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]

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.

 

[JimmyDurham]

Facts are NOT misleading. They are merely facts.

I'd recommend you do a bit of reading around statistics and their use. You can't move forward unless you do that.

It would help you understand the concerns of the RSS, Professor Jane Hutton, etc, in relation to this case.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I'd recommend you do a bit of reading around statistics and their use. You can't move forward unless you do that.

It would help you understand the concerns of the RSS, Professor Jane Hutton, etc, in relation to this case.

You are the one making this point. It's down to you to prove your point.

Site rules, I'm afraid.

Once again, the chart is merely a statement of some co-existing facts. Nothing more.

The "do your own research" mantra is the regular line used by every conspiracy theorist, ever.

 

[Bekind89]

You are the one making this point. It's down to you to prove your point.

Site rules, I'm afraid.

Once again, the chart is merely a statement of some co-existing facts. Nothing more.

The "do your own research" mantra is the regular line used by every conspiracy theorist, ever.

Is there an emoji for beating a dead horse?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Is there an emoji for beating a dead horse?

I doubt it - someone, somewhere, would inevitably be "offended" and would claim against WS!

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Amanda Knox hosted a podcast on this case.

The Case Everyone Thinks Is Closed

Doubt: The Case of Lucy Letby

amandaknox.substack.com

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/02/amanda-knox-lucy-letby-gives-me-flashbacks-case-mirrors/

I'm just the messenger!

 

[JimmyDurham]

What incidents?

Are you unaware?

For example:

There were 12 incidents that were originally deemed to be suspicious and included in the chart: Letby was not on shift for 10 of those incidents. They were removed from the chart.

There were 5 incidents that were originally deemed to be not suspicious and were excluded from the chart: Letby was on shift for all 5 of those incidents. They were added to the chart.

This is an indication of why you have the RSS and Professor Jane Hutton (a medical statistician) claiming the shift pattern was cherry-picked and misleading. They claim that the methodology began with a suspect and the chart was made to fit.

The jury didn't know about any of this.

I know, I know, the qualified, authoritative statisticians don't know what they're talking about when it comes to statistics.

Just out of idle curiosity: what exactly are the statistical qualifications of the people on this thread who have no faith in the like of the RSS?

 

[JosieJo]

Are you unaware?

For example:

There were 12 incidents that were originally deemed to be suspicious and included in the chart: Letby was not on shift for 10 of those incidents. They were removed from the chart.

There were 5 incidents that were originally deemed to be not suspicious and were excluded from the chart: Letby was on shift for all 5 of those incidents. They were added to the chart.

This is an indication of why you have the RSS and Professor Jane Hutton (a medical statistician) claiming the shift pattern was cherry-picked and misleading. They claim that the methodology began with a suspect and the chart was made to fit.

The jury didn't know about any of this.

I know, I know, the qualified, authoritative statisticians don't know what they're talking about when it comes to statistics.

Just out of idle curiosity: what exactly are the statistical qualifications of the people on this thread who have no faith in the like of the RSS?

Deemed suspicious by who?

 

[Parker Knoll]

Are you unaware?

For example:

There were 12 incidents that were originally deemed to be suspicious and included in the chart: Letby was not on shift for 10 of those incidents. They were removed from the chart.

There were 5 incidents that were originally deemed to be not suspicious and were excluded from the chart: Letby was on shift for all 5 of those incidents. They were added to the chart.

This is an indication of why you have the RSS and Professor Jane Hutton (a medical statistician) claiming the shift pattern was cherry-picked and misleading. They claim that the methodology began with a suspect and the chart was made to fit.

The jury didn't know about any of this.

I know, I know, the qualified, authoritative statisticians don't know what they're talking about when it comes to statistics.

Just out of idle curiosity: what exactly are the statistical qualifications of the people on this thread who have no faith in the like of the RSS?

I’m not a statistician …. Hysterical allegedly but no statistician.

 

[JimmyDurham]

Deemed suspicious by who?

By whom? Are you unaware? I feel like I'm educating people on the case here.

Right.

Detective Sergeant Jane Moore put together the original chart: "suspicious incidents". Letby was not on duty for roughly one third of those incidents.

Dewi Evans, the prosecution's expert witness, revised the chart. He removed 10 incidents when Letby was not on shift; he added 5 incidents when Letby was on shift. Interestingly, 0 incidents from indictment babies were removed from the Moore chart when Letby was on shift. Feels like the chart is being rigged to tell a story. Hmmm, I'd want the jury to hear all of this (if that was my Sister).

 

[Baileyboo]

There was an unheard article about this showing the chart at the beginning of the investigation before a lot of the evidence had been found. Unheard included incidents such as raised temperature and distended stomach while the insulin poisoning evidence hadn't yet been found so wasn't included.
The chart shown in court, contained seven deaths and other nearly deaths. It was ultimately up to the jury to decide if the incident was suspicious.https://unherd.com/2025/02/why-the-letby-case-isnt-closed/

 

[JimmyDurham]

There was an unheard article about this showing the chart at the beginning of the investigation before a lot of the evidence had been found. Unheard included incidents such as raised temperature and distended stomach while the insulin poisoning evidence hadn't yet been found so wasn't included.
The chart shown in court, contained seven deaths and other nearly deaths. It was ultimately up to the jury to decide if the incident was suspicious.

It certainly is interesting in that just about all cases, Dewi Evans removed incidents when Letby was off duty and added incidents when Letby was on duty.

What are the chances of the original chart being incorrect in just about every incident when Letby wasn't there and the chart favoured Letby, and also incorrect in just about every incident when Letby was there and the chart favoured Letby? Yet, not incorrect in just about every incident when it didn't favour Letby? I think we need a statistician to come along and gives us the odds. I'm gonna push the boat and say it is highly unlikely.

As for: "it was ultimately up to the jury to decide if the incident was suspicious." I keep hearing this from various posters as some final analysis. I don't think these posters understand the core tenets of the legal system.

That being: the jury needs to hear all of the information before deciding, from both the prosecution and the defence. They didn't get it. They were presented with a chart that looked damning but not the evolution of that chart and its methodology which has led qualified, authoritative people to state: cheery-picked, misleading, scientifically and evidentially worthless.

 

[JosieJo]

By whom? Are you unaware? I feel like I'm educating people on the case here.

Right.

Detective Sergeant Jane Moore put together the original chart: "suspicious incidents". Letby was not on duty for roughly one third of those incidents.

Dewi Evans, the prosecution's expert witness, revised the chart. He removed 10 incidents when Letby was not on shift; he added 5 incidents when Letby was on shift. Interestingly, 0 incidents from indictment babies were removed from the Moore chart when Letby was on shift. Feels like the chart is being rigged to tell a story. Hmmm, I'd want the jury to hear all of this (if that was my

By whom? Are you unaware? I feel like I'm educating people on the case here.

Right.

Detective Sergeant Jane Moore put together the original chart: "suspicious incidents". Letby was not on duty for roughly one third of those incidents.

Dewi Evans, the prosecution's expert witness, revised the chart. He removed 10 incidents when Letby was not on shift; he added 5 incidents when Letby was on shift. Interestingly, 0 incidents from indictment babies were removed from the Moore chart when Letby was on shift. Feels like the chart is being rigged to tell a story. Hmmm, I'd want the jury to hear all of this (if that was my Sister).

I prefer .."by who"
Evans had nothing to do with the chart.
He has stated many times he asked to see "all" the notes of any children that collapsed or died during the set time period (nothing to do with a chart)

 

[JimmyDurham]

I prefer .."by who"
Evans had nothing to do with the chart.
He has stated many times he asked to see "all" the notes of any children that collapsed or died during the set time period (nothing to do with a chart)

You're mistaken. I'd probably revisit the case, do a bit of reading, that sort of thing.

What I would say is that he wasn't the only one involved in amending the chart, although he was a major influence, nor was Moore the only one involved in compiling the original chart.

Either way, the jury didn't hear the evolution of this chart. Shame,

 

[JosieJo]

It certainly is interesting in that just about all cases, Dewi Evans removed incidents when Letby was off duty and added incidents when Letby was on duty.

What are the chances of the original chart being incorrect in just about every incident when Letby wasn't there and the chart favoured Letby, and also incorrect in just about every incident when Letby was there and the

By whom? Are you unaware? I feel like I'm educating people on the case here.

Right.

Detective Sergeant Jane Moore put together the original chart: "suspicious incidents". Letby was not on duty for roughly one third of those incidents.

Dewi Evans, the prosecution's expert witness, revised the chart. He removed 10 incidents when Letby was not on shift; he added 5 incidents when Letby was on shift. Interestingly, 0 incidents from indictment babies were removed from the Moore chart when Letby was on shift. Feels like the chart is being rigged to tell a story. Hmmm, I'd want the jury to hear all of this (if that was my Sister).

Also ..DS Moore is not able to say which incidents are suspicious..that would require medical knowledge so who deemed them suspicious for her to make the list ?

 

[JosieJo]

You're mistaken. I'd probably revisit the case, do a bit of reading, that sort of thing.

What I would say is that he wasn't the only one involved in amending the chart, although he was a major influence, nor was Moore the only one involved in compiling the original chart.

Either way, the jury didn't hear the evolution of this chart. Shame,

Oh I'm not mistaken...Evans has stated numerous times he insisted on reviewing all babies

 

[JosieJo]

You're mistaken. I'd probably revisit the case, do a bit of reading, that sort of thing.

What I would say is that he wasn't the only one involved in amending the chart, although he was a major influence, nor was Moore the only one involved in compiling the original chart.

Either way, the jury didn't hear the evolution of this chart. Shame,

Isn't this just simply the investigation progressing until all babies reviewed in depth to make a decision if foul play is expected? Ending up with a chart of truly suspicious incidents?

 

[JimmyDurham]

Also ..DS Moore is not able to say which incidents are suspicious..that would require medical knowledge so who deemed them suspicious for her to make the list ?

As said earlier, Moore wasn't the only person involved in compiling the original chart but it's generally known as the "Moore Chart".

Actually, Dewi Evans was heavily involved in compiling the original chart also. He was instructed by Cheshire Police to do so in 2017 and initially identified at least 27 babies with suspicious circumstances.

As said, farther down the line Dewi Evans was also heavily involved in removing babies/incidents from the chart when Letby was off duty and adding others when Letby was on duty. But, in just about all cases his additions and removals did not favour Letby, which is why when you get to trial there are 25 incidents and Letby is on duty at all of them.

 

[JimmyDurham]

Isn't this just simply the investigation progressing until all babies reviewed in depth to make a decision if foul play is expected? Ending up with a chart of truly suspicious incidents?

Not according to the RSS and Professor Jane Hutton (medical statistician) and other statisticians also, including some from abroad. They believe the chart is evidentially valueless because of the methodology utilised in compiling it.

Whether you or I believe it is besides the point. The point is that the jury didn't hear from these qualified people. They didn't get that side of the story. They were simply presented with the chart's final analysis, not the evolution, not the methodology and not the dissenting voices from people who know what they're talking about.

In that event, it's not a fair trial.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Kind of irrational to me to think the "Moore charts" presence or absence would warrant a retrial. It really wouldn't, to me it read only that she was present at these highly suspicious events and no one else had the opportunity. Its amongst the least of things in the trial.

You would have to argue its absence would significantly change the way the jury looked at the case and genuinely that's not going to happen. Its importance? Less than half a percentage point within the whole thing maybe like a 0.1 % at a stretch 0.2%.

As a matter of fact you would have to be able to prove there was at least one other member of staff including the doctors that were present for a majority of the cases. I highly doubt that would happen.