Lucy Letby - Baby Serial Killer (1 Viewer)

[Tisch]

I haven't read the article yet, but is the argument basically statistics?

There was a case in Australia in the 90s/00s where a woman went to prison because her four babies died from cot death. The argument being that there must have been some foul play. It was overturned when it was argued, that although there was a remote possibility she could have just been that monstrously unlucky, there was a possibility nonetheless and actually no evidence of foul play was ever proven.

The Letby case taking place in a hospital over less time and with more victims is obviously quite different. I personally think she must be guilty, but that 0.00000000377272 probability of her being innocent will always exist.

 

[Slave]

I'm inclined to agree with @cwej's book of stats. Even if one of the other nurses was on shift for all 6 of the omitted deaths, Lucy Letby would still have been present far more and way above the average.

Some of the arguments used to counter her methods are also a bit flimsy:

Other prosecution expert witnesses largely agreed with Evans’s opinion on this. But the idea that injecting air into the stomach via a nasogastric tube could cause collapse leading to death was described as nonsensical or “rubbish”, “ridiculous”, “implausible” and “fantastical”, by eight separate expert clinicians who spoke to the Guardian, seven of them specialising in neonatology.

Several said it was not practically feasible. Nasogastric tubes are tiny; it would take several refills using the 10ml syringes on neonatal units to inject a significant quantity of air. Furthermore, it would leak out or the baby would burp or vomit it up, or pass it as wind, they said.

Evans said: “It was a phenomenon I had never encountered previously.” He added that without the full clinical records, others could not comment objectively.

Who's doing trials on how much air you can inject into a neonate and the side effects of doing so?! They're comparing what might happen if the air was injected accidentally versus doing it intentionally. Yes, they're very small tubes, and yes the department probably only had 10ml syringes. That doesn't mean the equipment is immune from misuse if someone intends to use it to cause harm or that the recipient would respond in the usual way.

 

[cwej]

I haven't read the article yet, but is the argument basically statistics?

There was a case in Australia in the 90s/00s where a woman went to prison because her four babies died from cot death. The argument being that there must have been some foul play. It was overturned when it was argued, that although there was a remote possibility she could have just been that monstrously unlucky, there was a possibility nonetheless and actually no evidence of foul play was ever proven.

The Letby case taking place in a hospital over less time and with more victims is obviously quite different. I personally think she must be guilty, but that 0.00000000377272 probability of her being innocent will always exist.

There was one in the UK - the Angela Cannings case - but that was with just 2 children - it was thrown out on retrial because there was zero other evidence.

There is a massive difference between the two situations - first of all the probability of having a second child die of sudden death syndrome increases if you've already had one in the same family so that statistics of just multiplying the two probabilities together are false. Secondly, the probabilities are even lower in this case. Thirdly, the fact that the baby is cared for by different people on different shifts, but tend to survive under other people's care, but not under her care, implies either foul play (or very poor nursing). Finally, there is some other evidence, however circumstantial it might be - there weren't letters written by Cannings about killing babies, found around her house.

 

[ZenGiraffe]

There was a case in Australia in the 90s/00s where a woman went to prison because her four babies died from cot death. The argument being that there must have been some foul play. It was overturned when it was argued, that although there was a remote possibility she could have just been that monstrously unlucky, there was a possibility nonetheless and actually no evidence of foul play was ever proven.

Does cot death have a genetic component? If it does, then it can't be that unlikely surely

 

[Sheena]

LITERALLY #CWEJBOOKOFSTATS

 

[Tisch]

Does cot death have a genetic component? If it does, then it can't be that unlikely surely

I really can't remember the details, it was over a decade ago I read about it. But I think essentially, yes, but the trial was so het up on her surely not being unlucky four times. I think new medical research came to light after the conviction.

Edit: this is her https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathl...n_2023,appeal_a_few_months_later.?wprov=sfla1

 

[Ellie]

LITERALLY #CWEJBOOKOFSTATS

I genuinely really appreciate it. It’s very interesting and he does all the work

 

[untilted]

Sorry the statistics thing really doesn't add up even if they did omit 6 baby deaths (which they really shouldn't have done - that's the sort of thing that is surely grounds for a mistrial) - but even if they'd included the fact that 6 more babies died that she wasn't there for she was present for 25 out of 31.

If we assume she works a 50 hours week, she's present on the ward 0.29 of the time so expected to be on shift 9 out of 31 deaths. She was on shift 25 out of 31.

Assuming that everyone is equally likely to be on shift when a baby dies, the chances of her being on shift for 25 of the deaths is: 0.00000000377272 (0%) or 1 in 265000000, if the people on shift were independent of the baby's deaths. Either she was a terrible terrible nurse or a murderer.

 

[untilted]

But seriously thanks @cwej

there is a LOT to digest about all of this, even now. I’m very conscious that if I tap into the “…but how could she?” mindset a part of me feels like my judgement becomes clouded by the fact that she is a middle class white woman who liked Disney and salsa. It feels problematic.

But there are so many questions?

 

[Star]

I really can't remember the details, it was over a decade ago I read about it. But I think essentially, yes, but the trial was so het up on her surely not being unlucky four times. I think new medical research came to light after the conviction.

Edit: this is her https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Folbigg#:~:text=She_was_pardoned_in_2023,appeal_a_few_months_later.?wprov=sfla1

I think I listened to a podcast on this one. There was some rare genetic mutation in this case I'm sure.

 

[GNL]

The Lucy Letby is innocent truthers have gone too far. Now they're throwing parties for her:

 

[cwej]

LITERALLY #CWEJBOOKOFSTATS

You should come to my A Level stats classes - you are all invited

 

[cwej]

However my stats have been debunked by the oracle that is Nadine Dorries.

 

[jivafox]

She was a nurse for five minutes flat!

 

[funky]

She was a nurse for five minutes flat!

That’s still a LOT more time than she contributed as a politician!