4 ms·

Anybody who closely followed this case who could identify for the readers here any direct evidence of these crimes, or should we read this article to imply Lucy

by piker 3y ago

Anybody who closely followed this case who could identify for the readers here any direct evidence of these crimes, or should we read this article to imply Lucy herself might be innocent?

anewhnaccount2 3y ago
The evidence suggests that many of the deaths had symptoms consistent with being injected with air. We would need to have a model of P(symptoms_i|not injected with air) to try and get to the possibility of there having been a miscarriage of justice.
DanBC 3y ago
> or should we read this article to imply Lucy herself might be innocent? No, the point being made is that a murderer was able to evade detection because her employing organisation did not understand the data they had, because they did not understand statistics.
- d1sxeyes 3y ago
  I don’t think that’s the point either. I think the point is “be very careful jumping to conclusions, and just because you may find patterns similar to those in this case elsewhere, that does not mean that we are necessarily dealing with another serial killer”.
randomcarbloke 3y ago
She kept notes, apparently there was an abundance of evidence in her home, doctors had raised concerns. This isn't a case of relying solely on data, rather the data bear out what everything else suggests.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  IIRC, doctors/administrators dismissed statistical evidence as "it couldn't be lovely Lucy". Whether it was possible to make statistical inferences probably speaks more to whether the family's have a case against the hospitals/health authorities for neglect, eg neglecting to follow up on suspicions.
krisoft 3y ago
There were various postmortem findings described as anomalous. Child F had a bloodwork which indicated that someone gave them a large amount of insulin. Child D’s post mortem X-ray is said to show air injected into their blood vessels. Child L also had insulin in their blood. I’m not an expert so I can’t say for certain how strong these evidence are. Also my understanding that while these are evidence that a crime happened, they do not tie Lucy directly to the crime. The evidence for that is circumstatial, mainly that she was the only one on duty for all the collapses said to be suspicious.
- YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
  >> Child F had a bloodwork which indicated that someone gave them a large amount of insulin. >> Child L also had insulin in their blood. Those were not post-mortems because these two children didn't die. Lucy Letby was accused of attempting to murder them, by injecting them with insulin. See here, towards the end of the article, a summary of accusations and convictions: https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/children/breaking-lucy-letby-convicted-of-murdering-seven-babies-at-hospital-neonatal-unit-18-08-2023/ https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/children/breaking-lucy-let...
  - krisoft 3y ago
    You are correct. Thank you for the correction.
crote 3y ago
I recommend reading the Wikipedia page, the "2023 Trial" section has a pretty good overview.

by piker 3y ago

Anybody who closely followed this case who could identify for the readers here any direct evidence of these crimes, or should we read this article to imply Lucy herself might be innocent?

anewhnaccount2 3y ago

The evidence suggests that many of the deaths had symptoms consistent with being injected with air. We would need to have a model of P(symptoms_i|not injected with air) to try and get to the possibility of there having been a miscarriage of justice.

DanBC 3y ago

> or should we read this article to imply Lucy herself might be innocent? No, the point being made is that a murderer was able to evade detection because her employing organisation did not understand the data they had, because they did not understand statistics.

d1sxeyes 3y ago
I don’t think that’s the point either. I think the point is “be very careful jumping to conclusions, and just because you may find patterns similar to those in this case elsewhere, that does not mean that we are necessarily dealing with another serial killer”.

randomcarbloke 3y ago

She kept notes, apparently there was an abundance of evidence in her home, doctors had raised concerns. This isn't a case of relying solely on data, rather the data bear out what everything else suggests.

pbhjpbhj 3y ago
IIRC, doctors/administrators dismissed statistical evidence as "it couldn't be lovely Lucy". Whether it was possible to make statistical inferences probably speaks more to whether the family's have a case against the hospitals/health authorities for neglect, eg neglecting to follow up on suspicions.

krisoft 3y ago

There were various postmortem findings described as anomalous. Child F had a bloodwork which indicated that someone gave them a large amount of insulin. Child D’s post mortem X-ray is said to show air injected into their blood vessels. Child L also had insulin in their blood. I’m not an expert so I can’t say for certain how strong these evidence are. Also my understanding that while these are evidence that a crime happened, they do not tie Lucy directly to the crime. The evidence for that is circumstatial, mainly that she was the only one on duty for all the collapses said to be suspicious.

YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
>> Child F had a bloodwork which indicated that someone gave them a large amount of insulin. >> Child L also had insulin in their blood. Those were not post-mortems because these two children didn't die. Lucy Letby was accused of attempting to murder them, by injecting them with insulin. See here, towards the end of the article, a summary of accusations and convictions: https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/children/breaking-lucy-letby-convicted-of-murdering-seven-babies-at-hospital-neonatal-unit-18-08-2023/ https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/children/breaking-lucy-let...
- krisoft 3y ago
  You are correct. Thank you for the correction.

crote 3y ago

I recommend reading the Wikipedia page, the "2023 Trial" section has a pretty good overview.