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

[JosieJo]

Get sick of hearing about "statistics" ...all the Jury could take from the chart is that Letby was on duty for all the charges and there wasn't anyone else anywhere near on duty for them .
The jury were shown to be perfectly capable of deciphering whether murder or attempted murder occurred..hence the variety of verdicts

If the defence had produced a chart of all deaths and collapses how on earth could they justify the cause without all the medical details of babies not on the indictment?

The jury needed to know who was on duty when.

I know as a juror I would have took nothing from that chart other than who was on duty when ...I would have wanted to know firstly was there deliberate harm ...and who did it ...not who was "on duty" ...and I really think the jury did that

 

[WaneLyrical]

If all they cared about was providing a nice ready reckoner for the jury about who was on shift, they wouldn’t have omitted the doctors from it.

 

[JosieJo]

Maybe, but our system does get it wrong from time to time.

I'm not saying that "Evans is not fit for purpose"; I'm saying it needs a proper trial so that the defence experts who disagree with Evans and associates, as well as all of the information, is put before a jury.

That hasn't happened.

Maybe it will turn out she is guilty, but it is in all of our interests that she gets a fair trial and all of the information is heard and judged.

But she had numerous medical experts..they were involved throughout but didn't take the stand because they couldn't realistically disagree in "some" of the cases ..impossible to defend...and they couldn't take the risk of even one case going guilty as it would lead to a left sentence anyway. ..so they took the approach of the experts not taking the stand.

Nothing has changed...unless there's more the public haven't heard, none of the panel have produced anything new that stands up or hasn't already been covered at trial or previous appeal requests.

 

[JimmyDurham]

all the Jury could take from the chart is that Letby was on duty for all the charges and there wasn't anyone else anywhere near on duty for them .

This is a monumental level of rubbish.

Don't believe me? Look up what the Royal Statistical Society had to say about it as well as other statisticians.

 

[JosieJo]

If all they cared about was providing a nice ready reckoner for the jury about who was on shift, they wouldn’t have omitted the doctors from it.

The Jury saw an exact same chart with the Dr's on it ...both presented to the Jury

 

[Marantz4250b]

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"?

What does retirement have to do with anything at all?

You don't need to have done a recent refresher course on air embolisms, insulin overdosing or overfeeding of babies, for your evidence to be accepted. You do realise that medical facts and the laws of physics don't change a couple of years after you retire, suely? Being an expert witness is literally an extremely common choice after retirement for people from a multitude of professions!

 

[WaneLyrical]

The Jury saw an exact same chart with three Dr's on it ...both presented to the Jury

Which three doctors? Why weren’t all the consultants and registrars covering the NNU on this document?

 

[JosieJo]

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.

Source?

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.

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

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.

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.


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.

Absolute

 

[JosieJo]

Which three doctors? Why weren’t all the consultants and registrars covering the NNU on this document?

It was a typo I've changed ..."the" Dr's not "three"

 

[Sweeper2000]

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?

I thought you were going to lose it and get a ban for someone mentioning the "stats" again. I myself can't muster the neccesaries to go on about it. Does its presence or absence change anything? Not even slightly imo really is clutching at straws to even mention it imo.

Fair play to people's patience here and diligence. Especially katydid, impressive recall and info providing.

 

[Marantz4250b]

This is a monumental level of rubbish.

Don't believe me? Look up what the Royal Statistical Society had to say about it as well as other statisticians.

No, that's not how it works. That's the standard conspiracy theorists answer.

YOU need to provide the documentation to support YOUR statements! This is a site rule.

So, to ask you again, please provide links to support all the stuff I asked for previously.

 

[Marantz4250b]

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.

Best plan might be to stay there.

Btw, what are you actually talking about?

If that's the most incredible you've ever experienced, then you clearly don't have many actual human interactions!

Is it half t.......actually, nah, I',m not going down the route again! Bye!

 

[WaneLyrical]

It was a typo I've changed ..."the" Dr's not "three"

Ok thanks, is there any source for this, it’s the first I’ve heard of it?

 

[JimmyDurham]

No, that's not how it works. That's the standard conspiracy theorists answer.

YOU need to provide the documentation to support YOUR statements! This is a site rule.

So, to ask you again, please provide links to support all the stuff I asked for previously.

Christ almighty. You people are so invested in this it's incredible. Imagine if there's a retrial and she's found not guilty. Half of you would have the misfortune to have your heads combust and fall off.

Right-o. I'll have a look and get back to you. I'm watching the cricket in between posting so could be a while.

 

[JosieJo]

Which three doctors? Why weren’t all the consultants and registrars covering the NNU on this document?

Ok thanks, is there any source for this, it’s the first I’ve heard of it?

As far as can be seen the Dr's chart was never given to the press so we only get to see the nurse one presumably because it's got Letbys name on it ...the chester standard live court reporting stated the Jury were shown a chart with the Dr's on ..I'll see if I can find it

 

[Sweeper2000]

I'm gonna do a cheeky bad one and mention that which can't be named.

IIRC stats were never explicitly mentioned were they ? Because if they were we would have heard how likely or not it would be for the events to have happened randomly and without human cause. You know that is actually a neutral fact that could be employed by both the defence (if it looks good) and by the prosecution (if it looks bad). But we never heard a thing like it says me racking my brains.

 

[Bekind89]

Maybe, but our system does get it wrong from time to time.

I'm not saying that "Evans is not fit for purpose"; I'm saying it needs a proper trial so that the defence experts who disagree with Evans and associates, as well as all of the information, is put before a jury.

That hasn't happened.

Maybe it will turn out she is guilty, but it is in all of our interests that she gets a fair trial and all of the information is heard and judged.

"Maybe it will turn out she is guilty.'

It already has.

 

[JosieJo]

Ok thanks, is there any source for this, it’s the first I’ve heard of it?

"3:05pm
A chart showing which members of the neonatal unit nursing staff were on duty for the shifts when the babies in this case collapsed is shown to the court.

The chart covers the period from June 2015-June 2016.

Lucy Letby's name is highlighted as being the only one present on all 24 shifts for when the babies collapsed.

A second sheet shows which junior doctors and consultants were present for those events.

This chart was shown during the prosecution opening in the first week of the trial."


There is also other detail regarding who was on duty when on this days thread



Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, April 27 | Chester and District Standard Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, April 27

 

[Marantz4250b]

Christ almighty. You people are so invested in this it's incredible. Imagine if there's a retrial and she's found not guilty. Half of you would have the misfortune to have your heads combust and fall off.

Right-o. I'll have a look and get back to you. I'm watching the cricket in between posting so could be a while.

Errrr...you what, mate???

Search my earliest posts when I joined here in 2020. I did so because I was convinced she was wrongly accused!

Seriously, check out my first posts.

I think I owe someone my house somewhere along the line!

I am 100%, gilt-edged, totally willing to accept that she's innocent if someone presents the evidence. If she's the victim of a mahoosive miscarriage of justice then I'll be the first and last to man the barricades!

She's guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo!

 

[Marantz4250b]

I'm gonna do a cheeky bad one and mention that which can't be named.

IIRC stats were never explicitly mentioned were they ? Because if they were we would have heard how likely or not it would be for the events to have happened randomly and without human cause. You know that is actually a neutral fact that could be employed by both the defence (if it looks good) and by the prosecution (if it looks bad). But we never heard a thing like it says me racking my brains.

Is the correct answer!!

Stats were never mentioned in the trial. They "prove" nothing and can be misused. Lucia De-Burk being a case in point.

No one has ever pointed to a single "statistic" presented by the prosecution.