I have copied the comment below that Jessica Cash has made below on a Facebook page after the release of the murder sheet podcast. I really think they have done an excellent job of breaking down the NY article, Rinder should give it a listen…
The comment about insulin is quite damming, even the defence didn’t argue someone was responsible for poisoning babies.
while I would have loved to get into the NYer article more, and loads of other things as well, the episode would have been even longer.
I don't know if you've listened already? I do address the article, including giving the full version of the juror issue alluded to in the NYer piece.
In terms of the statistical side, I'm not sure the article gets much further than raising some general concerns about the use of statistics in cases such as this. I did mention the chart of the 25 "suspicious incidents", and said that one criticism of it has been that it doesn't list all deaths for that time period. There were 6 more which were not deemed suspicious - and if Letby had not been on shift for some or all of them, she could argue that they were being ignored because they couldn't be linked to her. However, Letby was also on shift for all 6 of those deaths deemed non-suspicious. Adding them to the chart of the 25 suspicious incidents would make it more damning for her, not less.
Additionally, Dr Dewi Evans was not told that there were concerns about a specific nurse when he began his review - he was given medical information covering over a year, on a ward of up to 16 babies at a time, and looked at collapses, deaths, etc. to try and find any commonalities, underlying causes, failures in practice, or inflicted harm. When he worked through the records, he eliminated incidents that were clearly natural, gradually working down to 25 that he felt could not be explained, and had some unusual shared features.
After that, when police began working on each incident, all separately from one another to avoid influencing any conclusions, in each instance Letby was not just present but closely involved. They found evidence including records showing Letby's presence when she was assigned to other babies in different rooms. They took witness statements from parents, doctors and nurses who mentioned Letby, some merely noting her presence - but some damning.
For example, Dr Jayaram seeing her standing over a desaturating baby and not providing any medical intervention herself or sounding the alarm for a doctor. In this instance, the designated nurse left the ward briefly at 3.30 to speak to parents, at which time baby was "stable", leaving Letby alone with her. The nurse returned at 3.47, by which time Dr Jayaram was treating the baby - so in under 17 minutes, while Letby was alone with her, she went from stable to desaturating, her tube was dislodged, and Letby didn't intervene or call for help. She wasn't just on shift at the time, she was alone and acting suspiciously - Letby being alone with a baby is a common feature of these incidents.
There's also the mother who walked in to find her baby screaming and bleeding, Letby alone (again), not assisting the baby (again) or even standing next to the cot observing, and just telling the mum to go back to the maternity ward; her recollection was supported by her known routine - she knew it was 9pm because that's when she brought milk to the ward - both her and the dad recall her calling him shortly after 9 and being very concerned about the blood, and her phone records show this was the only call she made until some time later. The later call was very different - it was when the baby had deteriorated, a nurse told the mum and said dad should be informed - by then mum was so distressed that a midwife had to take over the call to dad, separating it from the earlier call in their memories.
This matters a lot, because Letby denied that the mum had been there - she claimed that mum had been there briefly when Letby's shift began, and returned when baby had deteoriated (10pm or later iirc). So Letby's version of events completely omits mum hearing baby scream, seeing the blood, with only Letby in the room - meaning we have to believe her self-serving claim, over the memories of both parents recalling the very traumatic night their baby suddenly died, backed up by phone records of their call times.
Mum's routine of a 9pm milk run every day fits her account and conflicts with Letby's, and the midwife who spoke to dad remembered that mum was concerned about baby *before* being told later that he had collapsed. For Letby's claims to be true, we'd have to think either mum WAS concerned already, but for no reason, and yet despite that concern she didn't come as planned at 9 - or that the midwife (and mum, and dad) are lying or mistaken, the phone call just after 9 wasn't mum worrying about baby screaming and bleeding, it was something else that neither of them remember, and the later call from the midwife was when dad was first informed (despite he and mum both remembering two calls)
The police on each separate incident did not know that some doctors suspected Letby, or that she was involved in other incidents, until they reported what they had found. Dewi Evans deemed incidents suspicious for medical reasons, not due to Letby being on shift - and police each, separately, found that she was somehow involved in all of them.
The New Yorker article raises doubts about whether insulin was actually used in the two poisoning cases, suggesting that the collapses and the test results may have a natural explanation. However, it completely omits the fact that at trial the defense agreed with the prosecution that someone had administered insulin to both babies - they did not dispute the diagnoses. The NYer can make that argument without facing cross-examination, which perhaps is the difference.
least it helps with doing a twitter timeline cleanse, seeing anyone come out in support of her is getting unfollowed, regardless of other views/ interests we may have in common. As my toddler would say Yucky
www.bbc.co.uk
