GUILTY 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 #38

[JimmyDurham]

This is totally incorrect; witnesses have most certainly been demeaned online and one "expert" has publicly flatly accused one of the doctors of negligently killing one of the babies through incompetence. If I were that doctor then he'd be in court and I'd be having his house off him! Anyone who doesn't realise this has either been living under a rock for years, is wilfully engaging in ignorance or is outright lying.

It's a straw man argument, completely irrelevant as to whether or not Letby is guilty.

No "statistics" were ever used in the prosecution of her. None. Ever. The shift chart was not a "statistic" nor was it presented as statistical evidence. It was a chart with nurses shifts on one axis and medical incidents on the other.

It was a statistical argument, i.e. babies died versus who was on shift, what is the most likely outcome. I believe that some statisticians labelled it a visual stunt which ignored important context and incidents when Letby was not on duty. I believe that no less than the Royal Statistical Society stated that using shift pattern data to claim guilt is fundamentally flawed, "scientifically worthless" and prone to confirmation bias. The RSS president and CEO wrote to Lady Justice Thirlwall requesting that the public inquiry investigate the appropriate use of statistical evidence to prevent future miscarriages of justice.

It is a myth that statistics were ever used against her, and her supporters use that as a gaslighting technique to push their agenda.

Are you serious?

She got an entirely fair trial!

No she didn't.

The presentation of the shift pattern data/statistics was flawed: see above.

There are experts willing to testify that they do not agree with the prosecution experts. The jury did not hear those experts. I believe one of the prosecution experts had not worked in neonatal for a good number of years, which calls into question his understanding of current practices.

The prosecution put a study before the jury that was a cornerstone of their case. The person who undertook the study came forward at a later date to say that the prosecution had misrepresented his study and he wasn't saying what the prosecution claimed at all. The jury didn't hear that. In fact, at an appeal, this person did come forward to put people right, but because of our bizarre, antiquated system; it was deemed unimportant because the process matters more than justice.

That's a mere, quick post. There are a good number of issues with this case.

Now, I'm not saying she's innocent. I don't know.

More to the point, never in a million years did Letby get a fair trial with all of the pertinent information put before a jury, and until that happens nobody will know whether or not she is innocent. In the meantime, all you're doing is picking a side and arguing until you're blue in the face with strangers on the internet.

 

[katydid23]

This isn't true at all. What you're stating, i.e. bully and demean, is hyperbole.

There certainly has been the question: did she receive a fair trial? That's very much valid considering that's her whole life behind the door. I

Seven babies died and one was severely brain damaged and cannot walk or talk. So Nurse Letby should receive a whole life sentence, imo.

f that was your Sister, you would want to see a fair trial and beyond reasonable doubt.

Surely I would. I would want her to be able to take the stand and tell her story, just like Nurse Letby did. And I'd want her to have the best defense attorney, just like Letby had. And to see a fair trial, with all of the witnesses who were there, to be able to speak as well.

It's well documented that no "expert" stood up for her during the trial,

Do you understand WHY there was no medical expert speaking up for her?

Legal analysts have noted that this strategy may stem from the belief that the prosecution's experts can be discredited through questioning alone. Which is a safer method ,if in fact, they did not find any experts that would be able to withstand cross examination.

And I believe that was the main reason they did not have anyone to rebut the prosecution. They would not be able to say it was absolutely not a case of air embolism in many of the victims.

and that the prosecution relied on a study that the author of the study claimed was misrepresented by the prosecution.

Dr Shoo Lee has not done a credible job of proving he was misrepresented. His accusation that there have been no recent reports supporting the descriptions by Doctors in this case has been rebutted. There were four medical studies in support of the prosecution's claims.
In fact, most of Dr Shoo Lee's new crew have been shown to be mistaken in their suggested alternative medical explanations.

It is well documented that the shift statistics weren't actually as clear cut and meaningful as that which were presented in court;

The shifts were mentioned once for about 10 minutes total, in a 6 month trial. They are a non factor. The trial did not hinge upon 'statistics.' The Prosecution merely showed the jury that Nurse Letby was present for all of the 27 collapses that were being reviewed.

and it is well documented that hospitals around the country were receiving an usual number of very poorly babies at that time.

Oh, are you using 'statistics' now to try and prove your point that she is innocent? I thought statistics were unreliable?

She needs to be back in front of a court of law for a fair trial. She didn't get it first time 'round.

She needs to be right where she's at---in her new, forever home. imo

 

[JimmyDurham]

Most of what you replied with is irrelevant and so I've done you the courtesy of tidying your post.

Do you understand WHY there was no medical expert speaking up for her?

You say this with such conviction but then you say this......

Legal analysts have noted that this strategy may

Right, you have a theory couched in "may".

In this country, many a theory makes it as far as the CPS, but without the evidence to support the theory the CPS throw it out as worthless and the theory doesn't make it into a court of law.

Dr Shoo Lee has not done a credible job of proving he was misrepresented.

Really? This is incredible. It was his study and findings. 'Reckon he's in a good position to call foul.

I thought statistics were unreliable?

I didn't say this. You're making it up.

I said the shift pattern data/statistics have been deemed to be flawed. See post 2,679 for associated details.

 

[katydid23]

It's a straw man argument, completely irrelevant as to whether or not Letby is guilty.



It was a statistical argument, i.e. babies died versus who was on shift, what is the most likely outcome. I believe that some statisticians labelled it a visual stunt which ignored important context and incidents when Letby was not on duty. I believe that no less than the Royal Statistical Society stated that using shift pattern data to claim guilt is fundamentally flawed, "scientifically worthless" and prone to confirmation bias. The RSS president and CEO wrote to Lady Justice Thirlwall requesting that the public inquiry investigate the appropriate use of statistical evidence to prevent future miscarriages of justice.

That is not what happened.

After seeing that paragraph above, I can see that you never followed the actual trial. You have not seen the evidence that was put forth over those many months.

There was no 'visual stunt' concerning Lucy's presence.

In each and EVERY CASE, the jurors heard a minute to minute account of exactly who was present, with each baby, during their medical incident.

It was not a 'visual stunt' ----it was factual evidence based upon medical notes, witness testimony, pictures and documents, electronic data, digital evidence, phone data and messages and computer evidence.

We KNOW exactly who was present in each and every incident.

Are you serious?



No she didn't.

The presentation of the shift pattern data/statistics was flawed: see above.

NO, it was not flawed. No 'statistics' were shown or discussed. That is a fallacy created by this firestorm of Lucy defenders, who have convinced themselves she is a poor innocent victim.

There are experts willing to testify that they do not agree with the prosecution experts.

In order to testify against the prosecution, those 'experts' need to come forward with credible new evidence mitigating the defendant.

So far that has not happened. NOTHING put forward so far meets that criteria. The explanations put forth by Dr Lee's friends have already been discussed and argued in court during the trial. They were all considered but rebuffed by opposing evidence.

The jury did not hear those experts. I believe one of the prosecution experts had not worked in neonatal for a good number of years, which calls into question his understanding of current practices.

The jury heard those same arguments already and those arguments did not hold water. Look around and you will see articles in which each and every one of those alternative explanations have already been discussed during the trial and rejected.

The prosecution put a study before the jury that was a cornerstone of their case. The person who undertook the study came forward at a later date to say that the prosecution had misrepresented his study and he wasn't saying what the prosecution claimed at all. The jury didn't hear that. In fact, at an appeal, this person did come forward to put people right, but because of our bizarre, antiquated system; it was deemed unimportant because the process matters more than justice.

I think you are misunderstanding what happened. Dr Shoo Lee has said his study had been misrepresented. But others disagreed and have shown evidence to support what the prosecution claimed at trial. And it was also shown that the jury made its decision upon other factors, such as the defendants many lies and inconsistencies in her testimony. And she was caught falsifying some of her medical notes and observations in order to try and show she was not in the same rooms as some of the victims---when there is proof that she was.

So what Dr Lee is claiming is unimportant because her guilty verdict was based upon many other pieces of evidence, beyond the colour of a rash.

That's a mere, quick post. There are a good number of issues with this case.

Now, I'm not saying she's innocent. I don't know.

If you had followed the case and heard the evidence, then you would know.

More to the point, never in a million years did Letby get a fair trial with all of the pertinent information put before a jury, and until that happens nobody will know whether or not she is innocent. In the meantime,

All of the pertinent evidence was put before the jury.

all you're doing is picking a side and arguing until you're blue in the face with strangers on the internet.

And you are not?

I am absolutely arguing until I'm blue in the face because I followed every day of that long trial and I heard, in great detail, about the suffering and horror that each child was put through.

Nurse Letby should never be allowed to walk free again. I will continue to argue with any strangers that continue to make false claims about her 'unsafe' verdict.

The only thing that was 'unsafe' in that trial was the cold-hearted vicious defendant. IMO

 

[JimmyDurham]

And you are not?

No, I don't have a side. I've already said that I lay no claim to Letby being innocent.

Having said that, it is in everyone's interests that she receives a fair trial with all of the pertinent information put before a jury. It hasn't happened, not by a long chalk.

As for the rest of your post, I'll come back to that at some point. 'Sun is shining here so time to get out of the house!

 

[katydid23]

Really? This is incredible. It was his study and findings. 'Reckon he's in a good position to call foul.

New research cast doubts on evidence submitted to help free Lucy Letby

Lucy Letby's defence team say new medical evidence has been submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in a bid to have her convictions quashed.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Prof Lee told journalists that his own research into air embolism - air bubbles in the blood – which was the method Letby used to kill - had been misinterpreted by the prosecution at her trial.

She couldn't have injected the infants with air, Prof Lee insisted, because he had trawled the medical literature and failed to find a single case where venous air embolism - air in the veins – had caused a bright pink rash with bluish-purple skin, which, the trial heard, was seen on several of the infants who died.

Only arterial air embolism – air in the arteries – could cause the distinctive rash, which Prof Lee nicknamed the ‘Lee sign,’ he said.

[THIS ^^^ is Prof Lee's argument----which he nick-named the 'Lee sign'---- ]

But, the Daily Mail can reveal, new research published by a neonatologist in Taiwan as recently as October appears to contradict this claim.

And at least four other papers on air embolism, published between 1981 and the present day, have been missed, or wrongly interpreted, by Prof Lee, experts say.

The most recent paper, published in the journal Paediatrics and Neonatology last year, examines the case of a 33-week gestation premature baby boy who developed a blotchy purple and pink rash associated with air getting into their venous circulation.

The report, by Dr Shau Ru Ho, who works at the National Taiwan University Hospital, in Taipei, features striking photographs of skin discolouration on the infant’s arms and a video of an ultrasound scan, which ‘identified ubiquitous bubbles in the blood vessels’ of the infant’s brain, as well as in the inferior vena cava – the largest vein in the body.

‘The diagnosis was systemic air embolism,’ Dr Ho concluded.

It is understood the paper has also been sent to the CCRC, the body investigating Letby’s case as a potential miscarriage of justice, for consideration.

===========================================

So he is in a fine position to call foul, but it doesn't mean he is correct. In fact, it looks like he may have missed some important information that actually nullifies his claims against the prosecution.

There ARE other research studies which backed up the prosecutions claims. So just because Prof Lee says they misunderstood HIS findings, it does not mean the doctors misunderstood the medical evidence in these murder cases.

 

[katydid23]

I hope those on board with Dr Shoo Lee's rants against the Letby Trial will take a deeper dive into his accusations:

New research cast doubts on evidence submitted to help free Lucy Letby

Lucy Letby's defence team say new medical evidence has been submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in a bid to have her convictions quashed.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The Daily Mail has also spoken to an independent senior neonatologist, not involved in Letby’s trial, who said Prof Lee is incorrect to say that venous air embolism cannot lead to a similar blotchy skin rash or patchy discolouration.

Professor Paul Clarke, who works at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Trust, and is also an honorary professor at the University of East Anglia Medical School, said it is ‘entirely possible’ for air that is injected into a baby’s veins to end up in the arteries, or arterial circulation, via either a small hole between the right and left side of the heart, or a blood vessel that connects the pulmonary artery and the aorta.

All babies are born with this hole and blood vessel, known as the foramen ovale and ductus arteriosus, which usually close naturally as they grow.

....snipped...

<modsnip: Removed graphic photos that are exceptionally triggering for some members>

+6
View gallery
Images of a rash or skin discolouration suffered by a baby in Taiwan. This new research, published last October, contradicts Dr Lee's claims, experts say

....snipped....
Prof Clarke told the Daily Mail: ‘In my opinion it is a false dichotomy to claim that venous air embolism could never cause the arterial air embolism skin manifestations, including the supposedly specific but rare so-called ‘Lee sign’. The existence of cases in the literature is proof of this.’

The medic pointed to at least four other pieces of research into air embolism – not just the one published in October – which also appear to have been missed or misinterpreted by Prof Lee, who claims to have carried out two exhaustive reviews of the medical literature into air embolism, first in 1989, then in an updated report in 2024.


The papers include one written by an American paediatric neurologist in 1981, which described an almost immediate, but transient dark blue skin discoloration in a full-term baby boy after air was accidentally pumped into a vein in his scalp; another written by a South African neonatologist in 2003 which noted an infant with a venous catheter that developed ‘blue-black skin with blotchy red patches and extremely pale feet’ ; and one by an Israeli doctor, in 1996, which also described flitting skin mottling in a baby who had air mistakenly introduced into their circulation via an intravenous line in the foot.

Another piece of research, published by a medic based in Alabama, in 2007, which examined the case of an infant who died after air was accidentally introduced via a venous drip, was also very significant, Prof Clarke, said.

‘The failure of Prof Lee to include the 1981 case in his original 1989 Lee and Tanswell paper, or the 1981 case and the 2007 paper in his subsequently updated research in 2024, are major omissions and show there has been a significant deficiency in his literature search strategy and selective publication,’ Prof Clarke said.

‘Both these cases provide clear-as-day evidence that venous air embolism can rapidly become arterial air embolism and so cause rapid onset skin rash.’

===================

Way too many people have been bamboozled by Prof Lee's rants against this murder trial. I am glad that some journalists are finally pushing back against his claims---which up until now have been acce

 

[WaneLyrical]

New research cast doubts on evidence submitted to help free Lucy Letby

Lucy Letby's defence team say new medical evidence has been submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in a bid to have her convictions quashed.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Prof Lee told journalists that his own research into air embolism - air bubbles in the blood – which was the method Letby used to kill - had been misinterpreted by the prosecution at her trial.

She couldn't have injected the infants with air, Prof Lee insisted, because he had trawled the medical literature and failed to find a single case where venous air embolism - air in the veins – had caused a bright pink rash with bluish-purple skin, which, the trial heard, was seen on several of the infants who died.

Only arterial air embolism – air in the arteries – could cause the distinctive rash, which Prof Lee nicknamed the ‘Lee sign,’ he said.

[THIS ^^^ is Prof Lee's argument----which he nick-named the 'Lee sign'---- ]

But, the Daily Mail can reveal, new research published by a neonatologist in Taiwan as recently as October appears to contradict this claim.

And at least four other papers on air embolism, published between 1981 and the present day, have been missed, or wrongly interpreted, by Prof Lee, experts say.

The most recent paper, published in the journal Paediatrics and Neonatology last year, examines the case of a 33-week gestation premature baby boy who developed a blotchy purple and pink rash associated with air getting into their venous circulation.

The report, by Dr Shau Ru Ho, who works at the National Taiwan University Hospital, in Taipei, features striking photographs of skin discolouration on the infant’s arms and a video of an ultrasound scan, which ‘identified ubiquitous bubbles in the blood vessels’ of the infant’s brain, as well as in the inferior vena cava – the largest vein in the body.

‘The diagnosis was systemic air embolism,’ Dr Ho concluded.

It is understood the paper has also been sent to the CCRC, the body investigating Letby’s case as a potential miscarriage of justice, for consideration.

===========================================

So he is in a fine position to call foul, but it doesn't mean he is correct. In fact, it looks like he may have missed some important information that actually nullifies his claims against the prosecution.

There ARE other research studies which backed up the prosecutions claims. So just because Prof Lee says they misunderstood HIS findings, it does not mean the doctors misunderstood the medical evidence in these murder cases.

Lee didn’t “miss” any papers, it’s a ludicrous allegation by Clark and a disgrace for the daily mail to report it.

And surprise surprise Clark appears to have been paid by Cheshire Police.

Lee’s evidence needs to be tested in court, not by some Dewi version 2.0, who went straight to Twitter acting incredibly unprofessionally, and destroying any supposed credibility.

As Ben Myers has said since day 1, air embolism will always be a “theoretical possibility”. You can’t disprove it, just like you can’t disprove voodoo.

This 2025 case is nothing like anything described in the Letby case. For a start, it wasn’t venous embolism, the discolouration is different, and the air bubbles and froth were very obvious on scans and at post mortem.

But anything to try and discredit Lee.

 

[katydid23]

Lee didn’t “miss” any papers, it’s a ludicrous allegation by Clark and a disgrace for the daily mail to report it.

He certainly did miss the papers. Did you see the pictures of the children with the discolourations---just like described by the prosecution?

Lee claims there were no such cases like that.

And surprise surprise Clark appears to have been paid by Cheshire Police.

Source?

Lee’s evidence needs to be tested in court, not by some Dewi version 2.0, who went straight to Twitter acting incredibly unprofessionally, and destroying any supposed credibility.

It was sent to the court before it was given to the press.

Kind of hilarious that you would complain about evidence needing to stay off of twitter, when Lee is using the twitter world and Tik Tok to try and gain traction for his claims.

As Ben Myers has said since day 1, air embolism will always be a “theoretical possibility”. You can’t disprove it, just like you can’t disprove voodoo.

It's very real. It's nothing like voodoo. Those babies were murdered.

This 2025 case is nothing like anything described in the Letby case. For a start, it wasn’t venous embolism,

It doesn't have to be venous embolism to prove the prosecution's point about the discolouration. Those articles support the prosecution's claims about the victims in the Letby trial.

the discolouration is different, and the air bubbles and froth were very obvious on scans and at post mortem.

Again, who cares if it matches everything in Dr Lee's article. The prosecution did not rely solely upon 'Lee signs' even though he tries to claim that.

Prosecutors, including senior prosecutor Nick Johnson, have countered that Lee's paper was not a "crucial cornerstone" of their case and that the overall evidence (including other medical opinions, staffing patterns, and Letby's notes) supported the verdicts.


Dr Lee has been making a lot of public accusations and finally he is getting some push back.

There are 4 other articles about other cases as well. So the prosecution was not solely relying upon Dr Lee's article for their entire case.

But anything to try and discredit Lee.

He will eventually be discredited in terms of his egotistical claim that the entire prosecution hinged upon his 'Lee Signs' ---which he named himself of course.

 

[Bekind89]

That is not what happened.

After seeing that paragraph above, I can see that you never followed the actual trial. You have not seen the evidence that was put forth over those many months.

There was no 'visual stunt' concerning Lucy's presence.

In each and EVERY CASE, the jurors heard a minute to minute account of exactly who was present, with each baby, during their medical incident.

It was not a 'visual stunt' ----it was factual evidence based upon medical notes, witness testimony, pictures and documents, electronic data, digital evidence, phone data and messages and computer evidence.

We KNOW exactly who was present in each and every incident.

NO, it was not flawed. No 'statistics' were shown or discussed. That is a fallacy created by this firestorm of Lucy defenders, who have convinced themselves she is a poor innocent victim.

In order to testify against the prosecution, those 'experts' need to come forward with credible new evidence mitigating the defendant.

So far that has not happened. NOTHING put forward so far meets that criteria. The explanations put forth by Dr Lee's friends have already been discussed and argued in court during the trial. They were all considered but rebuffed by opposing evidence.

The jury heard those same arguments already and those arguments did not hold water. Look around and you will see articles in which each and every one of those alternative explanations have already been discussed during the trial and rejected.


I think you are misunderstanding what happened. Dr Shoo Lee has said his study had been misrepresented. But others disagreed and have shown evidence to support what the prosecution claimed at trial. And it was also shown that the jury made its decision upon other factors, such as the defendants many lies and inconsistencies in her testimony. And she was caught falsifying some of her medical notes and observations in order to try and show she was not in the same rooms as some of the victims---when there is proof that she was.

So what Dr Lee is claiming is unimportant because her guilty verdict was based upon many other pieces of evidence, beyond the colour of a rash.

If you had followed the case and heard the evidence, then you would know.

All of the pertinent evidence was put before the jury.


And you are not?

I am absolutely arguing until I'm blue in the face because I followed every day of that long trial and I heard, in great detail, about the suffering and horror that each child was put through.

Nurse Letby should never be allowed to walk free again. I will continue to argue with any strangers that continue to make false claims about her 'unsafe' verdict.

The only thing that was 'unsafe' in that trial was the cold-hearted vicious defendant. IMO

Well said! People like you are why I love WS.

 

[joltz]

This isn't true at all. What you're stating, i.e. bully and demean, is hyperbole.

There certainly has been the question: did she receive a fair trial? That's very much valid considering that's her whole life behind the door. If that was your Sister, you would want to see a fair trial and beyond reasonable doubt.

It's well documented that no "expert" stood up for her during the trial, and that the prosecution relied on a study that the author of the study claimed was misrepresented by the prosecution. It is well documented that the shift statistics weren't actually as clear cut and meaningful as that which were presented in court; and it is well documented that hospitals around the country were receiving an usual number of very poorly babies at that time.

She needs to be back in front of a court of law for a fair trial. She didn't get it first time 'round.

She absolutely had a fair trial. It's not up for debate. Your reasoning doesn't stand up to scrutiny. She doesn't get another go because certain people can't comprehend facts.

 

[JimmyDurham]

She absolutely had a fair trial. It's not up for debate.

Right-o, crack on.

 

[May72031]

It was a statistical argument, i.e. babies died versus who was on shift, what is the most likely outcome. I believe that some statisticians labelled it a visual stunt which ignored important context and incidents when Letby was not on duty.

What "important context and incidents" are you referring to?

The presentation of the shift pattern data/statistics was flawed: see above.

The above didn't demonstrate any flaws.

There are experts willing to testify that they do not agree with the prosecution experts.

Just like a bunch of "architects and engineers" went around 'testifying' that the experts were wrong about how towers collapsed n 9/11.

I believe one of the prosecution experts had not worked in neonatal for a good number of years, which calls into question his understanding of current practices.

Irrelevant ad hom.

The prosecution put a study before the jury that was a cornerstone of their case. The person who undertook the study came forward at a later date to say that the prosecution had misrepresented his study and he wasn't saying what the prosecution claimed at all. The jury didn't hear that. In fact, at an appeal, this person did come forward to put people right, but because of our bizarre, antiquated system; it was deemed unimportant because the process matters more than justice.

You mean he was dismissed with his tail between his legs because he has not presented any new evidence, or any evidence that actually challenges anything.

Now, I'm not saying she's innocent. I don't know.

You ARE parroting a lot of the soundbites and dubious arguments that the Letbyists spew out, though. That does raise red flags about where you are coming from.

More to the point, never in a million years did Letby get a fair trial.

I've asked numerous times - can someone point out how Letby did not get a fair trial?

 

[May72031]

I said the shift pattern data/statistics have been deemed to be flawed. See post 2,679 for associated details.

You did. But you still haven't said how it was flawed.

 

[JimmyDurham]

Irrelevant ad hom.

I thought this part was an interesting take.

One of the experts for the prosecution had been retired for many years hadn't he?

There's a reason why professionals are required to keep up with regulations and procedure in their chosen field, e.g. accountants and lawyers, as part of their membership of a professional body and their ability to carry out their work.

Why would it be any different in neonatal? Why is it supposedly "irrelevant and ad hom"?

 

[May72031]

I thought this part was an interesting take.

One of the experts for the prosecution had been retired for many years hadn't he?

There's a reason why professionals are required to keep up with regulations and procedure in their chosen field, e.g. accountants and lawyers, as part of their membership of a professional body and their ability to carry out their work.

Why would it be any different in neonatal? Why is it supposedly "irrelevant and ad hom"?

So, you don't actually have any sort of argument against his evidence, just that he had been retired for some time?

Do you complain just as much that Shoo Lee is retired?

 

[Marantz4250b]

It's a straw man argument, completely irrelevant as to whether or not Letby is guilty.



It was a statistical argument, i.e. babies died versus who was on shift, what is the most likely outcome. I believe that some statisticians labelled it a visual stunt which ignored important context and incidents when Letby was not on duty. I believe that no less than the Royal Statistical Society stated that using shift pattern data to claim guilt is fundamentally flawed, "scientifically worthless" and prone to confirmation bias. The RSS president and CEO wrote to Lady Justice Thirlwall requesting that the public inquiry investigate the appropriate use of statistical evidence to prevent future miscarriages of justice.



Are you serious?



No she didn't.

The presentation of the shift pattern data/statistics was flawed: see above.

There are experts willing to testify that they do not agree with the prosecution experts. The jury did not hear those experts. I believe one of the prosecution experts had not worked in neonatal for a good number of years, which calls into question his understanding of current practices.

The prosecution put a study before the jury that was a cornerstone of their case. The person who undertook the study came forward at a later date to say that the prosecution had misrepresented his study and he wasn't saying what the prosecution claimed at all. The jury didn't hear that. In fact, at an appeal, this person did come forward to put people right, but because of our bizarre, antiquated system; it was deemed unimportant because the process matters more than justice.

That's a mere, quick post. There are a good number of issues with this case.

Now, I'm not saying she's innocent. I don't know.

More to the point, never in a million years did Letby get a fair trial with all of the pertinent information put before a jury, and until that happens nobody will know whether or not she is innocent. In the meantime, all you're doing is picking a side and arguing until you're blue in the face with strangers on the internet.

If it's a strawman argument then why did you introduce it?

The shift chart was NEVER presented in a statistical sense so calling it a "statistic" and then calling it flawed in that regard is the epitome of a strawman, gaslighting argument! The chart was made for no other reason but to show where she was when each incident occurred. For it to be used as "statistical" evidence they'd have to say something like ...so, members of the jury, as you can see, she was there for every incident, hence, we say, that that, of itself, points towards guilt.... Can you quote the specific point in the trial transcript where they present the chart as "statistical" evidence, please? It should be easy as it was only mentioned twice (as far as I recall) in the entire nine months of evidence.

You're right, the jury didn't hear these "experts" because she didn't call them! Her defence team would have had notification that the paper by Shoo Lee was going to be used. They could easily have found him and sought his opinion! There was no restriction as to time or expense so why didn't they? Even if he was never called, him saying that his paper was being misinterpreted may have resulted in the prosecution dropping that evidence. Given that he's now supporting her innocence, it can be stated with 100% certainty that he'd have joined her defence, were he asked.

The bolded point; oh, purleeease! Sorry, but with the greatest of respect, this is the typical response of someone who thinks (wants) she's innocent but dresses it up, essentially hedging their bets, as a genuine search for "answers". You do think she's innocent or you want her to be found innocent. It's always better if you have the courage of your convictions.

If all the "pertinent" information were put before a jury in a retrial she'd be convicted even faster as her "experts" (the panel and the ones she didn't call originally) would get her convicted even more damingly than she was the first two times!

Oh, and can you please provide links to the other statements you made that I asked for previously?

 

[JimmyDurham]

So, you don't actually have any sort of argument against his evidence, just that he had been retired for some time?

Aye, there is plenty of evidence to contradict that particular expert for the prosecution.

We weren't talking about that, however. You claimed "irrelevant adhom"; I demonstrated that it was no such thing.

Look, mate, there's no way in the world I'm going along with your arbitrary shifting of the discussion.

I'm happy to come onto the opposing evidence, but in the meantime: do you accept that I am correct in stating that your "irrelevant ad hom" is no such thing.

Do you complain just as much that Shoo Lee is retired?

Again, happy to discuss, but one at a time.

 

[JimmyDurham]

The shift chart was NEVER presented in a statistical sense so calling it a "statistic" and then calling it flawed in that regard is the epitome of a strawman, gaslighting argument! The chart was made for no other reason but to show where she was when each incident occurred. For it to be used as "statistical" evidence they'd have to say something like ...so, members of the jury, as you can see, she was there for every incident, hence, we say, that that, of itself, points towards guilt.... Can you quote the specific point in the trial transcript where they present the chart as "statistical" evidence, please? It should be easy as it was only mentioned twice (as far as I recall) in the entire nine months of evidence.

I cannot believe I am reading this. The most incredible piece of sleight of hand wizardry I have ever witnessed.

For the first time in my life, I'm lost for words.

 

[JosieJo]

Her original defence have already tried to get an appeal based on Evans not being "fit for purpose"...it was rejected