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.

 

[katydid23]

Moore didn't. She was involved in putting together the initial chart, but she wasn't the only one.

The initial cases to review were put together by consultants (at the hospital) who suspected Letby of malpractice.

As said, Evans was instructed to review cases by Cheshire police. The initial chart showed that Letby was not on shift at approximately a third of them.

The evolution of the chart meant that incidents were removed and added with the outcome being Letby was on shift at all of the incidents in the chart put before the court.

You seem to be glossing over the facts of the situation.

Evans of course, who hasn't practiced since 2009, claims he wasn't aware of Letby's shift patterns until 2024.

Not only does Dr Evans say he wasn't given that information, but the Cheshire police verify that.

You have statisticians such as: Peter Green of the Royal Statistical Society and John O'Quigley of University College London, Professor Jane Hutton and so on; who are on record as stating that the incidents in the final chart were cherry-picked to coincide with Letby being on duty.

Then they are wrong., imo They do not have any evidence that Evans had any information about the nurse's schedules. They are making that up out of thin air. They are claiming the incidents were cherry picked but there is no proof of those claims. It is conjecture on their part.IMO

They are authoritative people in this field and they need to be heard by a jury.

What field? Statistics? Statistics played little to no part in this trial.

The reason it is so important is because in the event they are right, the prosecution put forward a circular argument: her presence was used to select the cases, and then her presence in those cases was used as proof of guilt.

Her presence WAS NOT USED to select the cases. That is where you and Mr Green are mistaken.

That is why respected and authoritative voices have described the shift pattern data circumstantial evidence as scientifically worthless. Any statistical argument must always begin with a random sample.

You seem to be glossing over the facts of the situation.

When assessing the cases that Letby was charged with, there was ample evidence of her guilt. And ample evidence of her presence during those incidents.

This is an extremely strange way of discussing a very serious case.

Shall I list the 'extremely strange' ways you worded things in previous posts?

 

[katydid23]

Of course Dewi knew which nurses were working. The medical notes he was given were unredacted, and since he was given Baby O first, it would have been extremely obvious which nurse was the suspect.

That is not accurate. They looked at 50 or 60 incidents. Every patient was cared for by several nurses, and many by all of the nurses at some point. In many of the incidents that Letby was charged with, SHE WAS NOT the designated nurse for the child.

Evans would have seen info in those cases showing other nurses as being present and in charge during the collapses. So 'cherry picking' would not have been possible. He did not have the nurses rotation schedule.

 

[katydid23]

This is incorrect, nor was any statistical expert called to explain the flaws in the chart presented to the jury.

I feel like you are the one presenting the circular argument. There were no statistical arguments presented to the jury. There was no need for a statistical expert. IMO

 

[JimmyDurham]

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

The chart becomes a selective, cherry-picked series of incidents when in fact a right and proper statistical analysis may have concluded that the babies died from natural causes. That is exactly what various statisticians and medical experts are arguing at this juncture. None of this should come as a surprise given it's all in the public domain and is being discussed on this very thread, now.

 

[katydid23]

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.

The believers-in-guilt saw 6 months of solid evidence, case by case, of 27 incidents, in which Nurse Letby was present.

We saw evidence of Letby falsifying her medical notes in order to try and distance herself from various patients---trying to make it look like she was not in that specific nursery just before a collapse----when evidence puts her there.

We saw Letby in the witness box for several days and caught her in some big lies. We saw her state her version of some of the deadly events and compared that version to other eye witnesses---other nurses, doctors and parents.

We saw her testimony in which she accused the parents of baby E to be 'mistaken' when they said that their baby was screaming in pain and bleeding from his mouth at 9 pm----Letby claims that never happened, and yet that same baby died a few hours later, of massive blood loss. The parents witness testimony was truthful and sincere and was backed by corroboration of phone records and by the medical notes of other staff. Letby's testimony was not corroborated by anyone else and HER medical logs conflicted with the others.

We had so much other important information to assess. The expert witness testimonies, the medical reports, the testimony from the families, and the staff that was present.

Those kinds of things were so important in determining what happened during these sudden collapses.

This chart showing the nurse's shift rotations was just a speck in the ocean of 6 months of voluminous data and evidence. It was discussed for about 10 minutes of trial time. It was not a key or critical component in the case. It was obviously important to place Letby in the clinic during the incidents she was charged with. And that was done by showing her own notes and the notes of other staff and phone data, etc.

The believers-in-guilt based their beliefs upon evidence and facts ---not statistics.

 

[Ruthbullock]

I feel like you are the one presenting the circular argument. There were no statistical arguments presented to the jury. There was no need for a statistical expert. IMO

There was no statistical argument presented you are correct- it was simply a table of statistics presented to the jury that was accepted by them and the judge.On that basis you can’t eradicate it from discussion because you subsequently deemed it wasn’t important. It was important enough for the defence to submit and use it. It has since been pulled apart for not being representative of the true picture- it wasn’t a staffing chart for the 30 plus initial cases, just a visual aid to link Letby to the cases that made it to trial- it was an inaccurate visual aid that really shouldn’t have been allowed.

 

[katydid23]

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.

And you'd need to point to a spike where the collapsed babies did not respond to the usual tried and true treatments, and needed 5 or 6 shots of adrenaline, as opposed to one.

 

[katydid23]

There was no statistical argument presented you are correct- it was simply a table of statistics presented to the jury that was accepted by them and the judge.On that basis you can’t eradicate it from discussion because you subsequently deemed it wasn’t important. It was important enough for the defence to submit and use it. It has since been pulled apart for not being representative of the true picture- it wasn’t a staffing chart for the 30 plus initial cases, just a visual aid to link Letby to the cases that made it to trial- it was an inaccurate visual aid that really shouldn’t have been allowed.

The 30 plus 'initial cases' were not chosen by medical experts. They were picked by a police woman with no medical expertise.

So there was no reason to add them to the visual aid because they were irrelevant. They were not deemed 'sudden and medically unexplained.'

 

[Ruthbullock]

The believers-in-guilt saw 6 months of solid evidence, case by case, of 27 incidents, in which Nurse Letby was present.

We saw evidence of Letby falsifying her medical notes in order to try and distance herself from various patients---trying to make it look like she was not in that specific nursery just before a collapse----when evidence puts her there.

We saw Letby in the witness box for several days and caught her in some big lies. We saw her state her version of some of the deadly events and compared that version to other eye witnesses---other nurses, doctors and parents.

We saw her testimony in which she accused the parents of baby E to be 'mistaken' when they said that their baby was screaming in pain and bleeding from his mouth at 9 pm----Letby claims that never happened, and yet that same baby died a few hours later, of massive blood loss. The parents witness testimony was truthful and sincere and was backed by corroboration of phone records and by the medical notes of other staff. Letby's testimony was not corroborated by anyone else and HER medical logs conflicted with the others.

We had so much other important information to assess. The expert witness testimonies, the medical reports, the testimony from the families, and the staff that was present.

Those kinds of things were so important in determining what happened during these sudden collapses.

This chart showing the nurse's shift rotations was just a speck in the ocean of 6 months of voluminous data and evidence. It was discussed for about 10 minutes of trial time. It was not a key or critical component in the case. It was obviously important to place Letby in the clinic during the incidents she was charged with. And that was done by showing her own notes and the notes of other staff and phone data, etc.

The believers-in-guilt based their beliefs upon evidence and facts ---not statistics.

But then you tied it all in a neat little bow and are now choosing not to listen or discuss things that have become apparent with the inquiry or medical experts who are speaking out.