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]

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.

How do I mean? Based on what you've said here, it would be worth revisiting the case put before the court. That way you'll be able to make an informed comment. See post 2,820 for an introduction.

 

[Sweeper2000]

How do I mean? Based on what you've said here, it would be worth revisiting the case put before the court. That way you'll be able to make an informed comment. See post 2,820 for an introduction.

I getya. I remember saying something similar way back when teh trial first started. Maybe read the thread so you can inform yourself.

Yeh it still doesnt add up to something significant though. The events are breadcrumbs leading to the loaf.

 

[Ruthbullock]

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.

If you start ploughing through the trial and removing all the singular things that meant nothing on their own, as you have previously argued there wasn’t a case- you needed to look at all the evidence at the trial. It then goes to the house of cards analogy- would the outcome have been the same if that visual representation wasn’t shared? The defence obviously believed it was important enough and persuasive enough to include it. It may have only been a fleeting part of the trial- but you can’t argue removing it changes nothing (as the defence would never have used it if they felt the same)

 

[JimmyDurham]

The recent debate in this thread about statistics is irrelevant. The issue is that the world expert in the use of statistics in such cases, Professor Richard Gill, has condemned the statistical analysis which was presented (condemned being a mild version of his opinion in this case). And he should know since he was the author of the guidelines from the Royal Statistical Society for the use of statistics in medical cases in court.

Sort of.

1) There are a number of qualified, authoritative statisticians who have reviewed the case and stated that the chart is evidentially worthless: Gill is far from alone.

2) The "statistics debate" is absolutely relevant to the discussion on this message board. The reason being that in the event posters do not understand the bare essentials of statistics, then of course you will have posters concluding: "the chart itself was nothing more than a visual presentation of the fact that she was present", and other posters agreeing with it. This is an erroneous statement, masquerading as a reasonable argument, being peddled around the board; when really it should be taken to task as complete and utter nonsense (which of course has no place in a reasonable discussion). There's that as well as the fact that Prosecutor Nick Johnson put forth an argument built upon statistics (in his own words).

 

[JimmyDurham]

I getya. I remember saying something similar way back when teh trial first started. Maybe read the thread so you can inform yourself.

Yeh it still doesnt add up to something significant though. The events are breadcrumbs leading to the loaf.

I'm not following, but probably best to agree to disagree at this juncture.

 

[May72031]

It is impossible to sustain the conviction when the entire case has been undermined...

It is absurd statements like this that is the reason we can't take Letbyists seriously.

PS Why do people keep citing Richard Gill? He said he thinks Beverley Allitt and Ben Geen are innocent.

 

[May72031]

Sort of.

1) There are a number of qualified, authoritative statisticians who have reviewed the case and stated that the chart is evidentially worthless: Gill is far from alone.

Why is it worthless? Also, it played a tiny role in the trial. If Letbyists are to be believed, it was shown on every day of the trial.

2) The "statistics debate" is absolutely relevant to the discussion on this message board. The reason being that in the event posters do not understand the bare essentials of statistics, then of course you will have posters concluding: "the chart itself was nothing more than a visual presentation of the fact that she was present",

She was present.

This is an erroneous statement

No it isn't.

masquerading as a reasonable argument

It is a fact.

being peddled around the board; when really it should be taken to task as complete and utter nonsense (which of course has no place in a reasonable discussion).

You have not presented a single coherent or valid argument against the chart. Oh, and I agree that "utter nonsense" has no place in a reasonable discussion. Please take heed of this...

 

[JimmyDurham]

Why is it worthless?

Selective cherry-picking according to the Royal Statistical Society, Professor Jane Hutton and John O'Quigley of University College London. I reckon they are respected in their field.

Somehow, from inception to final analysis put before the court, Letby wasn't present at a third of the suspicious incidents but after chopping and changing, Letby became present at all of the suspicious incidents.

If Letbyists are to be believed, it was shown on every day of the trial.

Hyperbole. Not impressive in an honest discussion. The chart was, however, an important part of the prosecution's case.

It is a fact.

What is a fact?

You have not presented a single coherent or valid argument against the chart. Oh, and I agree that "utter nonsense" has no place in a reasonable discussion. Please take heed of this...There's that as well as the fact that Prosecutor Nick Johnson put forth an argument built upon statistics (in his own words).

I'm not following. Are you suggesting that Prosecutor Nick Johnson did not put forth an argument built upon statistics?

 

[JimmyDurham]

PS Why do people keep citing Richard Gill? He said he thinks Beverley Allitt and Ben Geen are innocent.

PS:

1) There are a number of reputable statisticians who believe this chart is rubbish in terms of being a piece of circumstantial evidence. Boiling it down to Gill is disingenuous.

2) What you're doing here is known as the fallacy of association, i.e. linking the current argument to a previous incorrect argument and suggesting that the invalidity transfers. It doesn't: you're presenting a logical fallacy.

 

[Tortoise]

The shift chart was simply an exhibit to present the agreed facts of all nurses on shift when babies came to harm.

The prosecution could have called a member of payroll or HR to testify 20+ times, about who was on shift each time they presented evidence about the individual events of alleged harm.

How would that witness evidence then fit in with the claim that the data was offered as a statistic to prove guilt?

I'll answer that - it doesn't.

It would have just involved a lot of notes scribbled on pieces of paper and a day in the jury room trying to work out who it could not have been.

If no harm was caused to any baby, as claimed, what does the argument about the chart then become?

 

[alb1on]

It is absurd statements like this that is the reason we can't take Letbyists seriously.

PS Why do people keep citing Richard Gill? He said he thinks Beverley Allitt and Ben Geen are innocent.

Gill is accepted by the most competent body to judge, The Royal Statistical Society, as the world authority on this area of statistics. That is why his opinion is more important than anyone who lacks either statistical expertise or the specific knowledge of this use of statistics. And he does not say (and neither do I) either that Letby is innocent or that the others you name are innocent. What he does say is that the court has admitted so called expert evidence which is simply wrong and statistically incompetent. Whether this makes Letby innocent is a matter for the court, not us.

It is absurd statements conflating the identification of flawed evidence with a determination of guilt or innocence which makes it difficult to take seriously the views of those determined to defend a flawed trial based on multiple strands of evidence which have been refuted by real experts. That is why it is a matter for the Court of Appeal.