Lucy letby

It may get reopened. But you are making the argument that people with more knowledge about the case than yourselves are wrong, and I don't think you are in a position to do that.

Plus the first two paragraphs are pure speculation and read to me like a decision has already been made.
The only person claiming 'more knowledge' is Dewi Evans, the expert witness. He is claiming more knowledge of how to identify a pulmonary embolism caused deliberately by a nurse than anyone in the planet currently.
 
And?

I can see that I'm not going to convince anyone of their lack of knowledge here.
You don't need to convince me of my lack of knowledge, you need to convince the guy who wrote the original paper on skin discoloration that his science wasn't misused to help convince a jury that murder was the cause of death.
 
And?

I can see that I'm not going to convince anyone of their lack of knowledge here.
Hiya
Not sure if you are aware but medical evidence was only provided by the prosecution.
Apologies if you are.

For reasons we don’t know the defence didn’t offer evidence to the contrary - despite having some.

That could well be negligent but by not having the chance to hear it, the Jury didn’t get the full picture.

It seems more people with more knowledge have also now spoken out.

Previous recommendations have concluded that in complex medical cases a panel
Of. experts be set up to objectively review it.

This would give more help for a jury.
 
You don't need to convince me of my lack of knowledge, you need to convince the guy who wrote the original paper on skin discoloration that his science wasn't misused to help convince a jury that murder was the cause of death.
I do because you keep asserting that the case "hinged" on medical evidence. This is contrary to what is being reported in the press.

It is very usual for experts to disagree in cases. That's why there is more than one of them.
 
I do because you keep asserting that the case "hinged" on medical evidence. This is contrary to what is being reported in the press.

It is very usual for experts to disagree in cases. That's why there is more than one of them.
So can you give me an example of the press reporting that asserts the contrary?
 
BBC

The case against the former nurse has been extremely complex from the outset - not least because nobody saw Letby attack the seven babies she was convicted of murdering, nor did anyone witness the attempted murder of seven others.

Instead, prosecutors had to draw on technical medical evidence - along with statistical data and other troubling details about Letby's life - in order to prove their case.

There's more later down the article.
 
How do you know that the prosecution case hinged on expert witness evidence? Because you have been told. You only know what you have been told in this case. Which will not be the full picture. My understanding is that a great deal of the case was based on probability.

I'm afraid I don't agree very much with your analogy. Cases don't tend to be based on one piece of evidence.

If you aren't looking at the totality of the evidence I don't really feel you can comment.
It is a failure to understand Bayesian probability that is one of the troubling factors here. It's understandable for some members of a jury to be unfamiliar with the concept. It's not acceptable for members of the legal profession to base arguments, submit evidence, give judgments, and issue sentences in profound ignorance of statistical methods. Here's an article by Tom Chivers on the topic. He refers to Letby but omits consideration of her case as proceedings were underway at the time of writing the article. Instead, he illustrates with other instances of similar ignorance of statistical methods.
 
How do you know that the prosecution case hinged on expert witness evidence? Because you have been told. You only know what you have been told in this case. Which will not be the full picture. My understanding is that a great deal of the case was based on probability.

I'm afraid I don't agree very much with your analogy. Cases don't tend to be based on one piece of evidence.

If you aren't looking at the totality of the evidence I don't really feel you can comment.
This is a slightly unusual case, though, in that while it is always true that there are two fundamental elements to a conviction, to prove that a crime was committed at all, and to prove that the accused did it, these are unusually separate things in the present instance. They don’t really interact at all. The medical evidence is necessary to prove that there was a murder. The statistical and circumstantial evidence is necessary to identify the culprit. If, and it is of course still a big if, the report proves correct and leaves no credible evidence that any of the children was in fact murdered then all the statistical and other circumstantial evidence that added up to “it must have been her” becomes irrelevant because there wasn’t an it.
 
Last edited:
It is a failure to understand Bayesian probability that is one of the troubling factors here. It's understandable for some members of a jury to be unfamiliar with the concept. It's not acceptable for members of the legal profession to base arguments, submit evidence, give judgments, and issue sentences in profound ignorance of statistical methods. Here's an article by Tom Chivers on the topic. He refers to Letby but omits consideration of her case as proceedings were underway at the time of writing the article. Instead, he illustrates with other instances of similar ignorance of statistical methods.
I think it's normal for barristers to argue something they don't understand. DNA and ballistics for example.

The worrying aspect is the experts didn't see to be experts.
 
My understanding is that a great deal of the case was based on probability.

Yes, and there have been significant concerns and suggestions that the statistical evidence regarding Lucy Letby's shift patterns was misrepresented or misunderstood during her trial:

Selective Data Presentation: "Critics, including statisticians and academics, have argued that the shift chart used in the trial was misleading because it only included incidents associated with Letby's presence, omitting other incidents where she was not on duty. This selective presentation was described as "cherry-picked data" by some, suggesting that the chart was designed to show a correlation where one might not have been conclusively established."

Scientific Worthlessness: "Meetings at the Royal Statistical Society (RSS) have discussed how the shift pattern data was 'scientifically worthless.' Experts have criticized the data for not being reproducible independently and for not accounting for other variables that could explain the incidents, like the natural variation in death rates or the presence of other nurses during shifts."

Misleading Correlation: "There's been commentary on the 'lottery fallacy' concept, where the rarity of an event is confused with causation. In Letby's case, the high correlation of incidents with her shifts was taken to imply causation, which many experts argue is a flawed statistical interpretation."

Alternative Explanations: "Various sources have pointed out that alternative explanations for the high incidence of collapses and deaths, such as understaffing, hospital conditions, or even natural statistical variation, were not adequately considered. This has led to arguments that the statistical evidence was over-interpreted or misused."

Expert Criticism: "Prominent statisticians like Richard Gill and Peter Green have publicly questioned the validity of the shift data as presented in court. They've highlighted the lack of a comprehensive statistical analysis that would account for all relevant factors, not just the presence of Letby."
 
Last edited:
I found this a useful summary.
It sets out the terms of reference for the expert panel - to investigate, try and reach agreement and report back regardless of the outcome.
It was convened to try and get to the truth rather than prove innocence or guilt.

Fair to say the results are incendiary - no medical evidence of murder in the 7 cases outlined

 
The poor parents must be going through hell all over again.

Depressing to see opportunist idiots like Nadine Dorries jumping on this now too claiming she is some sort of figurehead in Letby’s “path to freedom”.

I can’t even begin to imagine what the parents are going through, and you’re definitely right this must be extremely traumatic for them, but that shouldn’t stop this being properly investigated.
Trying to put myself in their shoes I’d rather the right person (if anyone) faces the consequences. Even if that was incredibly difficult to endure.
 
Hiya
Not sure if you are aware but medical evidence was only provided by the prosecution.
Apologies if you are.

For reasons we don’t know the defence didn’t offer evidence to the contrary - despite having some.

That could well be negligent but by not having the chance to hear it, the Jury didn’t get the full picture.

It seems more people with more knowledge have also now spoken out.

Previous recommendations have concluded that in complex medical cases a panel
Of. experts be set up to objectively review it.

This would give more help for a jury.
One comment on a recent documentary from a medical professional (sorry I can't remember who it was) suggested that there's a reluctance for medical practitioners to give evidence for the defence on high profile murder cases due to the way they've been portrayed in the press in other cases around the world (as defenders of/ apologists for murderers). By all accounts many have effectively had their careers ended by it, despite just presenting evidence as they saw it.
 
Last edited:
It may get reopened. But you are making the argument that people with more knowledge about the case than yourselves are wrong, and I don't think you are in a position to do that.

Plus the first two paragraphs are pure speculation and read to me like a decision has already been made.
I think arguments are being made that the original expert advice isn't safe, and that's about it.

It wouldn't be the first time a scapegoat has been used to mask institutional failure.

I'm hoping that the case is reopened so that the evidence can be revisited and a safe decision made.
 
I can’t even begin to imagine what the parents are going through, and you’re definitely right this must be extremely traumatic for them, but that shouldn’t stop this being properly investigated.
Trying to put myself in their shoes I’d rather the right person (if anyone) faces the consequences. Even if that was incredibly difficult to endure.

I wasn't commenting on a proper process taking place, but surely it's not a good thing for the likes of Dorries etc to be jumping on this and championing Letby as "innocent" without due process?
 
Back
Top