Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Evelyn K. Brunswick's avatar

If that doesn't look like 'reasonable doubt' then I'm, erm, I don't know, the pope, maybe. Certainly not someone who did actually get a B grade in A-level maths which involved a fair amount of stats & prob, and can follow your reasoning.

One larger probability comparison I would love to see is with other comparable NICUs. Statistically speaking, I mean, given that every baby in an NICU has an elevated probability of dying, what is the average for a level 2 NICU mortality cluster. Likewise, what would be the probability of any randomly selected NICU nurse being associated with a cluster of deaths. I would imagine we're talking about 'standard deviations' here. Given the number of NICUs, and over a given number of years, I would imagine the percentage chance is 99.9% or something. And the more years which pass the tendency towards 100% increases, until 'it happens'. Thus, what really determines whether a nurse gets accused (let alone prosecuted) is the personality of the people around her, in particular the specialists. I would not be surprised if Lucy wasn't the only nurse statistically associated with such a cluster, just that she happened to be the only one surrounded by sociopaths, including a 'TV Doctor' with a sunk cost fallacy. If you get my meaning.

Anyhow, I think the point here is that serious monitoring, psychologically speaking, of the personality types in high risk environments like an NICU needs to be a matter of course. That kind of monitoring could've prevented this entire miscarriage of justice.

You have done amazing work here, by the way. I'm not surprised you haven't had much sleep! And I do hope that all of this can get to whichever uncorrupted future defence team LL might have, and thus lead to a total acquittal. And sooner, rather than later.

Expand full comment
Anne Stoye's avatar

I would find it really helpful if you could note on past discussion of particular babies what the relevant trial verdict was.

Thank you for this article. I was aware of the general pattern and principles but very helpful to see the risks quantified. Given the significant increase in high risk babies on the change to level 2, the consultants should have expected the number of deaths to increase. Are they bad at maths/lacking numeracy? Another possibility is that they tried to discredit a nurse whom they knew would be a whistleblower when there were problems? Probably hoping she would move hospitals rather than prison for life.

Expand full comment
20 more comments...

No posts