Lucy Letby, Joan of Arc and witchcraft: When people believe the unbelievable. The role of Groupthink in Miscarriages and Abortions of Justice

Lucy Letby

“Following the deaths (sic) of Baby O, within hours, Dr. Brearey insisted Lucy be removed from the unit, even phoning the senior nurse at home to put pressure & contacting Dr. Gibbs to demand her removal. It turns out he was responsible for gross medical negligence (he pushed a needle through Baby O’s liver apparently by mistake) or manslaughter. His concern was that Lucy was about to report the incident, so he needed to discredit her & get her away from the unit & her colleagues.” From @dianamerrick

“Baby 15 - (Child O): The prosecution said Letby murdered the triplet boy by injecting air into his bloodstream and inflicting trauma to his liver. The panel said he died from liver damage caused by traumatic delivery, resulting in bleeding in the abdomen and profound shock.” From the Shoo Lee Panel

VIDEO of Senior nurse Michelle Worden talking to Peter Elston about the circumstances at Countess of Chester Hospital prior to the deaths. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCjG5Jaj1nc

Groupthink

Groupthink is one of the most interesting aspects of social psychology and although it was named technically in 1952 by Whyte, it wasn’t until Janis (1972 and 1982) that the idea began to gain popularity. Once understood it’s obvious. It refers to people believing something that cannot be true (through confirmation bias), but they have convinced themselves it is true. The areas I studied were the Jonestown massacre and, of all things, National Socialism, but history abounds with examples, most noteworthy being the Anabaptists, the most terrible being the Aztecs but no less the 17th century witch-hunts in England and New England as well as Scotland. Even worse were the Puritan witch-hunters of the time. Net Zero seems to be becoming another case and the idea that a man can change into a woman (and vice versa) has been dismissed by the Supreme court this very day.

Janis himself used the examples of the Bay of Pigs and Pearl Harbour but, in any event, groupthink is a powerful belief held by a group of people without sufficient criticism of the idea in the development. I remember vividly when the liberal Conservative David Cameron stated in parliament that the Crash of 2008 was caused by Groupthink, or it had a part to play, and it was the first time I, personally, had heard groupthink mentioned or discussed publicly.

It doesn’t stop at that. Confirmation bias can be considered the default cognitive setting at birth. Making decisions that make you happy are on the surface a rational thing to do. Making decisions that confirm your own beliefs are inevitable unless one has been trained in how to avoid confirmation bias. This requires a reflective quality from the person to watch their own decision-making and see if it is objective. This requires Socratic questioning, used for the purposes of establishing one’s own sub-conscious motives. This anti-confirmation bias movement was significantly advanced by the Enlightenment and the work of Francis Bacon in particular, although not called that at the time. Many would see it as scepticism.

In the absence of such reflective thinking the spread of individual confirmation bias into a group of people sharing the same thought leads to groupthink. Hofstede (1982) demonstrated corporate groupthink in his seminal work at IBM in the early 1980s, demonstrating a tendency for groupthink as in “Yes-men” who simply agreed with the ideas of the CEO for obvious reasons: questioning the leader is not good for one’s career.

As in court cases, various triggers exist to cause confirmation bias, not least institutional pressures (for a full discussion on triggers for bias see “Whatever Happened to Socrates" FAW, 13/12/2024). The whole criminal justice system is geared towards believing a person guilty before the trial itself. Why else bring the case? The key is: how is the evidence presented in court and what process has been followed to obtain the certainty of guilt?

Obviously, if the prosecution only presents the evidence it wants to present and particularly doesn’t disclose exculpatory evidence in its possession (as has just been exposed in the Lucy Letby case regarding emails being disclosed by the consultant Jayaram), the case will be biased and the magistrates or jury will be misled. Because of the inherent misplaced trust in the status quo, magistrates and juries will be inclined to believe the CPS (in the case of England). If a Behaviourist approach is taken and “building the case” has been adopted, the CPS can find they come unstuck when the defence counsel provide contradictory evidence that disproves the prosecution claims. If, however, the defence takes a more collusive approach, trying a get a plea deal, or not wishing to rock the establishment boat, as appears to be the case with Lucy Letby, and was the case with the Birmingham Six, the prosecution will have the upper hand.

In my experience, judges themselves are a mixed bag. Given some of the absurd rulings in immigration cases recently it would appear the healthy respect the Anglo-Saxon judges had for the plaintiffs would seem to have dissipated.

Anglo-Saxon Law

English Law is a miracle in itself. The Common Law has spread all over the world and is used in many aspects of international law, not least commercial law. My particular theory is in the origins of English law, which itself started with the Anglo-Saxons. Imagine being a judge in those times if the case was between an Angle, i.e. a Dane, and a Saxon. Given the cultures of the two groups a judge would have to be careful. The violent actions of the Danes and the Vikings such as the “Blood Eagle,” are well contrasted with the Saxons who are named after their famous knife or short sword known as the saexe, no doubt used for slaughtering pigs. The possible outcome for a judge who showed any favour to either group could have in the back of his mind the possible outcome for the judge. Thus, the need for true objectivity would rise to the front of his mind. Such objectivity would not be so apparent where the stakes weren’t so high. Thus, objectivity found its way into the courts. Certainly, we get common law and Torts from the immediately later periods from the Normans onwards. But, as my favourite analysis of the Romans is that they could build aqueducts as straight as imaginable yet had the most absurd social beliefs, so English law appeared from Anglo-Saxon law with absurd beliefs, not least witchcraft.

Witchcraft

“Behold: a witch!” (Anon)

We all know the story of Jeanne D’Arc or Joan of Arc. In 1430, The French Dauphine and his forces are struggling against the English when this peasant girl appears to lead the way and, after some scepticism, she was accepted. She won some victories, then the Burgundians captured her, sold her to the English who burnt her as a witch, for heresy. 18 years later she was pardoned because, it now came to light, there had been errors in procedure. She was burnt as the consequence of some mad groupthink.

In fact, one of the best historical examples of Groupthink is English and Scottish Witchcraft, although the Aztecs remain the worst of all in my hallway of horror. Who would consider tearing peoples’ hearts out an acceptable public past-time?! It’s one of the curiosities of my life that I end up at a place I hadn’t imagined, not because of a lack of imagination but no supposedly rational person would think about witchcraft four hundred years later.

Why would I? Witchcraft? Society – Western civilisation – has its own beliefs. Stereotypes perform a function. It gives you some idea of what to expect. When the stereotype is broken, it causes some surprise, and some interest.

What was the surprise? We know the pointed-hatted women (a pointed hat was a Welsh style) stirring the cauldron source of the witches’ brew – or broom - dancing around at the cross-roads, under the influence of the hallucinatory mandrake: imagine a group of Puritans coming upon that scene.

It was more complex, however. Witches were controlling aspects of the medical world which clumsy pioneers of the new “science” decided belonged to the white men who became the medical fraternity. Witches were a threat to their income. In this case, white, male, university-educated, scientists trying to make a living for themselves (obstetrics), off the back of, not-so-poor country-ladies with a knowledge of wild herbs and, more importantly: mid-wifery.

And, so it was, sometime before, in 1990, that I first came across the historical witch, courtesy of Alan McFarlane (1974). I didn’t expect what I read, but I went with it. Since then, there have been many dramatized versions of historical Witchcraft, including Salem in the American Colonies and the Witchfinder General (Hopkins, 1647) in Old England and many, many more cases. Amazingly, James I of England wrote “Daemonology” in 1609 and actually served as a Judge in one witchcraft trial. The English and Scots really believed in witchcraft. Queens were accused of witchcraft, not least Anne Boleyn (for bearing a badly deformed child which died). What does being a “witch” even mean?

My result is that the word “witch” has some relation to “wykes” and “-wiches” as in “Ipswich” and “Norwich,” Greenwich and Yarwich (York). Wykes or “salt-marshes“ were important at a time when – Romano-pre-Christian – salt was money as in the Roman “salarium” from where we English get the word “salary” ; salt because food needed preserving as a matter of urgency; and the need to keep food edible, as salt allows.

Then, there’s the wicker and the Wicca and ancient, pre-Christian culture called Wicker or Wicca. In reality, these pre-Christian women were also known as “cunning-women” (from the German “kennen,” to know). Male witches were also called cunning-men. In a pre-scientific age, there were no doctors other than witches. (In other cultures, they are known as Shamen).

The women witches were particularly engaged with mid-wifery (ironically enough) and were herbalists. My favourite example of witch-craft is willow bark. From willow-bark, aspirin was obtained. More obliquely, a “broom” could be seen as part of the word “brew,” so the witches’ broom was in fact the drink in the cauldron that they stirred so diligently, probably containing mandrake, which was hallucinogenic. Witches were known to gather at crossroads; the Greek for crossroads being diabolos, crudely translated as the “devil.” So, witches associated with the devil, so to speak.

So, these witches existed up to, and including, the 17th century, exactly when, post-Renaissance and the Enlightenment, the professional medical system, dominated by men, had started to emerge and the men wanted to eradicate witch-craft and replace it with scientific methods. This was despite the rather feudal medical methods of the time which weren’t themselves scientific: cupping, for example.

Even queens and female aristocracy could be accused of witchcraft. This was possible because the idea of witchcraft itself was so prevalent. The black cats, the poisoning of cattle or stopping them from giving milk, accusations of curses; the girl who believed she had killed the traveller because she cursed him at the very moment he dropped dead from a heart-attack. These absurd beliefs were held, in one form or another, world-wide but were dissipated by the Enlightenment in the West after 1485; but women still died simply because people thought they were witches or heretics. Joan of Arc was one; Lucy Letby is but the modern version.

Lucy Letby

“Asked by prosecutor Nick Johnson KC whether he (Dr. Jayaram) had "any call for help from Lucy Letby?", he replied: "No, not at all. I was surprised that the alarm was not going off, although my priority was (Baby K) and I didn't question it at the time. In retrospect, I was surprised that help was not called, given (Baby K) was a 25-week gestation baby and her saturations were dropping." June 19th 2024 at trial (from LBC.co.uk).

“But, extraordinarily, (sic) in an email sent to his colleagues at the Countess of Chester Hospital on May 4, 2017 – before she was investigated by police – Dr Jayaram wrote: 'At time of deterioration ...Staff nurse Letby at incubator and called Dr Jayaram to inform of low saturations.'” Daily Mail 12/04/2025

Which brings us to the point: I hadn’t heard of Lucy Letby in any particular way until the trial some 2 years ago, but I was most taken by the clip of her being arrested. Something didn’t seem right about it. I had no reason to think that. And, that’s the point. I had no interest in it. What caught my attention? In some senses, this is a good means to demonstrate my thinking when investigating any subject.

Firstly, one has to take account of those objects being perceived that are very obvious or “salient” and then those things that are hidden, as demonstrated by the aural test the “Cocktail Party” (Cherry, 1953) when some sounds are repressed but your name becomes obvious. What are the background noises? Ignorance is the perfect format for initial responses and I had no idea who Lucy Letby was.

She’s a nurse. She’s attractive. In that case you have to immediately apply Dion (1972) where attractive people get an easier time of it in the Criminal Justice System. Appearances can be deceptive – but they might not be. Lucy’s behaviour when being arrested gave the impression of a dejected, sad person. Who wouldn’t be if you’re arrested for murdering babies – and you didn’t do it? I’ve seen film of many people being arrested. Most murderers have a happy quality about them: they’ve got something off their chest. Some are defiant. Lucy just looked like she’s been punched in the stomach.

Then came the trials, which I followed in the way of watching incidents that arose: the psychodrama around the notes written by her, the nursing notes in a bag under the bed, sending postcards to bereaved parents, the chaotic nature of the clinic (see video above), the dubious character of the consultants, I’ve met that type before, the infection in the water system.

Then came Baby O. That was what changed it for me. The stories differed around baby O. If they could differ over Baby O, what about the other babies? Then there were doubts about Baby K. Then a year went by and David Davis MP examined the papers and wasn’t satisfied justice had not been done (Summer 2024) and then Shoo Lee appeared and it all, quite rightly, started up again and the trial was only 2 years ago, which isn’t long in the hell that is the legal system. Almost as soon as she had been convicted, the backlash began, just as with the Birmingham Six.

What I look for when investigating anything is doubt. Are the facts actually correct? Is that true? Who told you? Who were you with other than X?” The facts have to be established. The conviction – in this case - has to be decided beyond reasonable doubt. In Baby O there was reasonable doubt. That’s what captured my interest and, in effect , blew the case apart for me. That brings the whole case into question. If the court got THAT wrong, what else have they got wrong?

I know from personal experience and watching the news, that cover-ups happen frequently. The problem is when the cover-up becomes criminal, as in an abortion of justice: if the case against the defendant was contrived. Then, it wasn’t the proverbial “cock-up” as would be the case with confirmation bias, it would be the guided actions of those that have done it before and it’s a recognised technique. If something bad happens, stitch someone up, in this medical context, a nurse. The motive is clear: the mistakes made are career-ending. The Post Office Horizon scandal is the same. The rape gangs are another. The only possibility in their minds was cover-up.

So, you hear all the “angel of death” headlines, but my first real impression was the clinic was chaotic, Lucy isn’t a complex character and there’s an appalling incident with Baby O where the Doctor, Dr B, stabbed the baby in the liver, by mistake. This is gross negligence. Lucy was a witness, not the perpetrator. This is the message I got from the media. Lucy’s being blamed for murdering Baby O.

In that case, a retrial is necessary, or the trial can be stopped by the judge because of media coverage. I suspect a re-trial could be called, but it would be upsetting for the families. On the other hand, the Thirwell Enquiry will (or should) find the clinic was dangerous, the consultants were negligent, as were certain NHS administrators and they themselves will be prosecuted.

There are clear reasons why there should be a retrial from the interview given by the senior nurse who was retired from the clinic, probably because she knew better than the consultants and administration.

The Clinic

The interview with Michelle Worden spells it all out. Senior nurses were retired and care assistants brought in, Lucy became one of the better-qualified staff members, she got a qualification from Liverpool hospital I believe and became a Staff Nurse. A lot of the staff were only working part-time. Lucy was saving up to buy her own place, so she did a lot of over-time, so she was often there. Communications with the consultants was poor, the doctors were paediatricians, not neonatologists and that is a critical difference. They only did two ward rounds per week instead of two rounds per day and were often not there leaving the whole clinic under Lucy’s and care assistants’ control.

That’s bad enough and I would think the consultants would have to be fired as a result; (the news today,16/04/2025, is both doctors have been put on administrational or “gardening” leave). There was talk of the door-entry controls not working correctly, so it was confusing who was where and when. Yet, these timed arrivals and departures from a room were instrumental in identifying Lucy as the culprit.

To me, that is just shambolic. It’s worrying how the court could have allowed such glaring errors to go by. The insulin accusations are obfuscatory, with c-peptides and insulin levels. Those were accusations brought against two other nurses one of whom has been acquitted. Like the Birmingham Six’s forensic tests that convicted them, the insulin tests are questionable.

At which point I noticed something on “X” (aka Twitter): a group of people who absolutely believe that Lucy is guilty. Within a short time, a couple of days, I realised they reminded me of a witch-trial; a case where the accused couldn’t possibly be guilty except in the minds of their accusers. This is groupthink. Any reasonable person would want to do discuss the case rationally, but this group, which I dubbed the Anti-Lucy brigade, tried to gaslight those of us questioning the soundness of the convictions. I think Baby O is a damning indictment of the convictions, But the Anti-Lucy brigade came up with endless excuses amounting to “she’s guilty and that’s it.”

However, the strange behaviour of the consultants was astonishing, and Dr Ravi Jayarama made clear attempts to implicate Lucy twice, in both trials. How can a consultant blame a nurse when the consultant is the one who is responsible? Because he wanted to divert attention from his own and Dr Bramley’s actions? That seems to be the clear implication. There is also the problem with both the legal profession and the medical profession getting tacit support from the establishment. The Bolam test, for example, is a get-out-of-jail free ticket where if a doctor makes a mistake, if he can get another doctor to say it was acceptable treatment, the case is dropped. It has been modified since 2015 and the duty of candour is now in place, but it’s clear that senior bureaucrats get an easier time than those lower down the food chain or hierarchy.

Conclusion

“While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.” — William Overton, McLean v. Arkansas 1982, at the end of section IV. (C)

Do I think Lucy Letby is innocent? The fact is: yes I do. There are too many anomalies from a psychological point of view. In any case, there should be a reasoned discussion about the evidence, the quality of the defence, which was poor in this case and the media surrounding the case. In particular, other voices who supported Lucy were not heard and the description of the running of the clinic, to me at least, was and is damning.

The consultants are guilty of negligence to my mind and they, the two principal doctors, Jayaram and Bramley, seemed unable to manage the situation in what was a clinic dealing with severely ill neonates who would, under any circumstances, have a poor prognosis.

The sudden peak in deaths makes the consultants look bad, not the nurses. We have seen nurses accused in a similar way, not least the Dutch nurse Lucia De Berk, who was found guilty in 2003 and acquitted in 2010. Similar issues came to light: poisoning and statistical evidence.

Institutional pressures came into play given the power and authority of consultants. Other nurses didn’t want to speak up. The NHS administrators that removed all the experienced nurses didn’t want to say anything although the emails between the senior staff at the clinic seemed confused and incoherent in those emails that have been provided for scrutiny.

I saw a chaotic or badly run, even negligently run, clinic being staffed by one nurse who was there more than the consultants, doing her best to manage with insufficient back-up from the senior staff. Events got out of control and due to poor records and questionable motives of Drs Bramley and Jayaram several children died. The consultants, realising their role in the tragedy, then looked for a scapegoat.

A very alarmed and frightened young woman was then the target of a witch-hunt. Told to write down how she felt, a common psychological technique, what she wrote was used against her. She put her post-shift notes in a bag under her bed, that too was used against her. Anything and everything was used against her. No scrutiny was made of the consultants or NHS admin.

Until the Thirlwell Enquiry. This is a perfect opportunity to expose the true goings-on in the running of the clinic of which we are now well aware. The problems with the identification of “exogenous” insulin injection can be properly scrutinised and the true cause of death of all the babies.

The rule is that criminal convictions MUST be beyond all reasonable doubt. Lucy Letby’s convictions show doubt. They are not sound. There should be a re-trial and the CCRC can redeem itself. At that re-trial, the CPS could drop the case. The focus should then turn to the doctors running the clinic. Another picture will emerge.

References

Cherry (1953) The Cocktail Party Problem. MIT.

Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972) "What is beautiful is good." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 24(3), 285–290.

Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hopkins, M. (1647/1900) The Discovery of Witches. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform

James I (1609/2006) Daemonology Filiquarian Publishing, LLC

Janis, I. L. (1972) Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascos (Sic). Houghton Mifflin.

McFarlane, A. (1974) Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England.

Whyte, W.H. (1952) "Groupthink." March Edition of Fortune Magazine.