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 #37

[Rohmer]

Yes, Dr Dewi Evans said this to Liz Hull -

DE: For the past 10 years I’ve probably prepared as many reports for the defence in criminal cases as I have for the police, for the prosecution. And the rules in relation to the defence are totally different. The defence is under no obligation to disclose anything. Now what they are obliged to do is to get an independent opinion if the prosecution says that the defendant has harmed an individual and that the evidence is based on medical expertise. So therefore they need to get their own expert, or experts. And this is what they did. But once I saw the reports from the two paediatricians, this is in June, I told the prosecution team and Cheshire Police they are not going to call their expert witnesses.

With respect, I struggle to see how we’re not way past respecting proceduralism. We know that Letby’s defence made some utterly baffling decisions which resulted in her potentially serving the rest of her life in jail. But the holes and flaws in the prosecution case are no less monumental. I genuinely don’t think it’s a stretch to imagine that Dr Evans’ case and testimony would be torn to shreds at appeal by any one of these other experts alone, not to mention all the other expertise and opinion they can cite to discredit him.

I mean that claim certainly rings hollow now, the idea that ‘they’re not going to call their expert witnesses’. Well you might continue to believe and argue that they’re doing what anyone in Letby’s situation would do, but they’re calling them now, and they’re answering the call. So the point seems a bit rhetorical and a bit grandiose in hindsight.

 

[katydid23]

what do I have wrong?

You are wrong when you claim that Lucy was not caught in some lies in Baby E case.

Lucy said that Mom never came to the nursery at 9 pm, never brought breast milk, never saw bleeding from Baby's mouth, was never asked to leave the nursery.

Why would the Mom call her husband at 9:10, crying and telling him those ^^^ things?

If NONE of that happened, why would the mother say those things on that evening at 9:10 pm?

I read the actual transcript of this exchange and the idea that it shows Letby as a liar is ridiculous and completely unfounded.

What do you think the transcript showed. Did it 'prove' that the parents were lying about their Baby bleeding and screaming at 9PM?

Is there any 'proof' besides Lucy's word? It's her word against the Mom's word.

And the Mom has the corroborating phone records and the fact that she was SCHEDULED for a 9 pm feed.

The only 'proof' that Lucy had was her own notes claiming the fed was 'omitted'-----but turns out, there was no corroboration for that. Only Lucy's word. None of the staff had any corroboration that it was cancelled and none of them had seen or observed Baby E, so they had no reason to cancel his feeding.

It is not 'unfounded.' That testimony was a key time in this trial. This is when the jury began to see that LL was lying and was falsifying her medical notes. There were 4 witnesses whose testimony was in direct conflict with what LL was claiming about Baby E.

Especially the parents of twins E and F. And at the time the parents made these claims, they had no reason to distrust Nurse Letby. They had no doubts or suspicions. And had no reason to lie about anything.

Lucy did have reasons to lie though. If she admitted that Baby E was bleeding from his mouth at 9 pm, and she never called for help at that time, never told anyone about him actively bleeding, but instead sent a low level message, about flecks of blood in a diaper, then she would be in big trial. Especially since he ended up dying of a massive blood loss just 3 hours later. Lucy had big reasons to lie about that 9 pm visit from E's mom.

It’s an attempt by the prosecution to shame her. And when she tried to wave away a line of questioning about a personal text in which the implications is that she might not be wearing knickers for her ‘boyfriend’ on the ward, the lawyer implies she’s a liar because she says she doesn’t know what ‘go commando’ means. The average 6 year old schoolboy knows what ‘go commando’ means. Letby was batting that line of questioning away because it was intended to humiliate her and paint her as having bad character for the crime of engaging in some risqué banter at work. The idea that this proves her a liar is literally asinine.

And no I’m not on that forum but I have seen a lot of people on there genuinely trying to engage with the facts while trying to figure out what happened.

We can all accuse each other of being too far gone. But I’m honestly not seeing any persuasive rebuttals to the flaws in the prosecution case from those who have faith in Letby’s guilt.

 

[Rohmer]

Funny that you mention Nicola Bulley because The Letby TrUtHeRs are the exact same category of people that would not accept her death for what it was: a tragic accident.

JMO

They’re the only two cases I’ve ever looked at on her. And you’re right in the end that’s clearly what it was. But I’m saying the husband was subjected to a similar level of unreasonable scrutiny. Is ‘Why do you shed tears for yourself but not these dead babies’, (I paraphrase) not quite a similar level of unreasonable scrutiny as Nicola Bulley’s husband was subjected to? If both of these people are innocent, which in Letby’s case, then all bets are off when it comes to how they’d react under those circumstances. You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

I don’t identify as being in any camp or tribe here. When Tortoise implied the other day that Letby did not mention seeing a psychologist the other day I went to look into it with an open mind. Perhaps the idea that she wrote these confession notes as a way of processing her feelings was a made-up claim I’d fallen for. And while there was a bit of confusion or equivocation between one source calling an occupational therapist a psychologist or counsellor, I’m happy that the substantial point at hand remained the same. Letby explains in her own words she was writing these haphazard thoughts down in something like the throes of a nervous breakdown.

Which I just have great difficulty picturing as something a serial killer would say. Abstracting away from everything else we think we know about the case, that just does not seem like the plausible behaviour of a child killer to me, it seems like the very plausible behaviour of someone falsely accused.

 

[Rohmer]

Could you please link to a source in the trial documents or media reports which states the prosecution said this in relation to the shift chart?

As far as I recall such a statement was never given.

If you cannot then please do the decent think withdraw the statement.

The issue of the probability relating to any piece of evidence was never mentioned throughout the whole ten months of her first trial nor during her second trial, as far as I recall.

The whole discussion around the probability of things occurring or not occurring is due to her supporters simply not knowing much at all about the case (and not being bothered to find out), or because it's been made up to intentionally obfuscate the situation so that anyone new to the case thinks that that is what the prosecution was founded on. Everyone then accepts it as gospel and never bothers to fact check it.

I have made in error in saying that it was the prosecution who said this in relation to the shift chart, it was an officer who approached Jane Hutton during the investigation. But that makes it even worse. Because ‘neither the initial engagement with Hutton nor the CPS instruction to the police to drop their line of inquiry into the “validity of the statistical evidence in the case” were disclosed to Letby’s defence team’. So the discussion around probability was very much not something brought up by Letby supporters who hadn’t followed the trial. It’s intrinsically foundational to the entire case and the police themselves were aware of this. It was on the grounds of probabilities that drew suspicions to Letby to begin with, with the group of doctors stating, ‘’The likelihood of this occurring by chance alone is very low.”

But this is erroneous and no way to go about calculating the likelihood from such a truncated dataset. Hence why the Royal Statistical Society has serious concerns about the verdict.

 

[Rohmer]

U know what? if stats had never been involved in this trial and the shift chart it would have been the same result imo. to me they were so insignificant as to not really warrant attention. the amount of noise thats been made about them as well by msm and the public alike has just been ridiculous. I wouldn't even argue they were fundamentals at all what they were a part of was the chain of events that led to lucy being noticed and thats it.

If stats had never been involved in the investigation it would never have gone to court.

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

If stats had never been involved in the investigation it would never have gone to court.

I don't think this makes sense. The collapses themselves did not make sense. That's not statistical. They happened at times thar didn't make sense, to babies that didn't make sense, and when resuscitation was started, it didn't progress the way it should have. That's not math. That's just real life.

 

[Rohmer]

Ah, right, so now Letby's supporters are resorting to the tired and well-worn ...they had to -shame the poor girl to get a conviction argument. I was wondering when that was going to be introduced - I'm amazed it's taken quite so long, tbh. It's yet more total rubbish, of course.

The whole issue of her socialising was mentioned at trial simply to make the point that she was a liar, that she repeatedly lied about being barred from seeing her friends or socialising with her work colleagues when she was obviously out with them regularly doing various different things.

There was never the slightest suggestion that she ever behaved in the manner you are implying here; there is no evidence that she was a heavy drinker - indeed, if you've seen the video of her out with her rather drunk mates it was plainly obvious that she was, if not stone cold sober, then something very close to it. She was the one helping her drunk friend and making sure she didn't get injured or run over. That fits precisely with what we know about her past life and her taking a first aid kit with her everywhere and suchlike.

Neither has there ever been the slightest suggestion that she slept around; we've never heard the merest whisper of anything to do with previous boyfriends (or girlfriends) and no hint as to her sex life - if any, and I have my thoughts on that, see below - was ever made at trial or by anyone in the media anywhere. Not even trawling the seedy underbelly of the internet gives the slightest indication of anything like that. The sole exception was her "affair" with Dr Choc. The only reason that that was brought up was because it was the defence's suggestion that that might have been her motivation for causing some of the deaths and collapses - in order to impress him or to get him to be called to help.

For what it's worth, I've never believed that there was anything sexual going on between them. There isn't the slightest evidence for that. Personally, I think that she probably has some deep rooted hang-up's about sex and intimacy. We'll likely never know but it's my opinion that she's never had sex.

Take it from someone who knows - Lucy Letby is about as far away from the "party girl" type that you are suggesting has been implied by the prosecution as one could ever get. I've met too many to count and can spot them a mile off. Lucy Letby isn't one of them and if the prosecution was trying to suggest otherwise it would only harm their case as it would be a blatantly obvious lie on their part!

why was the lawyer asking her what ‘go commando’ meant then, as if she was the village idiot? It was to humiliate her and suggest that she was sexually promiscuous. In what sense was pressing her to answer what ‘go commando’ meant the key to demonstrating that she was a liar? She said she didn’t know what the term meant, and so that was supposed to prove she was a liar? It was a classic case of the prosecution trying to humiliate her. She didn’t lie about not knowing the meaning of the term because she didn’t know what it meant. She just didn’t want to engage the line of questioning about a joke that she would go commando.

The prosecutor asked her if it was a reference to the Royal Marines! And because she responded by saying ‘I don’t know’ in court and yet she had responded with a laughing emoji via text, this somehow shows her to be a master manipulator and liar?

If that isn’t a clear example of -shaming I don’t know what possible relevance the meaning of the phrase ‘go commando’ could othAnd as far as I know the prosecution referred to that other doctor as her ‘boyfriend’ throughout the trial so they were certainly trying to paint her as sexually promiscuous for the very reasons you cite yourself.

You are wrong when you claim that Lucy was not caught in some lies in Baby E case.

Lucy said that Mom never came to the nursery at 9 pm, never brought breast milk, never saw bleeding from Baby's mouth, was never asked to leave the nursery.

Why would the Mom call her husband at 9:10, crying and telling him those ^^^ things?

If NONE of that happened, why would the mother say those things on that evening at 9:10 pm?




What do you think the transcript showed. Did it 'prove' that the parents were lying about their Baby bleeding and screaming at 9PM?

Is there any 'proof' besides Lucy's word? It's her word against the Mom's word.

And the Mom has the corroborating phone records and the fact that she was SCHEDULED for a 9 pm feed.

The only 'proof' that Lucy had was her own notes claiming the fed was 'omitted'-----but turns out, there was no corroboration for that. Only Lucy's word. None of the staff had any corroboration that it was cancelled and none of them had seen or observed Baby E, so they had no reason to cancel his feeding.

It is not 'unfounded.' That testimony was a key time in this trial. This is when the jury began to see that LL was lying and was falsifying her medical notes. There were 4 witnesses whose testimony was in direct conflict with what LL was claiming about Baby E.

Especially the parents of twins E and F. And at the time the parents made these claims, they had no reason to distrust Nurse Letby. They had no doubts or suspicions. And had no reason to lie about anything.

Lucy did have reasons to lie though. If she admitted that Baby E was bleeding from his mouth at 9 pm, and she never called for help at that time, never told anyone about him actively bleeding, but instead sent a low level message, about flecks of blood in a diaper, then she would be in big trial. Especially since he ended up dying of a massive blood loss just 3 hours later. Lucy had big reasons to lie about that 9 pm visit from E's mom.

I’m talking about the go commando part of the transcript.

Regarding the parent walking in to see her baby bleeding and screaming, my point is that if this was a clear cut case of Letby assaulting a baby, then it would’ve surely caused more of a reaction at the time.

The parents and jury are looking at all this being put to Letby in a highly emotive and adversarial way in light of all this other evidence that they think they have that proves she’s guilty. We now have experts arguing that no deliberate harm was inflicted on any child. So the parents and jury looking back to their encounters with Letby are understandably going to see everything in a highly charged and prejudicial way against Letby in a way that might be better explained by chaos in a ward that an independent research council has already vouched for or at least hinted at. The new medical panel have argued that a litany of medical errors were made in the process of treating and caring for these babies.

 

[Rohmer]

if michael hall disagreed with the prosecutions case that it seemed like air embolism do you think he would have told mr myers? if he did then why didn't mr myers call him? its glaringly obvious mr myers did want the prosecution to have the opportunity to ask him "do you disagree it seems like air embolism?" as soon as he says "yes" its over and done with.


its not if you read it its just him disagreeing about the skin discoluration and that's it literally. the courts have been over that already and came up with their own answer and in muvh more depth than what that letter covers. honestly.

are you seriously suggesting Michael Hall agrees with the prosecution’s case around air embolism?

I don't think this makes sense. The collapses themselves did not make sense. That's not statistical. They happened at times thar didn't make sense, to babies that didn't make sense, and when resuscitation was started, it didn't progress the way it should have. That's not math. That's just real life.

‘The Thirlwall inquiry has heard that the police investigation was based on statistical coincidence from the beginning.

According to documents seen by the Guardian, seven doctors collaborated on compiling a report to police in May 2017. It presented details of 13 babies who had died and eight more who had deteriorated. They said Letby had been present at 11 of the deaths, adding: “The likelihood of this occurring by chance alone is very low.”

In their opening statement to the inquiry, hospital managers said that when they finally went to Cheshire police, on 5 May 2017: “It was explained that there was a notable high statistical relationship between Letby and babies deteriorating on the unit, but no other evidence.”

At a subsequent meeting a week later, according to the managers’ statement: “Assistant Chief Constable Cheshire [Darren] Martland said: ‘This is uncomfortable as there is no specific allegation at this point to suggest a criminal act.’”

Five days later Cheshire police announced they had opened a criminal investigation.

Validity of statistics​

The Guardian has now learned that from an early stage, Cheshire police recognised the case involved statistics – and they had initially engaged Hutton.

According to emails seen by the Guardian, in April 2018 an officer on the investigation approached Hutton, who has extensive experience in medical research. Without naming Letby, he asked Hutton whether she could put a figure on how likely it was to be just a coincidence for one member of staff to be on duty “during all the deaths/collapses” in the neonatal unit, “ie 1 in a million etc”.’

The collapses might not have made sense to them, as people who didn’t fully understand how to validly investigate all the factors that could contribute to a spike in collapses. As Hutton stated informed them, ‘ a proper statistical inquiry would not concentrate on one member of staff from the outset, but instead required full research into all possible explanations for any increase in babies collapsing including their medical conditions and prematurity, as well as the performance of the unit. Reviews commissioned by the hospital had found medical explanations for nearly all of the deaths, criticised the standard of care on the unit and noted a lack of senior doctors.’.

Leading statisticians ‘argue that the chart represents a classic example of the “prosecutor’s fallacy”, in which an investigation starts with only a suspicion, and a case is built to support it, rather than all possible evidence and explanations having been rigorously explored.’.

It seems clear now that all possible evidence and explanations were not rigorously explored. And this intervention by these statisticians happened *before* the medical panel delivered their findings.

Lucy Letby: police and CPS handling of case raises new concerns about convictions

Exclusive: Letby’s barrister says application challenging verdicts is being prepared using expert medical evidence

www.theguardian.com

 

[Rohmer]

I don't think this makes sense. The collapses themselves did not make sense. That's not statistical. They happened at times thar didn't make sense, to babies that didn't make sense, and when resuscitation was started, it didn't progress the way it should have. That's not math. That's just real life.

I should have said, if these particular stats, this particular chart had never been relied upon…

 

[katydid23]

Regarding the parent walking in to see her baby bleeding and screaming, my point is that if this was a clear cut case of Letby assaulting a baby, then it would’ve surely caused more of a reaction at the time.

What do you mean? Who would be reacting? Nurse Letby was the only nurse in that immediate area.

The only other person who could react was the shocked mother, who reacted strongly last first----tried to comfort him but he wouldn't calm down----she asked Nurse Letby 'what happened' and Letby said it was just from the tube rubbing his throat, but a doctor was already on the way, so please leave and we will call you soon.

What else is mom going to do at that moment? She has no reason to believe he was actually assaulted. She was still very concerned so she went and called her husband immediately and he tried to assure her everything was fine.

She then spoke to a midwife she saw on the 2nd floor, and she also assured her that everything was being done to help him and she needed to wait for their call.

So the 'clear cut case' of the assault was not fully revealed until things began to play out. Their midwife called the parents and told them to come to nursery one. As Mom arrived she saw the resuscitation taking place. Obviously this was more than just a tube irritating his throat.

When they testified at trial, the barrister tried pushing back on the parents, saying they were misremembering, had their 9 pm confused, were wrong about Mom seeing blood, were wrong about LL telling her to leave the nursery, mistaken about bringing her breast milk for the scheduled feed, and wrong about LL saying she'd already called a doctor. etc.


BOTH parents were adamant about their facts and timeline and memories. They would not agree with LL's barrister who tried to get them to change their testimony.

So your point above ---'that it couldn't be an assault because surely there'd be more of a reaction at the time'----is a faulty conclusion. There was a strong reaction but it was rebuffed and controlled by LL at first. It took time before it was fully revealed.

The parents and jury are looking at all this being put to Letby in a highly emotive and adversarial way in light of all this other evidence that they think they have that proves she’s guilty.

NO, that's not how it went. Up until Baby E and those parents testimonies, the earlier cases were not as obvious. More than half of the members here were on the fence. And about a quarter were confident she was innocent.

I think the jury was probably in a similar mindset at that time. In the earlier cases it was possible she was involved somehow, but not probable, and definitely not certain.

But Baby E case was a turning point. A big shift in momentum against LL for the first time.

So what you said ^^^ above---'about the jury feeling the burden to prove she was guilty'---that was not how things were at this point in the trial. I think people were trying to make sure she wasn't unfairly scapegoated. The earlier cases were all 'explainable' in some ways. Some did look suspicious but there was no smoking gun.

But in Baby E's case, there was a clear cut example where Letby was trying to deny somethings that seemed to have strong corroboration. The witnesses had phone records, and data and strong witnesses and Letby had no corroboration and worse, her evidence seemed to have been falsified.

The parents told their stories and the defense had no proof they were lying and the witnesses had proof they were telling the truth. FOR THE FIRST TIME, LUCY WAS CAUGHT OUT AS A LIAR.

We now have experts arguing that no deliberate harm was inflicted on any child.

So---we have experts arguing that there was deliberate harm inflicted.

And the truth is, NONE of the experts can say for sure. Medical Examiners are not infallible. They rely heavily upon circumstantial evidence to help them reach their conclusions.

So the parents and jury looking back to their encounters with Letby are understandably going to see everything in a highly charged and prejudicial way against Letby in a way that might be better explained by chaos in a ward that an independent research council has already vouched for or at least hinted at.

The parents didnt just 'look back in hindsight' to reach some of their conclusions. They immediately saw some big problems and had questions from the start.

Baby E's parents were being called liars by Letby and her barrister. So obviously they are not just prejudiced by emotions- they are seeing things clearly because they know the TRUTH. They know their baby was bleeding and screaming in pain at 9 pm. And they have receipts to prove it.

So what you are trying to say above, about it being 'unfair' to poor Letby , that makes no sense in the case of Baby E.

Her parents are clear eyed and adamant that Lucy was in that nursery, with a screaming bleeding baby, and she sent the mom away and did not call for medical help for at least 45 more minutes.

NOTHING about that incident is impacted in any way by that word salad above:
"...and prejudicial way against Letby in a way that might be better explained by chaos in a ward that an independent research council has already vouched for..."

The biggest chaos in that ward was created by Lucy herself.

The new medical panel have argued that a litany of medical errors were made in the process of treating and caring for these babies.

Sure, maybe there were some errors made. Especially when there were 27 total collapses to deal with.

But these deaths and collapses were the result of maliciousness and it would be an utter tragedy if Lucy Letby ever walked free again. IMO

 

[joltz]

They’re the only two cases I’ve ever looked at on her. And you’re right in the end that’s clearly what it was. But I’m saying the husband was subjected to a similar level of unreasonable scrutiny. Is ‘Why do you shed tears for yourself but not these dead babies’, (I paraphrase) not quite a similar level of unreasonable scrutiny as Nicola Bulley’s husband was subjected to? If both of these people are innocent, which in Letby’s case, then all bets are off when it comes to how they’d react under those circumstances. You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

I don’t identify as being in any camp or tribe here. When Tortoise implied the other day that Letby did not mention seeing a psychologist the other day I went to look into it with an open mind. Perhaps the idea that she wrote these confession notes as a way of processing her feelings was a made-up claim I’d fallen for. And while there was a bit of confusion or equivocation between one source calling an occupational therapist a psychologist or counsellor, I’m happy that the substantial point at hand remained the same. Letby explains in her own words she was writing these haphazard thoughts down in something like the throes of a nervous breakdown.

Which I just have great difficulty picturing as something a serial killer would say. Abstracting away from everything else we think we know about the case, that just does not seem like the plausible behaviour of a child killer to me, it seems like the very plausible behaviour of someone falsely accused.

I don't find it difficult to picture a serial killer in Letbys circumstances saying this at all. After all, she was trying to get away with it. I wouldn't expect her to say "yes, youve got me". Looking back through the evidence Letby was, imo, extremely crafty and devious. She took advantage of situations which presented herself, gaslit her colleagues. Her texts messages show a degree of cunning, planning. So the idea of Letby claiming this is not a surprise whatsoever. Just look at the datix she put in for the bung and the potential for an air embolism. From memory and someone tell me if im incorrect, but his came very shortly after she had heard about air embolism mention in relation to the deaths, through her relationship with the married Dr. Letby went to great lengths to make herself appear as a victim, wrongly accused.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Dr Harkness provided a statement to the inquiry which did not contradict his trial testimony. I searched the witness schedule and was unable to find where he gave testimony to Thirlwall. Are we thinking of the same doctor?

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0102350.pdf

I have no idea anymore- quite possibly

 

[joltz]

When you actually construct the real chart of what happened including all the data from Dr Evan’s initial statements to the police and so forth, you find that collapses were reclassified from suspicious to explained not on the basis of any discernible cogent medical reasons but whether Letby was on shift.

That's that's correct. There's literally zero evidence to suggest collapses were reclassified as not suspicious just because Letby wasn't on shift.

 

[joltz]

Yes, he staunchly disagrees with the trial experts over the air embolism evidence. Not only that, he’s demonstrated that they haven’t understood it and he will demonstrate that again at any appeal. His credentials, Modi’s credentials, the rest of the panel, the supposed other 50 experts who have also been reported to be in touch with Dr Hammond and David Davis and other journalists and people writing books. And credentialed bodies in entirely separate fields such as statistics. The evidence casting doubts on the conviction is mounting. The panel was conducted as a blind peer review study. The prosecution is not even pretending they approach their findings in a similar manner. Dr Evans is far and away the main expert and some of the other prosecution experts have contributed very little, essentially rubber-stamping Evans’ original analysis of the case notes. These witnesses have reviewed his work and found it badly wanting. They massively outrank him, and I’m pretty sure that would be apparent at any appeal judging from what’s currently in the public domain.

As far as I’m aware, no expert witnesses have since come to defend the prosecutions original findings. I would say that’s more than instructive given the visibility of this case in the public square.

I will be very interested to see what Dr Lee's panel come up with for baby E. We had multiple medical experts stating there was no natural disease process which could explain the decline and death of baby E. The trial evidence is also absolutely crucial, so are they just going to ignore it all, like they appear to have done with the other cases. My guess is that they will say it was some sort of freak gastro hemorrhage but that doesn't fit with the improving situation of the baby, which multiple medics testified to, and even Letby herself.

 

[mrC]

the doctor accused of killing the baby could allways take legal action unny they havent

 

[Tortoise]

I have made in error in saying that it was the prosecution who said this in relation to the shift chart, it was an officer who approached Jane Hutton during the investigation. But that makes it even worse. Because ‘neither the initial engagement with Hutton nor the CPS instruction to the police to drop their line of inquiry into the “validity of the statistical evidence in the case” were disclosed to Letby’s defence team’. So the discussion around probability was very much not something brought up by Letby supporters who hadn’t followed the trial. It’s intrinsically foundational to the entire case and the police themselves were aware of this. It was on the grounds of probabilities that drew suspicions to Letby to begin with, with the group of doctors stating, ‘’The likelihood of this occurring by chance alone is very low.”

But this is erroneous and no way to go about calculating the likelihood from such a truncated dataset. Hence why the Royal Statistical Society has serious concerns about the verdict.

Well the RSS aren't very bright then, are they. JMO

I'll simplify it with an analogy.

There is a marmalade loving bear who enjoys a party with his various groups of bear friends. The only problem is, after every party a dead bear is found next morning, his sheets and the unfortunate dead bears covered in marmalade paw prints. The bear keeper calls the police. I'm worried marmalade bear is killing my bears, I found marmalade all over them.
The police ask the bear doctor to look at the deaths of all bears at all parties over the last year, to see if they were natural deaths or not, but they don't tell bear doctor about the marmalade.

Bear doctor investigates all the deaths and tells the police which deaths were natural and which were suspicious. It turns out all the suspicious deaths had marmalade all over them, and not only that, marmalade bear was provably present, from photographs, at all of the suspicious deaths, but not all of his bear friends were!

The police slap cuffs on marmalade bear and charge him with murder. At trial, the crown presents photographic proof that marmalade bear was present at every murder and proof of where all the other bears were on said occasions. What bear keeper told police about marmalade has nothing to do with the bear doctor's opinion which the case rests on, plus proving that marmalade bear was there. To help everyone, because there were so many parties, the crown makes a simple chart showing presence of bears at every party.

Nothing to do with statistics or initial suspicions of bear keeper!

Story time over.

The crown does not have to disclose lines of police enquiry which have no relevance to proving their case at trial.

 

[Marantz4250b]

why was the lawyer asking her what ‘go commando’ meant then, as if she was the village idiot? It was to humiliate her and suggest that she was sexually promiscuous. In what sense was pressing her to answer what ‘go commando’ meant the key to demonstrating that she was a liar? She said she didn’t know what the term meant, and so that was supposed to prove she was a liar? It was a classic case of the prosecution trying to humiliate her. She didn’t lie about not knowing the meaning of the term because she didn’t know what it meant. She just didn’t want to engage the line of questioning about a joke that she would go commando.

The prosecutor asked her if it was a reference to the Royal Marines! And because she responded by saying ‘I don’t know’ in court and yet she had responded with a laughing emoji via text, this somehow shows her to be a master manipulator and liar?

If that isn’t a clear example of -shaming I don’t know what possible relevance the meaning of the phrase ‘go commando’ could othAnd as far as I know the prosecution referred to that other doctor as her ‘boyfriend’ throughout the trial so they were certainly trying to paint her as sexually promiscuous for the very reasons you cite yourself.

I’m talking about the go commando part of the transcript.

Regarding the parent walking in to see her baby bleeding and screaming, my point is that if this was a clear cut case of Letby assaulting a baby, then it would’ve surely caused more of a reaction at the time.

The parents and jury are looking at all this being put to Letby in a highly emotive and adversarial way in light of all this other evidence that they think they have that proves she’s guilty. We now have experts arguing that no deliberate harm was inflicted on any child. So the parents and jury looking back to their encounters with Letby are understandably going to see everything in a highly charged and prejudicial way against Letby in a way that might be better explained by chaos in a ward that an independent research council has already vouched for or at least hinted at. The new medical panel have argued that a litany of medical errors were made in the process of treating and caring for these babies.

It was nothing of the sort and if you knew the context of the question you'd know exactly why he was asking.

She DID know what it meant!

The prosecution made no attempt at all to imply that she was promiscuous. To do so would have been laughable as she clearly wasn't. It would have been obvious to the jury that such a thing was being invented for that precise reason. It would have severely undermined their case.

It showed her as a liar because her friend asked her in a text if the Dr had asked her to "go commando" to which LL replied with a line of laughing/crying emojis. Obviously, then, she knew what it meant!

You are also wrong about her response to the Royal Marines comment. She stayed silent.

 

[Marantz4250b]

the doctor accused of killing the baby could allways take legal action unny they havent

Why is it funny they haven't?

And what action do you suggest they could take?

 

[Moll]

It was nothing of the sort and if you knew the context of the question you'd know exactly why he was asking.

She DID know what it meant!

The prosecution made no attempt at all to imply that she was promiscuous. To do so would have been laughable as she clearly wasn't. It would have been obvious to the jury that such a thing was being invented for that precise reason. It would have severely undermined their case.

It showed her as a liar because her friend asked her in a text if the Dr had asked her to "go commando" to which LL replied with a line of laughing/crying emojis. Obviously, then, she knew what it meant!

You are also wrong about her response to the Royal Marines comment. She stayed silent.

Wasn't all that just to establish her crush on Doc Choc and how far it went? That was important because he was on the wards with her. Please correct me if I'm misremembering.

 

[iamshadow21]

Wasn't all that just to establish her crush on Doc Choc and how far it went? That was important because he was on the wards with her. Please correct me if I'm misremembering.

I thought that and the discussion of her clothing at the time of one of her arrests was to show the jury that she would habitually lie on the stand about things that were pointless and provably false.

MOO