind of statistical correlation that means a goddamn thing.
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:20 PM on May 17 [12 favorites]
Can anyone point to reputable further analysis of the insulin poisonings?
posted by haptic_avenger at 1:26 PM on May 18 [1 favorite]
posted by haptic_avenger at 1:26 PM on May 18 [1 favorite]
I feel like the US and the UK are in a sort of uncanny valley situation. Our legal systems and media ecosystems are similar in so many ways until they strikingly aren’t, which makes any differences feel that much more jarring. This isn’t to suggest that either system is superior (both are incredibly problematic!), just that the closeness breeds confusion.
One thing that stood out to me from the article was an exchange during Letby’s cross-examination, which seems like something that would have been immediately and loudly objected to in a US courtroom. Are the rules around leading questions and badgering witnesses significantly different in the UK? From the article:
Johnson repeatedly accused her of lying. “You are a very calculating woman, aren’t you, Lucy Letby?” he said.
“No,” she replied.
He asked, “The reason you tell lies is to try to get sympathy from people, isn’t it?”
“No.”
“You try to get attention from people, don’t you?”
“No.”
“In killing these children, you got quite a lot of attention, didn’t you?”
“I didn’t kill the children.”
It struck me as a line of questioning that would be hard to get away with in the US, though I suppose a prosecutor might try to see how far they could get before they were shot down.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 3:15 PM on May 18 [5 favorites]
One thing that stood out to me from the article was an exchange during Letby’s cross-examination, which seems like something that would have been immediately and loudly objected to in a US courtroom. Are the rules around leading questions and badgering witnesses significantly different in the UK? From the article:
Johnson repeatedly accused her of lying. “You are a very calculating woman, aren’t you, Lucy Letby?” he said.
“No,” she replied.
He asked, “The reason you tell lies is to try to get sympathy from people, isn’t it?”
“No.”
“You try to get attention from people, don’t you?”
“No.”
“In killing these children, you got quite a lot of attention, didn’t you?”
“I didn’t kill the children.”
It struck me as a line of questioning that would be hard to get away with in the US, though I suppose a prosecutor might try to see how far they could get before they were shot down.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 3:15 PM on May 18 [5 favorites]
I am reminded of the case of Australia's Kathleen Folbigg who was recently exonerated after a decades long battle. Wrongly accused of killing her children; her distressed and self-accusing diary entries were used against her without being analysed by relevant experts (until the recent successful appeal).
Trying to find an article that's not paywalled- perhaps this one from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Freeing her was an international effort led by a young local lawyer.
posted by Coaticass at 11:22 PM on May 18 [4 favorites]
Trying to find an article that's not paywalled- perhaps this one from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Freeing her was an international effort led by a young local lawyer.
posted by Coaticass at 11:22 PM on May 18 [4 favorites]
Guys
The statistics used were criminally distorted.
We have proper statisticians work on the real data and as they say...nothing to see here...
Big point of the day is that we have just reported the doctors to the police for Gross Negligence Manslaughter as well as the hospital administration for the same thing. We have also this day reported the main so-called prosecution 'Medical Expert' to the General Medical Council for malpractice and he will be reported to the police for the serious UK crime of Perversion of the Course of Justice.
This all takes a new perspective and anyone who sees her as a guilty witch will soon find that they should leave their preconceptions at home where they belong.
posted by Doctorknow at 8:28 AM on May 19 [3 favorites]
The statistics used were criminally distorted.
We have proper statisticians work on the real data and as they say...nothing to see here...
Big point of the day is that we have just reported the doctors to the police for Gross Negligence Manslaughter as well as the hospital administration for the same thing. We have also this day reported the main so-called prosecution 'Medical Expert' to the General Medical Council for malpractice and he will be reported to the police for the serious UK crime of Perversion of the Course of Justice.
This all takes a new perspective and anyone who sees her as a guilty witch will soon find that they should leave their preconceptions at home where they belong.
posted by Doctorknow at 8:28 AM on May 19 [3 favorites]
So is the New Yorker article in violation of the contempt-of-court laws?
posted by Ollie at 9:28 AM on May 19
posted by Ollie at 9:28 AM on May 19
Ollie
It probably is and surprisingly it got through onto the shelves in the stores (I have my own prized copies) but I think NY geo-blocked the article on the internet although it only took about half an hour to make it widely available here in UK. The NY doesn't have a legal entity in the UK that can be sued by the government but as it is a subsidiary of Conde Waste they might try to go for the head company. However the 'secret police' here are so intent on keeping this case shut down that there has been very little mention in the press. However soon all the trash press that were baying to have Lucy hung drawn and quartered will no doubt soon be crying out against the injustice of it all. Watch this space as the Lucy Letby trial was the biggest crime committed in our courts since they stopped executing people.
posted by Doctorknow at 9:58 AM on May 19 [3 favorites]
It probably is and surprisingly it got through onto the shelves in the stores (I have my own prized copies) but I think NY geo-blocked the article on the internet although it only took about half an hour to make it widely available here in UK. The NY doesn't have a legal entity in the UK that can be sued by the government but as it is a subsidiary of Conde Waste they might try to go for the head company. However the 'secret police' here are so intent on keeping this case shut down that there has been very little mention in the press. However soon all the trash press that were baying to have Lucy hung drawn and quartered will no doubt soon be crying out against the injustice of it all. Watch this space as the Lucy Letby trial was the biggest crime committed in our courts since they stopped executing people.
posted by Doctorknow at 9:58 AM on May 19 [3 favorites]
From edd's linik: The full reasons for the judges' decision were not made public, with the full details of Letby's appeal bid also unable to be published for legal reasons.
So since she lost her appeal, can those reasons be released? If not, is it because she still faces retrial on one count? After all trials are over and she has exhausted all appeals, then can the info be released? Then can the British public actually read the FPP article?
posted by hydropsyche at 9:33 AM on May 24
So since she lost her appeal, can those reasons be released? If not, is it because she still faces retrial on one count? After all trials are over and she has exhausted all appeals, then can the info be released? Then can the British public actually read the FPP article?
posted by hydropsyche at 9:33 AM on May 24
Yes everything is blocked because of the next round of her persecution in June. However the article is getting around and a groundswell of disgust is growing about this here in the UK. Strictly it is illegal to have and circulate the article. But what a situation where you have a corrupt legal system warning good citizens not to break the law.....you could not make it up!!
posted by Doctorknow at 2:46 AM on May 26 [3 favorites]
posted by Doctorknow at 2:46 AM on May 26 [3 favorites]
« Older "Every time you kiss me, feels like a..." WHAT? | It becomes apparent there were at least three... Newer »
Well, her post-it note concluding "I AM EVIL I DID THIS" might not have helped. (As a Brit enjoying my Brexit freedoms, I can't access the New Yorker link, so apologies if this is all well dealt with there).
posted by robself at 10:24 AM on May 16 [5 favorites]