Lucy letby

[Soutra]

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.

***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***

It's a complex issue. Lawyers should use experts to explain complex stuff to jurors or judges. You can't expect lawyers to be able to assimilate all the salient information in a complex case, and be able to explain it to jurors of unknown intellectual ability.

I know most advocates and barristers are aware of some statistical techniques - especially distribution curves - and some do research to understand things during trials - but it's ALWAYS better to call an expert witness to either explain or refute something.

 

[JackG]

***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***

It's a complex issue. Lawyers should use experts to explain complex stuff to jurors or judges. You can't expect lawyers to be able to assimilate all the salient information in a complex case, and be able to explain it to jurors of unknown intellectual ability.

I know most advocates and barristers are aware of some statistical techniques - especially distribution curves - and some do research to understand things during trials - but it's ALWAYS better to call an expert witness to either explain or refute something.

Listening to Phil Hammond (MD in Private Eye) on the radio earlier today. He was making a case for experts to be appointed by the court, rather than the prosecution or defence, in complex trials. He recommended this article - Lucy Letby Case: the problem with expert evidence

 

[Soutra]

Listening to Phil Hammond (MD in Private Eye) on the radio earlier today. He was making a case for experts to be appointed by the court, rather than the prosecution or defence, in complex trials. He recommended this article - Lucy Letby Case: the problem with expert evidence

I agree with the points made in that article. The legal process in England (especially England) is so old and intricate and arcane that it's hard to change it. But at the same time it was never envisaged that barristers and jurors would be called upon to present and understand the evidence presented in modern medical and financial trials. Computer evidence based on empirical evidence gleaned from 40 years of medical history shows trends and correlations that just weren't known about in the 1980s.

Until the 1990s prosecutions often happened or didn't because of the opinion of one individual - in medical cases usually a doctor. He or she might have formed opinions over their working life, and experiencing a given case or condition perhaps a dozen times. There might have been hundreds of similar cases reported in medical journals, and perhaps thousands of cases unreported. But one indivudual's opinion held sway.

Now in 2025 the Internet can offer so much data that statistical analysis can reveal great information and knowledge. But explaining it in court is the great challenge.

I qualified as an advocate (barrister) in Scotland. The Scottish legal system - although equally ancient and arcane - is a somewhat better fit for complex cases because the jury system needs only a majority of 15 to agree, and there's a third verdict available. Having 15 on the jury increases the chance of having a few smart people to counteract the inevitable idiots and bigots.

I don't know whether Lucy Letby is guilty or not but I'm sure there is some scapegoating by the hospital trust going on. It can't have just been Lucy Letby.

 

[FabioPorkpie]

Doubt many of you will bother reading the attached.


I maintain it was media circus noise.
When the likes of Norman Fenton, Dorries, Peter Hitchins, Davis, Hammond, Toby Young are leading the cause, I’d have hoped there are enough red flags there to at least make some people think twice or not fall so blindly for the juicy ‘it’s a stitch up/unsafe conviction/instititional cover up’ stuff.
Useful idiots, contrarian attention seekers, MPs who believe they are the smartest person in the room despite never having been so, and people who should know better.

I realise I am in a minority of one here. I agree things need to be questioned and appraised critically, but I also believe there is a hell of a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding being banded about surrounding the trial and evidence. Time will tell, but I still believe she is more likely to be charged with further murders, rather than escape her punishment for the ones she has already been found guilty of.

The devil’s advocates

Lucy Letby’s supporters have not produced any compelling evidence for a miscarriage of justice.

www.spiked-online.com

 

[FabioPorkpie]

Even some at PrivateEye would seem to know the score, despite Hammond attracting lots of new readers..

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

Doubt many of you will bother reading the attached.


I maintain it was media circus noise.
When the likes of Norman Fenton, Dorries, Peter Hitchins, Davis, Hammond, Toby Young are leading the cause, I’d have hoped there are enough red flags there to at least make some people think twice or not fall so blindly for the juicy ‘it’s a stitch up/unsafe conviction/instititional cover up’ stuff.
Useful idiots, contrarian attention seekers, MPs who believe they are the smartest person in the room despite never having been so, and people who should know better.

I realise I am in a minority of one here. I agree things need to be questioned and appraised critically, but I also believe there is a hell of a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding being banded about surrounding the trial and evidence. Time will tell, but I still believe she is more likely to be charged with further murders, rather than escape her punishment for the ones she has already been found guilty of.

The devil’s advocates

Lucy Letby’s supporters have not produced any compelling evidence for a miscarriage of justice.

www.spiked-online.com

I don't know who that link is directed at but it should certainly not be to anyone on this thread; there are no loony Letbyists here.
The piece is dripping with sarcasm and condescension, but more or less destroys its own argument in the first paragraph.

 

[FabioPorkpie]

I don't know who that link is directed at but it should certainly not be to anyone on this thread; there are no loony Letbyists here.
The piece is dripping with sarcasm and condescension, but more or less destroys its own argument in the first paragraph.

hmmm.

 

[ThatFragranceGuy]

Doubt many of you will bother reading the attached.


I maintain it was media circus noise.
When the likes of Norman Fenton, Dorries, Peter Hitchins, Davis, Hammond, Toby Young are leading the cause, I’d have hoped there are enough red flags there to at least make some people think twice or not fall so blindly for the juicy ‘it’s a stitch up/unsafe conviction/instititional cover up’ stuff.
Useful idiots, contrarian attention seekers, MPs who believe they are the smartest person in the room despite never having been so, and people who should know better.

I realise I am in a minority of one here. I agree things need to be questioned and appraised critically, but I also believe there is a hell of a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding being banded about surrounding the trial and evidence. Time will tell, but I still believe she is more likely to be charged with further murders, rather than escape her punishment for the ones she has already been found guilty of.

The devil’s advocates

Lucy Letby’s supporters have not produced any compelling evidence for a miscarriage of justice.

www.spiked-online.com

Have to admit I stopped reading it after a couple of paragraphs - not because it's an alternate view, but just the tone is absolutely cringe and sounds like it has been written by an absolute bell end. It's a pretty self fulfilling prophecy as is that no one will read it, as its bias is immediately self evident.

 

[1finny]

of Norman Fenton, Dorries, Peter Hitchins, Davis, Hammond, Toby Young are leading the cause

None of them are the independent medical experts who have poured over the detail to cast doubt.
They haven’t led the cause - they have jumped on a bandwagon

Nothing wrong being a minority if 1.
There is when you use spurious stuff like that to support your case

 

[FabioPorkpie]

Have to admit I stopped reading it after a couple of paragraphs - not because it's an alternate view, but just the tone is absolutely cringe and sounds like it has been written by an absolute bell end. It's a pretty self fulfilling prophecy as is that no one will read it, as its bias is immediately self evident.

I’m sure your view will represent the majority on this thread. Shame.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

hmmm.

And now you're adopting the same attitude conveyed in the article.

 

[FabioPorkpie]

And now you're adopting the same attitude conveyed in the article.

Fair enough.

 

[1finny]

I’m sure your view will represent the majority on this thread. Shame.

I’ve read a good part of that report.

The author talks quite openly about the calibre of the scientists

There is no doubt that Lee’s experts are nearly all at the top of their profession or somewhere near it and their concerns should be taken seriously

Talks about the difficulty about trying to work out who is right

The purpose of all this name-dropping is to show that there are eminent and distinguished medical experts in both camps. Who is the humble normie to believe?

And then goes on to ‘blame’ Letby for not calling in experts

We will never know, but it is important to remember that it was Letby’s call to make. She decided to call in a plumber instead of any medical experts.

In short - scientists are unsure between them (doubt?) but, critically in this report, its ok because Letby chose not to let the jury hear alternate scientific evidence.

Many believe a Jury need to hear all appropriate evidence before getting to a safe conviction.

 

[FabioPorkpie]

None of them are the independent medical experts who have poured over the detail to cast doubt.
They haven’t led the cause - they have jumped on a bandwagon

Nothing wrong being a minority if 1.
There is when you use spurious stuff like that to support your case

Oh come on mate, that’s a bit poor.
Those people are currently some of the main cheerleaders for Letby. Some, like Dorries, are relatively new to the party and opportunist morons.
Others, have been highlighting the ‘independent medical experts’ from the very early days. Many on this thread would have no idea of the perceived questions around the evidence in the Letby case if it hadn’t been highlighted to them by the likes of Fenton and his close associate, McLachlan, who wrote the blog linked right from the start on this thread and Hammond writing in Private Eye.

 

[Muttley]

Well I didn't get beyond the first paragraph

At the start of last week, those who believe Lucy Letby is innocent had no truck with boffins and eggheads from the medical establishment. They preferred to do their own research

Utter guff. As that the best the author can do? Sarcasm. Playing the man not the issue

 

[1finny]

Oh come on mate, that’s a bit poor.
Those people are currently some of the main cheerleaders for Letby. Some, like Dorries, are relatively new to the party and opportunist morons.
Others, have been highlighting the ‘independent medical experts’ from the very early days. Many on this thread would have no idea of the perceived questions around the evidence in the Letby case if it hadn’t been highlighted to them by the likes of Fenton and his close associate, McLachlan, who wrote the blog linked right from the start on this thread and Hammond writing in Private Eye.

Might have been a bit harsh ref a couple - but you could have done without adding the likes of Dorries and some of the others to the list.
I think you are harsh on Hammond who has been consistent from the start by calling for independent medical evidence rather that adversarial.
He has only called for what has been recommended in the past.

I do think the article was more of an attack on some of the tactics used (and I’d probably agree) to dispute the case.
It does also confirm the difficulty when you have ‘experts’ disagreeing with only one side being heard at the trial.
Probably the crux of the problem in this case and, therefore, room for doubt.

 

[JackG]

I read the article. It makes some reasonable points, but the author is an IEA/Tufton St employee, writing for Spiked, so predictably one-sided. It's also written for the Spiked audience, so the piece's tone makes it less palatable to a wider public. Still worth reading.

 

[FabioPorkpie]

I read the article. It makes some reasonable points, but the author is an IEA/Tufton St employee, writing for Spiked, so predictably one-sided. It's also written for the Spiked audience, so the piece's tone makes it less palatable to a wider public. Still worth reading.

Yeah, he’s certainly not without fault and is occasionally wrong, like us all. I don’t read Spiked or unherd or any of that stuff generally, but I found during all the covid misinformation (which I was a victim of…) and anti-vax nonsense, he was pretty straight at calling out some of those right wing misinfo spreaders. Hes an odd character, not always entirely clear who he’s batting for. Nevertheless, despite his arrogance he makes some fair points in the article.

 

[FabioPorkpie]

Well I didn't get beyond the first paragraph



Utter guff. As that the best the author can do? Sarcasm. Playing the man not the issue

Well yeah, the article is poking fun at some of the more colourful ‘Letby is innocent!’ Twitter shouters.
That can’t be denied, but surely you can see why?
For everyone who is having a normal reasonable discussion, there are ten Janets or Daves from two doors down talking on Facebook about their own research and screaming that Letby should be free.
Is it any wonder some people take the mick?

 

[Laughing]

It seems to me that fabio is defending his initial position for reasons that are not very clear to me.

He dug in when others were unconvinced by the evidence and thought there was sufficient doubt to have a full review.

It has been repeated multiple times that no one is saying Lucy letby is innocent. It seems unlikely to me now, as it did at the time of the conviction that the bar of reasonable doubt hasn't been cleared.