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]

'Cricket finished, so a cursory google.

There are people here who insist that the shift chart is not statistical evidence. The Royal Statistical Society disagree. It's up to you in terms of whom you place more store, but my gut feel is that the RSS have more of an idea of what they're talking about.

Anyway, here's a link to a letter from the RSS to Lady Justice Thirlwall.

Statistical aspects of the Lucy Letby Inquiry.

https://rss.org.uk/RSS/media/File-library/News/Press%20release/Letter_to_Lady_Justice_Thirlwall_re_Lucy_Letby_Inquiry_29_September_2023.pdf

The link/letter includes:

However, it is far from straightforward to draw conclusions from suspicious clusters of deaths in a hospital setting – it is a statistical challenge to distinguish event clusters that arise from criminal acts from those that arise coincidentally from other factors, even if the data in question was collected with rigour. This is an area where the Royal Statistical Society has recently conducted work. In 2022 we released our report, Healthcare Serial Killer or Coincidence? Statistical issues in the investigation of suspected medical misconduct, which details some of the challenges in using statistics and data to identify criminal activity in a medical setting and sets out some proposals for how statistics might be properly used.

 

[Marantz4250b]

'Cricket finished, so a cursory google.

There are people here who insist that the shift chart is not statistical evidence. The Royal Statistical Society disagree. It's up to you in terms of whom you place more store, but my gut feel is that the RSS have more of an idea of what they're talking about.

Anyway, here's a link to a letter from the RSS to Lady Justice Thirlwall.

Statistical aspects of the Lucy Letby Inquiry.

https://rss.org.uk/RSS/media/File-library/News/Press%20release/Letter_to_Lady_Justice_Thirlwall_re_Lucy_Letby_Inquiry_29_September_2023.pdf

The link/letter includes:

However, it is far from straightforward to draw conclusions from suspicious clusters of deaths in a hospital setting – it is a statistical challenge to distinguish event clusters that arise from criminal acts from those that arise coincidentally from other factors, even if the data in question was collected with rigour. This is an area where the Royal Statistical Society has recently conducted work. In 2022 we released our report, Healthcare Serial Killer or Coincidence? Statistical issues in the investigation of suspected medical misconduct, which details some of the challenges in using statistics and data to identify criminal activity in a medical setting and sets out some proposals for how statistics might be properly used.

Where do they refer to the chart, please?

As to the whole thing coming to the notice of the hospital due to a "spike" in deaths, please see my signature.

Again, you resent something completely unconnected to the argument you are making in the hope that people will take it as fact - gaslighting.

 

[JimmyDurham]

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

This settles it then, the final analysis: Marantz thought Letby was innocent but has since changed his/her mind, nobody needs to hear anything else.

Ha'way man, when is it gonna dawn on you people that a judge and jury is the be all and end all.

As opposed to Websleuth's websleuths.

 

[Parker Knoll]

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.

So it needs. “ a proper trial so that the defence experts who disagree with Evan’s and associates, as well as all the information, is put before the jury “ … do you think ?

What do you think the court was doing from October 2022 until August 2023 … if you recall - the longest criminal trial in legal history ?

Did the jury just “ phone it in “ ?

I take it the jury didn’t hear the evidence from the experts in paediatric radiology / paediatric pathology / paediatric neurology / endocrinology and haematology ?

They didn’t hear from doctors, consultants and her nursing colleagues to form their opinions ?

They didn’t study the notes, take into account her lies on the stand, her failure to answer basic questions simply went over their heads ?

They were so uninvested that they didn’t spend close to a month coming to their conclusions and not every charge was guilty.

Poor old Justice Goss going to the trouble of drafting a 600 page summing up for the jury which took days to deliver - why bother ?

She HAD a fair trial … more than fair.

She had her little comfort blanket, early finishing when she was “ tired “ or couldn’t remember her lies for the day and as nobody could actually see her walking to the witness box she had special dispensation to be already seated before the jury came back into court.
It was text book.

I’m SMH here.

 

[WaneLyrical]

"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

Much appreciated, not sure why they had to make a special separate one for the doctors though. Again, if the whole point of this is to simply show who’s present for each event, and release it to the press, I’m not sure why the doctors were omitted from it.

 

[JimmyDurham]

Where do they refer to the chart, please?

As to the whole thing coming to the notice of the hospital due to a "spike" in deaths, please see my signature.

Again, you resent something completely unconnected to the argument you are making in the hope that people will take it as fact - gaslighting.

What are you talking about? Have you read the letter?

 

[Marantz4250b]

This settles it then, the final analysis: Marantz thought Letby was innocent but has since changed his/her mind, nobody needs to hear anything else.

Ha'way man, when is it gonna dawn on you people that a judge and jury is the be all and end all.

As opposed to Websleuth's websleuths.

Oh, a Geordie, me thinks?

And, yes, it kinda disproves your assertion that I'm "invested" in her innocence.

There has been a judge and jury. The latter, twice!

 

[Marantz4250b]

What are you talking about? Have you read the letter?

It's down to YOU to point out the particular part. Not me!

 

[JimmyDurham]

Oh, a Geordie

Na, which tells me that when you say "North East England", you must be from the very south of the region (probably in what was formerly Yorkshire), or you're not from this region and rather have moved up to these parts from somewhere else. Anybody from Northumberland, Newcastle, Sunderland, Durham; would know that the spelling means definitely not a Geordie.

 

[JosieJo]

Much appreciated, not sure why they had to make a special separate one for the doctors though. Again, if the whole point of this is to simply show who’s present for each event, and release it to the press, I’m not sure why the doctors were omitted from it.

Ease of use maybe ? Or as simple as nurses and doctors rotas are done by different departments on different systems? ... ultimately it wasn't for the press was it ? They were allowed the nursing one because of her name on it ? Presumably that's what they requested for their headlines or in reality it wouldn't be useful to provide a chart for people not on trial

 

[JimmyDurham]

It's down to YOU to point out the particular part. Not me!

What? I've sent you a link with the details. You appear to be fully literate so why can't you just read it?

If it carries on this way, you're gonna ask me to define a collective/plural noun that requires a plural verb and an adjective, otherwise Letby is innocent.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Na, which tells me that when you say "North East England", you must be from the very south of the region (probably in what was formerly Yorkshire), or you're not from this region and rather have moved up to these parts from somewhere else. Anybody from Northumberland, Newcastle, Sunderland, Durham; would know that the spelling means definitely not a Geordie.

Completely wrong in every respect!

A good scorecard you've got going there!

Anyway, I'm out of this discussion now.

Goodbye.

 

[JimmyDurham]

So it needs. “ a proper trial so that the defence experts who disagree with Evan’s and associates, as well as all the information, is put before the jury “ … do you think ?

Aye.

What do you think the court was doing from October 2022 until August 2023 … if you recall - the longest criminal trial in legal history ?

Lots of information has come to light since then that has not been put before a court of law.

Did the jury just “ phone it in “ ?

Dunno, but I do know that this is not evidence.

I take it the jury didn’t hear the evidence from the experts in paediatric radiology / paediatric pathology / paediatric neurology / endocrinology and haematology ?

They didn't hear from those experts who do not agree with the prosecution experts.

Poor old Justice Goss going to the trouble of drafting a 600 page summing up for the jury which took days to deliver - why bother ?

Dunno, but I do know that this is not evidence.

She had her little comfort blanket, early finishing when she was “ tired “ or couldn’t remember her lies for the day and as nobody could actually see her walking to the witness box she had special dispensation to be already seated before the jury came back into court.
It was text book.

This isn't evidence.

I’m SMH here.

This isn't evidence either. This is you being Parker Knoll and hysterical.

 

[Sweeper2000]

What a .... temporary though it is.

 

[katydid23]

Right-o, crack on.

Will do.

 

[katydid23]

Aye.



Lots of information has come to light since then that has not been put before a court of law.

That^^^ is not true. None of the information coming from Shoo Lee's new report is new to the court. It has all been argued already and has been rebuffed.

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.

That would have been needlessly confusing.

They did provide evidence concerning the doctor's shifts and none of the doctors were present for even 1/3 of the incidents.

 

[katydid23]

'Cricket finished, so a cursory google.

There are people here who insist that the shift chart is not statistical evidence. The Royal Statistical Society disagree. It's up to you in terms of whom you place more store, but my gut feel is that the RSS have more of an idea of what they're talking about.

Anyway, here's a link to a letter from the RSS to Lady Justice Thirlwall.

Statistical aspects of the Lucy Letby Inquiry.

https://rss.org.uk/RSS/media/File-library/News/Press%20release/Letter_to_Lady_Justice_Thirlwall_re_Lucy_Letby_Inquiry_29_September_2023.pdf

The link/letter includes:

However, it is far from straightforward to draw conclusions from suspicious clusters of deaths in a hospital setting – it is a statistical challenge to distinguish event clusters that arise from criminal acts from those that arise coincidentally from other factors, even if the data in question was collected with rigour. This is an area where the Royal Statistical Society has recently conducted work. In 2022 we released our report, Healthcare Serial Killer or Coincidence? Statistical issues in the investigation of suspected medical misconduct, which details some of the challenges in using statistics and data to identify criminal activity in a medical setting and sets out some proposals for how statistics might be properly used.

You are missing something here. I am not sure how many times we have tried to explain this.

We do understand the point you are trying to make. YES, it is possible to do sleight of hand tricks with statistics and clusters and shift rotation statistics. YES, it was pointed out by the RSS, we are aware.

However, the jury did not base their reasoned conclusion upon a shift chart or a spike or cluster of deaths.

The jury painstakingly sorted through hundreds of documents, shown to them in an organised DAY BY DAY analysis of each medical incident.

It was organised in a linear fashion---Baby A, Baby B, Baby C up through Baby P.
27 incidents taken chronologically, and looked at minute by minute, using legal documents, medical reports, witness testimony, digital evidence, phone data, social media messages, texts, medical observation logs.

By doing so in a painstaking fashion, for each and every baby and each and every incident, the jury had evidence proving that Nurse Letby WAS PRESENT for every single incident in this case.

There was no sleight of hand, no tricks concerning statistics or shift changes or percentages, etc.

The jury saw credible documented evidence for each and every charge. They acquitted her for some of the charges because it was not clear enough for them ---it was not beyond a reasonable doubt.

There were charges which were beyond reasonable doubt that Nurse Letby committed murder and attempted murder upon these babies.

It is frustrating that people are saying the jurors were tricked and the accusations were based on faulty statistics etc. There was actual evidence for each and every guilty verdict in this case.

 

[katydid23]

You're spamming the board with irrationality and world record posting lengths to the extent that it's difficult to follow what you're trying to say and difficult to pin you down to one specific point that can be discussed.

THAT ^^^ is pretty funny since you are replying to my post-----in which I replied, sentence by sentence, point by point, to your long post.

So how could you claim I was difficult to follow and was bouncing around? I replied to your post, one point at a time.

I've chosen the above from your post.

I doubt you realise it but you're coming across like you believe that a court does not need to hear the opposing views, both medical/neonatal experts and statisticians, and rather it's enough for you to simply act as judge and jury.

I may be coming across that way to you because you are missing the point.

My point is, the court already heard those arguments from the defense and they were discussed and rebutted.

For example, his 'experts' claims that two babies died from bacterial infections. NO, they were given blood tests confirming they did not die from infection. That was confirmed during the trial as well. So already argued and rebuffed.

Another 'expert' claimed one of the babies died from a genetic illness inherited from the mother. Again, that was already argued by the defense and it was successfully disputed in court and rejected by the jury.

So I must correct you---I am not acting as the judge and jury----the judge and jury acted as the judge and jury and did their jobs already.

You are falling for a false narrative put out by Letby defenders who are misleading the public.

I've no idea what your credentials are in the United States, but I'm gonna push the boat out and posit that you're not a neonatal practitioner who moonlights as a lawyer while working for the Royal Statistical Society in your spare time.

So? I am not trying to be a any of the above. I am just standing up for the Justice System and not wanting to see it being unfairly bashed by a crooked defense team, creating a hysterical false narrative. It's gone too far.

Do you not understand a very simple concept: the information needs to be seen and judged in a court of law?

And do you not understand an even simpler concept? It has already been seen and judged in a court of law.

Prof Lee has already been told by the court that he is incorrect in his accusation that the prosecution based their case upon his 'Lee Signs.' The prosecution has already shown the court that they did not do so. End of Story.

And these 'alternative' medical explanations that his 'experts' came up with have ALREADY been discussed and debunked IN COURT.

A non authoritative source spamming a message board is not the equivalent of a thorough and comprehensive assessment of guilt or otherwise.

Replying , sentence by sentence, to your posts is not equivalent to 'spamming.'

Nurse Letby had a thorough and comprehensive assessment of guilt or otherwise, already. Then she had two appeals which were denied.

I doubt she will be given another shot at it.

But if so, she will be found guilty again. There is so much evidence against her and Prof. Lee is only attempting to refute a small amount of it.

 

[katydid23]

[...snipped for focus...]

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.

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.’

But anything to try and discredit Lee.

He is doing that himself, imo

 

[May72031]

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

No, there isn't, and you still haven't presented any.

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

No. You didn't.

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.

No. I do not.