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

[Ruthbullock]

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.'

It was 61 cases, that became 22- 10 of which were suspicious but Letby wasn’t on shift and then excluded- why not at least include those 10 on the shift chart?

 

[katydid23]

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.

Those 'suspicious' incidents were originally deemed 'suspicious' by a police officer, with no medical expertise.

LATER, some of those suspicious incidents were found to be explained by medical experts as having medical explanations. So they were removed from the case.

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

NO, all it did was show the schedule for the staff. And it was shown and discussed for 10 minutes or so.

What is a fact?



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

Johnson put on an argument that lasted for 6 months. Of that 6 month duration, he discussed statistics for about 10 minutes.

 

[katydid23]

It was 61 cases, that became 22- 10 of which were suspicious but Letby wasn’t on shift and then excluded- why not at least include those 10 on the shift chart?

Because those 10 were combed through by medical experts and were deemed non-suspicious because they figured out a probable medical explanation.

 

[katydid23]

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.

The medical experts that are speaking out have been heard. But there is nothing new in their arguments and for those who followed the trial, their arguments seem weak and faulty. They did not hear everything that we heard so they do not understand I guess.

Nothing they are complaining about changes the damning and incriminating evidence we saw. Nothing that they are putting forth now can explain Nurse Letby's falsified medical notes, or her lies about which room she was in during a baby's collapse, or her denying that a mother walked into the nursery and saw Lucy standing and doing nothing while Baby E was screaming, with blood coming out of his mouth---and Nurse Letby denied it ever happened---even though the mother ran and called her husband immediately, and they have the phone records to corroborate it.

When someone sat through 6 months of that kind of information, watching Letby on the stand, lying and saying the baby's parents were mistaken---even though their baby died from massive blood loss just hours after the mother first saw her baby bleeding from the mouth in Letby's care--when we saw 6 months of that kind of evidence, hearing people prattle on about statistical inferences from the shift chart becomes irrelevant, imo.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Because those 10 were combed through by medical experts and were deemed non-suspicious because they figured out a probable medical explanation.

That didn’t answer my post- why were they not included in the chart, and those 10 were found to be suspicious, just not when Letby was on shift.

 

[Ruthbullock]

The medical experts that are speaking out have been heard. But there is nothing new in their arguments and for those who followed the trial, their arguments seem weak and faulty. They did not hear everything that we heard so they do not understand I guess.

Do you still believe the people who medically disagree didn’t research the trial before commenting and putting their professional careers on the line? You seem to be stuck in the belief that there is a tiny group of people who listened and followed the trial and everyone else is wrong

 

[Sweeper2000]

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

The strongest aspect of the evidence presented was by far the medical evidence secondly the evidence showing her lying. Yes the chart showing she was present was trivial in the juries eyes imo.

The problem is that it wasn't trivial to the authorities and the prosecution's case.

Ofc it wasnt. The police and i assume thats what you mean by "authorities" would see it as significant because it intrinsically links one persons presence to the cases that were medically inexplicable. Ie her presence around the babies was at one point a breadcrumb which after further and perhaps more thorough investigation into the medical side of things were found to be highly suspicious which was the loaf.

The prosecution didnt in any way need the chart to prove she was present at the suspicious events.

I am not sure that i understand what your saying when you say the stats were important to the authorities either. Stats were in no way important to the prosecutions case either, they didnt need them to prove that the medical cases were suspicious at least.