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

[Marantz4250b]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/20/letby-shift-data-scientifically-worthless-statisticians/

The statement that Lucy Letby's shift data was "scientifically worthless" originated from a September 2024 meeting of statisticians and experts at the Royal Statistical Society. Experts at the meeting, which was held under Chatham House rules, argued the evidence was "very selective" and lacked proper context.

It wasn't entered as evidence on it's alleged "statistical" basis.

It was simply to demonstrate where she was on what dates.

Nothing more.

Hence, they can say what they want as it's completely irrelevant to its use at trial.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Take the time to read posts rather than introduce Straw Man arguments.

Please just answer the question, for a change. It was an honest and genuine question.

 

[JimmyDurham]

It wasn't entered as evidence on it's alleged "statistical" basis.

It was simply to demonstrate where she was on what dates.

Nothing more.

Hence, they can say what they want as it's completely irrelevant to its use at trial.

It is statistical evidence because it aims to show correlations, patterns, and anomalies in relation to safety incidents. That was the whole point of presenting the information. It is patently obvious.

You're also taking no notice of the RSS, an authoritative voice on the matter, who outright state that this is statistical evidence. Why do you believe you are more qualified than the RSS?

Quite frankly, what you're saying here is ludicrous.

 

[JimmyDurham]

Please just answer the question, for a change. It was an honest and genuine question.

I have already discussed this in an earlier post. The post is only a few back.

If you can't be bothered to read and digest the posts, then don't expect people to run around after you and repeat themselves.

 

[iamshadow21]

It is statistical evidence because it aims to show correlations, patterns, and anomalies in relation to safety incidents. That was the whole point of presenting the information. It is patently obvious.

You're also taking no notice of the RSS, an authoritative voice on the matter, who outright state that this is statistical evidence. Why do you believe you are more qualified than the RSS?

Quite frankly, what you're saying here is ludicrous.

I'm just curious how else they should have presented that she alone of the staff had the opportunity to commit all the attacks. Means, motive, and opportunity are three of the core things that are generally presented at trial by the prosecution. This isn't a thing reserved for Letby, every trial must present evidence the accused had the opportunity to commit the charged offence. They did so.

MOO

 

[JimmyDurham]

I'm just curious how else they should have presented that she alone of the staff had the opportunity to commit all the attacks.

This is what the prosecution attempted to argue.

The veracity, context and conclusion surrounding the information is being called into question however by authoritative voices, e.g. the RSS, and not only them by the way. It follows that the prosecution conclusion that you have repeated here is not necessarily robust and could do with a review.

A fair trial would involve authoritative voices who question the prosecution's findings. That hasn't happened.

 

[Marantz4250b]

It is statistical evidence because it aims to show correlations, patterns, and anomalies in relation to safety incidents. That was the whole point of presenting the information. It is patently obvious.

You're also taking no notice of the RSS, an authoritative voice on the matter, who outright state that this is statistical evidence. Why do you believe you are more qualified than the RSS?

Quite frankly, what you're saying here is ludicrous.

No they don't. They say "...on the face of it...". That clearly means that it can be interpreted in different ways, including it as not being statistical.

As I say, yet again, the prosecution made no statistical claims as to that chart. It was nothing more that an aide-memoire for the jury and court.

It shows that she was on shift on particular days. Nothing more.

Once again, to ask; do you genuinely think that the outcome of the trials would have been different had that chart not been provided? Please answer the question.

And also, please quote the relevant part from the trial transcript, or any contemporary reputable media outlet where this was said.

You can't because it was never presented to infer guilt. It simply wasn't. It was presented to deomonstrate where she was. NOTHING more!

 

[Marantz4250b]

I have already discussed this in an earlier post. The post is only a few back.

If you can't be bothered to read and digest the posts, then don't expect people to run around after you and repeat themselves.

You have not.

Please answer the question; do you think that she would have been acquitted, but for the existence of the chart?

It's easy and only requires a simple "yes" or "no" answer.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I'm just curious how else they should have presented that she alone of the staff had the opportunity to commit all the attacks. Means, motive, and opportunity are three of the core things that are generally presented at trial by the prosecution. This isn't a thing reserved for Letby, every trial must present evidence the accused had the opportunity to commit the charged offence. They did so.

MOO

Exactly!

The chart is a total red herring. It's completely irrelevant, other than to show whether she was on shift at the relevant times.

 

[Marantz4250b]

This is what the prosecution attempted to argue.

The veracity, context and conclusion surrounding the information is being called into question however by authoritative voices, e.g. the RSS, and not only them by the way. It follows that the prosecution conclusion that you have repeated here is not necessarily robust and could do with a review.

A fair trial would involve authoritative voices who question the prosecution's findings. That hasn't happened.

That's just completely wrong.

Showing that she was on-shift, and so had the opportunity to do things, is not proof (statistically or otherwise) that she did them. It shows merely that she could have done, not that she did.

It is a simple statement of facts. Nothing more!

 

[JimmyDurham]

Showing that she was on-shift, and so had the opportunity to do things, is not proof (statistically or otherwise) that she did them. It shows merely that she could have done, not that she did.

The prosecution put it forward as a circumstantial piece of evidence. The whole point was to demonstrate a pattern associated with Letby being on duty and incidents occurring.

Are you suggesting the prosecution put forward the shift pattern data for no other reasons than everyone fancied talking about something different for a while and it had nothing to do with the prosecution's case?

 

[May72031]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/20/letby-shift-data-scientifically-worthless-statisticians/

The statement that Lucy Letby's shift data was "scientifically worthless" originated from a September 2024 meeting of statisticians and experts at the Royal Statistical Society. Experts at the meeting, which was held under Chatham House rules, argued the evidence was "very selective" and lacked proper context.

Is Richard Gill involved in that?

 

[May72031]

The prosecution put it forward as a circumstantial piece of evidence. The whole point was to demonstrate a pattern associated with Letby being on duty and incidents occurring.

There was a pattern, though. And that pattern was not replicated with other employees.

 

[JimmyDurham]

There was a pattern, though. And that pattern was not replicated with other employees.

Well: they could have included incidents when Letby was not on duty; and included in the analysis the fact that Letby worked more shifts than most other colleagues; and undertook a random sample which is not what they did: they began with a suspect and then constructed a chart designed to demonstrate that suspect's guilt; and the process the police and Evans went through involved chopping and changing what were suspicious and non-suspicious events at various times as they compiled this chart designed to show evidence of Letby's guilt.

From there, they turn up in court with a chart showing 25 incidents and Letby was present at all of them. That looked pretty damning. The problem is with the method of compiling the chart, and statisticians are saying it's worthless due to the methodology utilised. The jury did not hear that part from authoritative voices who are qualified in that field.

 

[Marantz4250b]

The prosecution put it forward as a circumstantial piece of evidence. The whole point was to demonstrate a pattern associated with Letby being on duty and incidents occurring.

Are you suggesting the prosecution put forward the shift pattern data for no other reasons than everyone fancied talking about something different for a while and it had nothing to do with the prosecution's case?

Of course it had something to do with the prosecution's case - it factually states that she was on-shift at various times. That was its whole purpose. It was perfectly pertinent information which the jury were entitled to see. How else do you suggest it should have been presented?

There was never any "statistical" relevance to anything and it proves nothing other than coinciding instances of her being somewhere when an event happened. It was merely a chart of facts.

The Crown never asserted that it made it more likely than not that she was guilty. The jury were, as is proper, entitled to affix as much or as little weight to that chart as they saw fit.

And, once again - yet again - she had every opportunity to challenge ANY piece of evidence. She could easily have called the same "expert" organisations you have referred to. She chose not to.

To ask - yet again - do you believe that she would have been acquitted, were it not for the chart?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Well: they could have included incidents when Letby was not on duty; and included in the analysis the fact that Letby worked more shifts than most other colleagues; and undertook a random sample which is not what they did: they began with a suspect and then constructed a chart designed to demonstrate that suspect's guilt; and the process the police and Evans went through involved chopping and changing what were suspicious and non-suspicious events at various times as they compiled this chart designed to show evidence of Letby's guilt.

From there, they turn up in court with a chart showing 25 incidents and Letby was present at all of them. That looked pretty damning. The problem is with the method of compiling the chart, and statisticians are saying it's worthless due to the methodology utilised. The jury did not hear that part from authoritative voices who are qualified in that field.

Err, no they couldn't because, as you'll have followed the trial in great detail so will be intimately familiar with the evidence, you will know that this has been done to death on here already.

No other collapses or deaths were deemed suspicious and all had explicable medical reasons.

But, as is becoming very apparent, you did not follow the trial at all, which is why you didn't know that!

 

[JimmyDurham]

No other collapses or deaths were deemed suspicious and all had explicable medical reasons.

Deemed "not suspicious" by whom? and at what point, because they were deemed "suspicious" earlier in the investigation prior to the chart being presented in court?

The chart was put together by beginning with a suspect; statisticians well tell you that its methodology is flawed.

To remind you:

The RSS has criticised the shift-pattern data as worthless as circumstantial evidence, and Professor Jane Hutton (a medical statistician) described the chart as: "cherry-picked" and "grossly misleading".

Let a court hear these alternative opinions on the quality of the data presented due its flawed methodology.

But, as is becoming very apparent, you did not follow the trial at all, which is why you didn't know that!

It's high time you took a look at the methodology underpinning the chart and what statisticians have to say about it.

 

[May72031]

Well: they could have included incidents when Letby was not on duty

What incidents?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Deemed "not suspicious" by whom? and at what point, because they were deemed "suspicious" earlier in the investigation prior to the chart being presented in court?

The chart was put together by beginning with a suspect; statisticians well tell you that its methodology is flawed.

To remind you:

The RSS has criticised the shift-pattern data as worthless as circumstantial evidence, and Professor Jane Hutton (a medical statistician) described the chart as: "cherry-picked" and "grossly misleading".

Let a court hear these alternative opinions on the quality of the data presented due its flawed methodology.



It's high time you took a look at the methodology underpinning the chart and what statisticians have to say about it.

This has all been done here at great length. There were very few other incidents and all had provable, easily identifiable medical causes. Do a search, it's all there over the literally hundreds of pages and thousands of posts.

Again, if you'd followed the case then you'd know all this.

The chart was NOT an investigatory tool for the police investigation. It was a visual aid made for presentation at court. It simply shows where she was an on what dates. Nothing more.

It was not "grossly misleading". It shows factual data. Facts are NOT misleading. They are merely facts.

They may well be worthless in statistical terms. Who knows? They were never used for anything other than stating the facts of where she was and when, though.

LL had ample opportunity to critique the chart or to call witnesses about it. She chose not to.

 

[Marantz4250b]

What incidents?

Indeed. I would ask the same question.

We'll clearly never get an answer, though.

LL is innocent is now a cult and rationality no longer matters.