So they assumed it was natural at the time?The cause of 'poisoning' "simply did not occur to medical staff working at the Countess that someone in the neonatal unit "would have injected them with insulin", the court heard.
So they assumed it was natural at the time?The cause of 'poisoning' "simply did not occur to medical staff working at the Countess that someone in the neonatal unit "would have injected them with insulin", the court heard.
You'd still try to find out why it happened though, surely?So they assumed it was natural at the time?
I wonder how this number compares with the number of babies under her care that she isn't accused of harming.
What you say is the theory. In practice, it doesn't work like this. The fact that there were many "unexplained" bad events at which LL was present is *supporting evidence* that she murdered one particular child. It suggests that she is a psychopath with a desire to harm young babies. Hence, it supports the question of "motive". Instructing a jury that they must treat each case on its own merits is an impossible instruction. In fact, it is one of the major issues brought up in our report. 64 pages of wisdom, aimed at lawyers and journalists as much as at statisticians. https://rss.org.uk/RSS/media/File-l...pected_medical_misconduct_Sept_2022_FINAL.pdf
She might be guilty though. Why are you so sure she's innocent? We've hardly heard anything yet
Edit- Actually, sorry, I misread your post
Yes, one might argue that they've only selected the deaths and collapses from when LL was on shift, so she would always be present.I'd also be interested in how they've defined which deaths are within scope. I could potentially see an argument that deaths have been selected which fit the argument e.g. she was present. But I guess the medical evidence will speak on that.
I'd also be curious about how statistically unlikely it would be that someone was on shift for all of them, if you ordered all the staff by how often they were on shift for these deaths, how big is the difference between her and the 2nd.
Statements such as "....could have been..." tend to suggest otherwise. I have no idea as to why you'd include that in an opening statement even if you believed it.I do think she's guilty, sadly.
I can't see how it would get this far to trial unless the evidence wasn't almost watertight.
And the KC giving the opening actually mentioned that these deaths and collapses went on for 18 months. The charges only relate to a 12 month period. If the full 18 month period is taken into account was she still there for all of them?Yes, one might argue that they've only selected the deaths and collapses from when LL was on shift, so she would always be present.
If that were the standard there would never be any acquittals though.I do think she's guilty, sadly.
I can't see how it would get this far to trial unless the evidence wasn't almost watertight.
Also, it could quite reasonably be explained by the fact that she was very had working and put in s many hours as she could?