UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #35

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
To be specific, it was made in relation to, and showed, only the ones she was charged with. You wouldn't do it any other way because none of the others are relevant. As it happens, she was actually present for some of the others but they aren't relevant.
I totally follow, I was kind of saying the way the info was presented was to build an association between Lucy and deaths on the unit and not saying "there were other deaths on the unit and it was found that she had nothing to do with them". You see what I mean? It's actually not so clear cut from either angle meaning I'm not sure that to say the prosecution did exaggerate her association with deaths is correct, I still focus on whether or not it was relayed in court that other deaths did happen and she was there but nothing suspicious about them.
 
The thing about the other deaths/collapses is that, regardless of how much her delusional supporters plead, they simply aren't relevant. They aren't suspicious so they don't have any relevance to the prosecution. The example that Tortoise gave of the ambulance driver smothering his patients having no relevance to the ones who died of natural heart failure is perfectly apt. The heart deaths simply aren't relevant and have no bearing on the guilt of the driver.

The other deaths on the ward in LL's case weren't relevant because they weren't criminal. Once again, it's people putting too much stock in the whole ...the death rate went up... malarkey. This investigation was not sparked because some pencil pusher in an office was collating figures one day, peered over their horn rimmed glasses and had a Eureka moment. It was set in motion, after much push-back, because several doctors and other professionals started noticing worrying coincidences involving the presence of LL when these things went down. It was she who brought the attention, not any sort of statistics. Her fans need to realise that!

We know that the other cases were down to identified causes - congenital issues in something like four of them, for instance - causes which don't open them up to suspicion of criminality.

Another issue I can see is this hypothetical scenario; what if in one or two of these cases the police did actually have suspicions as to whether she had harmed them, perhaps very strong suspicions (not suggesting they ever did), but the CPS wouldn't authorise charges because the evidence didn't clear the bar? If you started going down that rabbit hole then it's anyone's guess where you'd end up. You can hardly have the prosecuting KC present these things in court - it would surely be violating all manner of procedures and rules? Not least the fact that it would end up obliterating any future prosecution should sufficient evidence come to light due to it already having been prejudiced.
This comment is a good example of how easily people can be mislead by statistics, even extremely intelligent people such as appeal judges STILL falling for invalid statistical inferences despite being warned by experts about how prone we are as untrained human beings to fall for them. Your whole comment, this entire case rests on a statistical inference that might not be valid: namely that there was necessarily anything improbable or ‘striking’ about this spike in deaths. After all, similar spikes have occurred in other hospitals, at other times.

The question then becomes, is the circumstantial evidence strong enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

<modsnip>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
196
Guests online
2,775
Total visitors
2,971

Forum statistics

Threads
603,920
Messages
18,165,399
Members
231,890
Latest member
april89
Back
Top