• #2,821
For the benefit of those who claim the prosecution's case against Letby wasn't in part statistical.

The following was recorded in police notes in May 2017:


As part of the review staffing was looked at, there was a notable high statistical relationship between a member of the nursing staff and babies deteriorating in the unit. There is no evidence, other than coincidence.

Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC explicitly founded his claim on statistics as he opened the Crown’s case with:


Prior to January 2015, the statistics for the mortality of babies in the neo-natal unit at the Countess of Chester were comparable to other like units. However, over the next 18 months or so, there was a significant rise in the number of babies who were dying and in the number of serious catastrophic collapses. And these rises were noticed by the consultants working at the Countess of Chester and they searched for a cause. “Having searched for a cause, which they were unable to find, the consultants noticed that the inexplicable collapses and deaths did have one common denominator. The presence of one of the neonatal nurses and that nurse was Lucy Letby.

The chart’s purpose had one clear function underpinned by a (flawed) statistical argument: it can’t have been a coincidence, Letby must have been responsible for all of those crimes.
Genuinely can you state just how important you actually think that chart is? Its not the root of all of the other evidence, removing it changes nothing if you agree?
 
  • #2,822
Genuinely can you state just how important you actually think that chart is? Its not the root of all of the other evidence, removing it changes nothing if you agree?

Aye, I can do that at some point.

We're still in the process of establishing just how robust and meaningful was the chart presented to the court.

What do you think?
 
  • #2,823
For the benefit of those who claim the prosecution's case against Letby wasn't in part statistical.

The following was recorded in police notes in May 2017:


As part of the review staffing was looked at, there was a notable high statistical relationship between a member of the nursing staff and babies deteriorating in the unit. There is no evidence, other than coincidence.

Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC explicitly founded his claim on statistics as he opened the Crown’s case with:


Prior to January 2015, the statistics for the mortality of babies in the neo-natal unit at the Countess of Chester were comparable to other like units. However, over the next 18 months or so, there was a significant rise in the number of babies who were dying and in the number of serious catastrophic collapses. And these rises were noticed by the consultants working at the Countess of Chester and they searched for a cause. “Having searched for a cause, which they were unable to find, the consultants noticed that the inexplicable collapses and deaths did have one common denominator. The presence of one of the neonatal nurses and that nurse was Lucy Letby.

The chart’s purpose had one clear function underpinned by a (flawed) statistical argument: it can’t have been a coincidence, Letby must have been responsible for all of those crimes.
The believers-in-guilt do not care. They think that because the prosecution didn’t say “the chance of this being a coincidence was 300 million to one” means that statistics weren’t used in the case. It’s baffling.
 
  • #2,824
Well, if I'm charging a series of shoplifting offences, I'm only going to charge the person who was actually present and able to have done it for the crimes. I'm not going to charge them for when a staff member broke a case, or when a display was blown over by the wind. Why would they bring up events in court which obviously had nothing to go with her? That's what the review process is for, for assessing cases and determining if there is anything to be answered for. The trial was already so many months long, would you have them flood it with cases determined to have nothing to do with Letby's actions?

MOO

Let us discuss the case you used, shoplifting offenses.

Initially, we don’t know anything about the shoplifter. All we have is the fact of an expensive pair of earrings disappearing.

Who could be the culprit? That day we had: a stylish lady looking for a pair of diamond earrings and buying nothing. It could be a fit man with tattoos who stands close to the showcase, and, too, buys nothing. There is also a new salesgirl in the shop.

Who did it?

Now the way you look at the situation, you’d probably first check the tattooed man. He doesn’t look like he frequents the jewelry store. He is too trim and has tattoos. Choosing him is called “profiling”.

Well, he looks like he could have done it, but in fact. he in not culpable. He plays for my city’s famous sports team that just won…his contract is worth millions. In fact, he was looking for a Valentine gift for his fiancée.

Well, then, the next logical choice is that lonely lady who came without a specific plan and looked awkward? Well, she was just promoted and came to reward herself with a gift.

After that, you start suspecting the sales girl. Her back closes the camera, she’s new, surely she did it, right? Who else did?

In fact, none of the three. The culprit is the store owner. He insured the earrings for the maximum cost. He doesn’t need to open the showcase. He just opens the safe with the jewelry, takes out the earrings, locks the safe and leaves.

He’ll later sell the stones at a discount to someone he knows. He’ll get the money from the insurance company.

But whether you focus on the shoppers or the salesgirl, the true culprit will escape.

Happened many times in industry, ;)
 
  • #2,825
The believers-in-guilt do not care. They think that because the prosecution didn’t say “the chance of this being a coincidence was 300 million to one” means that statistics weren’t used in the case. It’s baffling.

With it clearly being a statistical argument, it's such a strange hill to die on.
 
  • #2,826
It seems this isn't enough for you. What's your disagreement?
You would need to point to a similar spike where the collapses and deaths were sudden and unexpected. Even after that, you would need to point to a spike that contained appearances of a strange rash witnessed by nurses and doctors.
 
  • #2,827
You would need to point to a similar spike where the collapses and deaths were sudden and unexpected. Even after that, you would need to point to a spike that contained appearances of a strange rash witnessed by nurses and doctors.

No, I don't.

You weren't convinced that there were similar spikes in hospitals. I demonstrated otherwise.

You are now suggesting they are not comparable spikes. This is your argument. Feel free to put some meat on the bones of your argument. What do you know about the other hospitals to prop up your claim that they are not comparable?
 
  • #2,828
No, I don't.
Yes, you do. You were trying to suggest these types of spikes occur often. They do not.
You weren't convinced that there were similar spikes in hospitals. I demonstrated otherwise.
No, you didn't. They were not at all similar.
You are now suggesting they are not comparable spikes. This is your argument.
Correct.
Feel free to put some meat on the bones of your argument. What do you know about the other hospitals to prop up your claim that they are not comparable?
You said they were similar. You demonstrate how they were similar.
 
  • #2,829
No, you didn't. They were not at all similar.

I gave you the numbers for spikes in neonatal deaths in other hospitals, you're not convinced that they're relevant. This is your argument. Why aren't you convinced? What do you know about the other hospitals?
 
  • #2,830
I gave you the numbers for spikes in neonatal deaths in other hospitals, you're not convinced that they're relevant. This is your argument. Why aren't you convinced? What do you know about the other hospitals?
A spike of natural deaths vs deliberate attacks can result in the same number of victims. So simply comparing via the number is useless. You have not demonstrated they are similar in any other way than the numbers. Did the Blackpool case involve sudden and unexpected collapses/deaths?
 
  • #2,831
Aye, I can do that at some point.

We're still in the process of establishing just how robust and meaningful was the chart presented to the court.

What do you think?
As I've said its so trivial to me it means nothing. In place of it they could have just said "she was there every time something unusual happened as well as having the opportunity and no other member of staff was". It would have served just as well.
 
  • #2,832
A spike of natural deaths vs deliberate attacks can result in the same number of victims. So simply comparing via the number is useless.

It's not useless but I do agree that context is needed. My only point to you was that spikes did occur in other hospitals around that time, and not only in Blackpool.

You believe they're not comparable, which is underpinned by your contested view that they were "deliberate attacks". That's fine, it's not a hill I'm prepared to die on . There are plenty of medical experts who believe they were not deliberate attacks (at Chester), however.
 
  • #2,833
As I've said its so trivial to me it means nothing.

The problem is that it wasn't trivial to the authorities and the prosecution's case.
 
  • #2,834
The problem is that it wasn't trivial to the authorities and the prosecution's case.
How do you mean? The chart itself was nothing more than a visual presentation of the fact that she was present. Removing it changes nothing.
 

Guardians Monthly Goal

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
93
Guests online
2,058
Total visitors
2,151

Forum statistics

Threads
644,146
Messages
18,811,703
Members
245,317
Latest member
reader24
Top