Experts warn Letby inquiry of misreading stats to explain 'suspicious' deaths

1) understand that there are two types of ambulance (generally) - basic life support and advanced life support - the latter carries invasive care options, and narcotics, the former does not. They called us for an interfaculty transport approximately 200 miles. Patient was given pain meds before transport. Late in transport, EMTs on a BLS ambulance (no narcotics physically on board the ambulance) noted the patient was in profound respiratory depression and treated that - arriving at the hospital, it was discovered that the patient had been given vastly too much narcotics. Originating hospital insisted that it must have been given in transport. Kept insisting all the way to a DOH hearing. The EMT and the ambulance company were cleared and the hospital and nurse faced repercussions for documentation, administration, cover-up issues, but they still had to have their day in "court" to get to that point.

2) A deputy cracked his neck, and unbeknownst to him, partially severed a blood vessel. He contacted EMS complaining of nausea and vomiting. Among other things, a stroke test was done (negative) and he was taken to the hospital. CTs were done, and the physician at the hospital was insistent that all was clear, and was about to discharge him with vertigo, while other deputies insisted something was seriously wrong, and getting worse with him. Another provider sent scans to a major trauma center who noted that he had indeed had a stroke. He was also now failing a stroke test. He was transferred and treated but irreversible damage had occurred needing 24/7 nursing care, and lawsuits were launched. He died a month or so later. The hospital tried to throw EMTs under the bus, saying that they failed to diagnose or tell the hospital that the patient was having a stroke. Even though at the hospital another initial stroke test was performed by a physician with a negative result. The hospital then said there were subtle signs that in hindsight the EMTs "should have recognized" (but apparently a physician should not have been expected to...). That case is still ongoing, but the ambulance company managed to extricate itself after settling for policy limits (which was farcical in itself).

My point is that the judge awarded her a life sentence on each of the cases:

"on each of the seven offences of murder, and the seven offences of attempted murder, I sentence you to imprisonment for life."

Even if the other cases turn out to be unsafe, she would still be imprisoned for life.

It is not unexpected of depressed people to blame themselves for bad things that happen around them, I think. …For multiple reasons, (1.) because you really do hate yourself that much, and might view those tragic events as also personal failures, and (2.) because for the suicidally depressed, it can be a way to manufacture a reason to believe why you deserve to be hated or physically injured.

IIRC the insulin levels or something were rather suspicious, but in general I sorta can't and shouldn't comment on the validity of rest of the case as a bystander. But when I read about that note in particular, my read on it was that somebody who actually did kill them versus somebody who just feels really bad about the situation and wants to vent in their own private space would write down the exact same thing in the exact same way with equivalent plausibility. She was a nurse, and babies died in her care; it is entirely plausible that, especially if she was already depressed, she would view that as being her fault and find some way to internalize the tragedy even if she didn't actually do anything to cause it.

And, IIRC, Letby did basically say that that was what she meant by the note— So, in sum, an innocent person who had been blaming themselves and a murderer trying to lie their way out of justice IMO would have written down the exact same thing with equal plausibility, and then tried to explain it the exact same way, which means that IMO that datapoint is basically useless for determining her guilt.

There was other evidence presented too, of course. I'm glad to hear that the conviction didn't rest on just that note, because given the situation, we don't actually know in isolation why she wrote that or what she meant by it— Most murderers try to avoid leaving confessions lying around to be used as evidence too.

I have no idea how much that affected the jury but it's just as important to remember that false confessions are a thing, and a common thing at that [2], and they have led to many false convictions. The wikipedia article I cite has a _very_ long list from many places in the world.

At the end of the day, innocent people can confess and guilty people can maintain their innocence. A confession is no more reason to accept guilt than protestations of innocence are reason to assume innocence.

Again, I don't know how much the jury were influenced by the note, but, anecdotally, the press has certainly held it up as some sort of evidence, and I've seen people on the internet take it as such, also. See for example a parent comment.

_____________

[1] For example, here:

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/lucy-let...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession

Chief among these was the duty roster spreadsheet showing staff shifts, through which the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was "able to show the jury that Letby was the one common denominator in the series of deaths and sudden collapses on the neonatal unit".

https://theweek.com/law/lucy-letby-and-the-importance-of-und...

That is totally statistical information - even though it's, shall we say, lay statistics and not what you'd expect to see from a statistician.