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.

 

[Baileyboo]

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.

The purpose of the chart was to show who was on duty when each charge occured. Adding more events which were no longer suspicious and where there was no evidence of deliberate harm would be confusing and irrelevant.

 

[joltz]

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 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.

The real issue in this case is that, one by one, the 'experts' who testified in the trial have been shown to be incompetent, under investigation for professional standards or testifying beyond their area of expertise. It is impossible to sustain the conviction when the entire case has been undermined and the only question is whether the Court of Appeal should order a retrial in setting aside the verdict.

Dickie Gill, lolz

 

[joltz]

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.

Yes, let's put the case back before the courts and include a bunch of misinformation and half-formed opinions from people with a heavy bias and no impartially whatsoever. Throw in some half formed opinions with no evidence to back them up, while we are at it..

Letby has absolutely zero chance of a retrial. There isn't any new evidence. Newspaper articles from a PR firm aren't new evidence.

 

[submarine7]

Yes, let's put the case back before the courts and include a bunch of misinformation and half-formed opinions from people with a heavy bias and no impartially whatsoever. Throw in some half formed opinions with no evidence to back them up, while we are at it..

Letby has absolutely zero chance of a retrial. There isn't any new evidence. Newspaper articles from a PR firm aren't new evidence.

I think when the doctor whose research was used incorrectly to explain some of the babies' deaths, and he publicly states that fact, it's a problem. He also said (about himself and the other 13 experts who comprised the independent panel asked to review the findings from Letby's trial), "We did not find any murders. In all cases death or injury were due to natural causes or just bad medical care. In our opinion, the medical evidence doesn’t support murder in any of these babies.”

I'll add that no additional charges was likely based on the knowledge there were huge errors made in how evidence was presented. Letby's legal team did her no favors.

Lucy Letby: No medical evidence to suggest murder, experts conclude

An investigation by a panel of 14 international experts into the cause of injury and death of the babies Lucy Letby is convicted of murdering or attempting to murder has claimed that there is “no medical evidence to support malfeasance” and that they were the result of “either natural causes or...

www.bmj.com

 

[WaneLyrical]

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.

It is accurate. Dewi was handed Baby O’s notes and a coffee, and he said he knew within 10 minutes he was dealing with deliberate harm. He was then passed the two bunches of notes, 60 odd cases of unexpected collapse or unexpected death.

 

[WaneLyrical]

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.'

Those cases were literally described as “unexpected collapse or death”. You are spreading misinformation at this point.

 

[Parker Knoll]

God this is tedious.