I have only just, accidentally, found this thread. <modsnip - discuss the case, not other members> What I do know is that when important strands of a case are discredited it deserves thorough review and will usually be grounds for a conviction to be put aside and a retrial ordered. In this case we have the following;
Professor Richard Gill, the world expert on the use of medical statistics in criminal cases and author of the Royal Statistical Society guidelines for such cases, expressing his alarm at the incompetent use of statistics in this case.
Dr Shoo Lee, the author of the paper cited in the original trial as supporting injection to cause air embolism, making it clear that his paper did nothing of the sort.
The deliberate editing of internal reports. The original reports looking at events and those present covered both nurses and doctors but the section on doctors was removed before being seen by management.
There are other parts of the trial narrative which have been discredited. None of this means Letby is innocent but it does mean that there was such egregious misbehaviour by others involved in the trial including witnesses, sources of admitted evidence and incompetence by the defence team that no reputable system can sustain the original trial. The defence of it smells rather like that of cases like Klitschko. But perhaps the worst aspect of this case is the progress of the inquiry and appalling behaviour of the inquiry chair who seems determined to ignore the experts now negating the original evidence, despite the likes of Gill and Lee being far better qualified to comment than those called at the trial.
I hope I am wrong but I suspect that, without a retrial, this case will become a stain on the system to rival any in recent years - not because she is innocent but because the sytem is more intent on preserving itself rather than pursuing the truth. And if she is innocent it would mean the guilty (either by intent or by presiding over incompetence) remain to do more damage.
IMO
Professor Richard Gill, the world expert on the use of medical statistics in criminal cases and author of the Royal Statistical Society guidelines for such cases, expressing his alarm at the incompetent use of statistics in this case.
Dr Shoo Lee, the author of the paper cited in the original trial as supporting injection to cause air embolism, making it clear that his paper did nothing of the sort.
The deliberate editing of internal reports. The original reports looking at events and those present covered both nurses and doctors but the section on doctors was removed before being seen by management.
There are other parts of the trial narrative which have been discredited. None of this means Letby is innocent but it does mean that there was such egregious misbehaviour by others involved in the trial including witnesses, sources of admitted evidence and incompetence by the defence team that no reputable system can sustain the original trial. The defence of it smells rather like that of cases like Klitschko. But perhaps the worst aspect of this case is the progress of the inquiry and appalling behaviour of the inquiry chair who seems determined to ignore the experts now negating the original evidence, despite the likes of Gill and Lee being far better qualified to comment than those called at the trial.
I hope I am wrong but I suspect that, without a retrial, this case will become a stain on the system to rival any in recent years - not because she is innocent but because the sytem is more intent on preserving itself rather than pursuing the truth. And if she is innocent it would mean the guilty (either by intent or by presiding over incompetence) remain to do more damage.
IMO
Last edited by a moderator:
