Lucy letby

FabioPorkpie said:
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?
Click to expand...

He isn't just poking fun at some of the more colorful Twitter personalities, is he?

When he refers to people who "preferred to do their own research," that's typically understood to mean those who reject expert opinions in favor of unverified sources, like maverick podcasts and obscure websites. However, he isn't doing that. He uses the phrase "At the start of last week" as a rhetorical trick to tar everyone with the same brush, suggesting they've all just jumped on the "Lucymobile." But what really happened at the start of last week was that a lot of very credible evidence was produced. The individuals referencing this evidence are clearly not jumping on any bandwagon; they are giving weight to a credible development.

However, throughout this piece, the author uses the very misguided arguments he accuses others of:

  1. Undermining the credibility of those who defend Letby by describing Dr. Lee's panel as a team of devil's advocates.
  2. Portraying his experts as inconsistent and self-serving.

He then frames the call for a retrial as nothing more than a publicity stunt. The entire article is written to persuade people that there are no grounds for a retrial, when, if one listens to all the evidence, there clearly is.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
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?
Click to expand...

I’m not sure whether that has any bearing on Letbys guilt or innocence though. Every contentious issue in the public eye has thousands of unqualified armchair experts giving their opinions, for both sides. It means nothing, it’s just what people do.

The writer of the Spiked article is also contradicting himself in my opinion , basically saying people are only interested in listening to the opinions of experts when it suits their agenda, whilst rejecting the opinions of experts that doesn’t suit his agenda.
 
The Card Cheat said:
I’m not sure whether that has any bearing on Letbys guilt or innocence though. Every contentious issue in the public eye has thousands of unqualified armchair experts giving their opinions, for both sides. It means nothing, it’s just what people do.

The writer of the Spiked article is also contradicting himself in my opinion , basically saying people are only interested in listening to the opinions of experts when it suits their agenda, whilst rejecting the opinions of experts that doesn’t suit his agenda.
Click to expand...
My issue is fundamentally wanting to see justice done. I subscribe to Private Eye and have been reading it for about 40 years on and off. In that time, the number of miscarriages of justice that are covered up by pointing to the defendants 'weirdness' is a real canary in the coalmine for me. So when I saw the problems with the statistics in the prosecution case with Letby, I was really alarmed by the headlines about her personality. If the prosecution in a high profile case have a good enough case, character assassination through the papers is not high on their agenda. When the papers are full of reports about strange habits the defendant has, it is a sure sign for me that the actual evidence for them committing the crime is thin gruel. In this case, remove Letbys personality from it, and then you see that some of the evidence is statistically flawed, and the main plank is the insulin poisoning, which there is doubt over at the very highest level of expertise there is. After that, the prosecution are relying entirely on a method of murder about which there is reasonable doubt amongst experts in the field. The final piece of the puzzle here is provided by the CPS themselves:
"A CPS spokesperson said: “Two juries and three appeal court judges have reviewed a multitude of different strands of evidence against Lucy Letby. She has been convicted on 15 separate counts following two separate jury trials.

“In May 2024, the court of appeal dismissed Letby’s leave to appeal on all grounds, rejecting her argument that expert prosecution evidence was flawed.”
That statement, to put it charitably, is misleading. The evidence that the identification of the embolisms was unscientific was not admissible at the 2nd appeal, as the judge said Letbys defence should have brought this up at the original trial. That's why the panel have gone public as they are led by that expert and he has seen how the system is rigged to make it very hard to overturn a verdict. It just smacks of previous instances of poor science being used to convict, and then the legal system refusing to contemplate evidence to the contrary. The worst example I remember was the McGuires, who were convicted based on (a false confession and) evidence they had handled explosives, the fact that the test gave false positives for , amongst other things, hand soap, was known for years but it took them decades to have the convictions quashed and noone was ever prosecuted for the cover up.
 
I’ve listened to it l, what appears to have been said doesn’t really contradict anything or suggest anything new

Will this count as new evidence - everyone is agreement that they don’t know due to quirks of legal system

The only problem I can see is that if someone interprets that as manipulation of evidence because of the words ‘in the hope’ but that’s a stretch for me
 
The insinuation is that he has literally changed his paper a couple of months ago to fit the narrative that he and his ‘independent panel of experts’ (…..three of whom sit on the same board of directors…..) are seeking, in order to try and give the impression that he is submitting new evidence.
Added to his words from an article in the Times article of Feb 1st, it’s not a good look -

IMG_0101.png


Additionally, as in my post above, one of the independent impartial experts had already made her position clear prior to this latest circus press conference. So not impartial.

I realise I’m swimming against the tide here, but the point I keep trying to make is so much of the stuff written about Letby and the questions around the evidence of the conviction, is just noise or inaccurate or has already been dismissed as inadmissible or has been explained and debunked and corrected, but it gets so much media attention because, well, because it’s juicy and we all love a scandal … and media nowadays is in the business of getting clicks as much as it is in the business of reporting news…
Then we get the message of doubt amplified all across social media by people who do not have the full information or details, haven’t sat through the trial, don’t have access to the health records or evidence, and the result is erosion of public confidence in our institutions, both legal and health care. And before anybody says ‘what about the post office scandal. Miscarriages of justice do happen!’ Yes, they absolutely do! But we all know they are the exception, not the norm.
The result of all the noise is that we get laypersons arrogantly claiming that it’s clear the threshold for beyond reasonable doubt clearly hasn’t been met, and an ill-informed consensus view starts to emerge in some quarters based on noise, misinformation and misunderstanding. In the meantime, the validity of any genuine failings or questions or errors gets tarnished in all the media circus noise.
The experts that people are plastering all over the place are not always as correct or impartial or independent as people are led to believe and are sometimes setting out to tell a story, they are biased, rather than impartially coming to conclusions objectively. The real work is assessing the validity or merits of their case and this goes on quietly in the background without the fanfare and often gets next to no attention, and the result is often just simple silence as it’s dismissed, but the public view is that it’s ignored because it’s a cover up.

Ultimately, most of the stuff written and presented is just noise. Meanwhile, some of the most interesting things to come out of the Thirlwall inquiry go completely ignored on threads like this, eg

‘The audit found that there were recorded incidents of the tubes being dislodged on 40% of the shifts Letby worked at Liverpool Womens' Hospital.
"It is unusual, and you will hear that it occurs generally in less than 1% of shifts."

Not a peep about it when posted before. That’s fine, but the point is frankly, it’s just not interesting enough to most people because it doesn’t fuel the drama and sensational prospect that an unsafe conviction or a miscarriage of justice has occurred.

Meanwhile, everyone is just asking questions and trying to get to the truth and nobody is saying she is innocent… but that’s the message that many people take away from social media and let’s be honest, I can’t be the only person who thinks there are probably people on this thread who privately think it’s all been a miscarriage of justice and she is probably innocent. We’ve even got people suggesting it’s been a hospital cover up with management and doctors and nurses etc blaming her to cover themselves. I mean that’s moon landing, flat earth levels of daft in my opinion.
So yeah, I find it frustrating but I have faith that justice will be done and behind the scenes those with the full facts, details and information will get on with reviewing the merits of the information and questions and will dismiss it or consider it as required.
If there is a review then of course that’s all well and good, but the review being conducted by social media really isn’t helping the case.

Anyway, not looking for arguments and not going to spend my time picking through all the details because I don’t know any more than anyone else on this thread and I certainly know less than some, but I do think the noise is painting a one sided narrative and a circus that is getting out of hand and there is so much more to this than just sensationalist headlines of ‘expert panel claims Letby babies died of natural causes’.
 
ForssAwakens said:
I’ve listened to it l, what appears to have been said doesn’t really contradict anything or suggest anything new

Will this count as new evidence - everyone is agreement that they don’t know due to quirks of legal system

The only problem I can see is that if someone interprets that as manipulation of evidence because of the words ‘in the hope’ but that’s a stretch for me
Click to expand...

There appears to be no real issue here. Updating research papers to enhance clarity and accuracy is a fundamental part of the scientific process. A necessity, not a crime. You shared an article criticising those who rely excessively on opinions from social media, yet your approach seems to mirror that behaviour.

The majority of people on this thread are approaching the case with an open mind, genuinely interested in evaluating any new evidence that could provide further insight. In contrast, your efforts seem focused on dismissing the evidence without the need for scrutiny.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
. In contrast, your efforts seem focused on dismissing the evidence without the need scrutiny.
Click to expand...

We are at an impasse, because that is precisely the argument I am trying to make - I’m saying that many on here are accepting the ‘new’ evidence without the needed scrutiny. Otherwise majority of the stuff on this thread wouldn’t have made it past go.

Anyway, we’ll watch as it all plays out. I suspect if/when nothing comes of the new press conferences some will continue to suspect foul play. If there is a review I’ll have no issue with it, as the criteria for conducting one will have been met.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
We are at an impasse, because that is precisely the argument I am trying to make - I’m saying that many on here are accepting the ‘new’ evidence without the needed scrutiny. Otherwise majority of the stuff on this thread wouldn’t have made it past go.

Anyway, we’ll watch as it all plays out. I suspect if/when nothing comes of the new press conferences some will continue to suspect foul play. If there is a review I’ll have no issue with it, as the criteria for conducting one will have been met.
Click to expand...

Fabio, it feels like you seeing things on social media away from the board and applying to posters here. No is suggesting letby is definitely. Nobody is just accepting the evidence.

I would say that you are showing more bias than other posters, as you are convinced on guilt and they’ll more guilty charges inflicted.

I would just say from what I’ve seen on the embolism evidence is as follows

Consultant remembers readying. Correlates it’s what’s happened on the ward.
No evidence of air injected into any of the babies, other that the correlation do discolour of the skin
Dr Lee say his evidence has been misinterpreted
Defence didn’t use that in the first trail
Can’t use the misinterpreting as evidence now, because of the above
Convicted Death by air 90% skin discolouration compared to 10% in dr lees report (this doesn’t make it implausible due to small sample size and more likely to get outliers)
Dr Lee has updated the evidence to say that discolouration came from artery’s not veins

Who is insinuating that dr Lee has changed the evidence to undo convictions and fit the narrative. Why not land on updated the paper to reflect the research correctly.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
The insinuation is that he has literally changed his paper a couple of months ago to fit the narrative that he and his ‘independent panel of experts’ (…..three of whom sit on the same board of directors…..) are seeking, in order to try and give the impression that he is submitting new evidence.
Added to his words from an article in the Times article of Feb 1st, it’s not a good look -

View attachment 86922


Additionally, as in my post above, one of the independent impartial experts had already made her position clear prior to this latest circus press conference. So not impartial.

I realise I’m swimming against the tide here, but the point I keep trying to make is so much of the stuff written about Letby and the questions around the evidence of the conviction, is just noise or inaccurate or has already been dismissed as inadmissible or has been explained and debunked and corrected, but it gets so much media attention because, well, because it’s juicy and we all love a scandal … and media nowadays is in the business of getting clicks as much as it is in the business of reporting news…
Then we get the message of doubt amplified all across social media by people who do not have the full information or details, haven’t sat through the trial, don’t have access to the health records or evidence, and the result is erosion of public confidence in our institutions, both legal and health care. And before anybody says ‘what about the post office scandal. Miscarriages of justice do happen!’ Yes, they absolutely do! But we all know they are the exception, not the norm.
The result of all the noise is that we get laypersons arrogantly claiming that it’s clear the threshold for beyond reasonable doubt clearly hasn’t been met, and an ill-informed consensus view starts to emerge in some quarters based on noise, misinformation and misunderstanding. In the meantime, the validity of any genuine failings or questions or errors gets tarnished in all the media circus noise.
The experts that people are plastering all over the place are not always as correct or impartial or independent as people are led to believe and are sometimes setting out to tell a story, they are biased, rather than impartially coming to conclusions objectively. The real work is assessing the validity or merits of their case and this goes on quietly in the background without the fanfare and often gets next to no attention, and the result is often just simple silence as it’s dismissed, but the public view is that it’s ignored because it’s a cover up.

Ultimately, most of the stuff written and presented is just noise. Meanwhile, some of the most interesting things to come out of the Thirlwall inquiry go completely ignored on threads like this, eg

‘The audit found that there were recorded incidents of the tubes being dislodged on 40% of the shifts Letby worked at Liverpool Womens' Hospital.
"It is unusual, and you will hear that it occurs generally in less than 1% of shifts."

Not a peep about it when posted before. That’s fine, but the point is frankly, it’s just not interesting enough to most people because it doesn’t fuel the drama and sensational prospect that an unsafe conviction or a miscarriage of justice has occurred.

Meanwhile, everyone is just asking questions and trying to get to the truth and nobody is saying she is innocent… but that’s the message that many people take away from social media and let’s be honest, I can’t be the only person who thinks there are probably people on this thread who privately think it’s all been a miscarriage of justice and she is probably innocent. We’ve even got people suggesting it’s been a hospital cover up with management and doctors and nurses etc blaming her to cover themselves. I mean that’s moon landing, flat earth levels of daft in my opinion.
So yeah, I find it frustrating but I have faith that justice will be done and behind the scenes those with the full facts, details and information will get on with reviewing the merits of the information and questions and will dismiss it or consider it as required.
If there is a review then of course that’s all well and good, but the review being conducted by social media really isn’t helping the case.

Anyway, not looking for arguments and not going to spend my time picking through all the details because I don’t know any more than anyone else on this thread and I certainly know less than some, but I do think the noise is painting a one sided narrative and a circus that is getting out of hand and there is so much more to this than just sensationalist headlines of ‘expert panel claims Letby babies died of natural causes’.
Click to expand...
I would posit that the "erosion of public confidence in our institutions, both legal and health care" happens when scandals occur and they are covered up, not when there is an appeal for justice.
"And before anybody says ‘what about the post office scandal. Miscarriages of justice do happen!’ Yes, they absolutely do! But we all know they are the exception, not the norm."
If you can point me to another high profile serial killer case which has generated a high profile campaign to correct medical evidence, I'd be fascinated to see it. However, if you want a list of NHS coverups and persecutions of whistleblowers, it is a long and shameful list...
 
theboydom said:
If you can point me to another high profile serial killer case which has generated a high profile campaign to correct medical evidence, I'd be fascinated to see it.
Click to expand...
www.theguardian.com

‘The case became a witch hunt’: how ‘killer nurse’ Daniela Poggiali fought to clear her name

Italy’s ‘angel of death’ was imprisoned and demonised by the press before her convictions were overturned. Now the expert who came to her defence has turned his attention to Lucy Letby’s case
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
1finny said:
I’m assuming the poster was talking about failed appeals for justice by a serial killer?
Click to expand...
Yeah, sorry, didn't make my point well. It's just that you don't normally get loads of medically qualified people questioning serial killer verdicts. That case looks fascinating though, I'll have a read👍
 
ThatFragranceGuy said:
www.theguardian.com

‘The case became a witch hunt’: how ‘killer nurse’ Daniela Poggiali fought to clear her name

Italy’s ‘angel of death’ was imprisoned and demonised by the press before her convictions were overturned. Now the expert who came to her defence has turned his attention to Lucy Letby’s case
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
Wow, a possibly shocking irony that a statistician was warned off posting of the dangers of statistics in these types of cases by the police during the Letby trial for possible contempt!

"The statistician who fought to clear De Berk’s name – Richard Gill, emeritus professor of mathematical statistics at Leiden University in the Netherlands – was also instrumental in overturning Daniela Poggiali’s conviction. Gill took to social media during the Lucy Letby trial to dispute the use of statistics in that case, and was warned by police that he was in danger of contempt of court. He says now that in each of these cases he sees “the same errors: bad data, incompetent statistical analysis”.
 
For those who don’t read Private Eye - you might want to hear what their Doctor says.
It’s on the podcast from 33.40 mins

As it is a PE podcast he doesn’t get the biggest grilling in the world.
None the less good for context


open.spotify.com

134: Mega MAGA

Page 94: The Private Eye Podcast · Episode
open.spotify.com open.spotify.com
 
To get a bit political here, MD in Private Eye who has raised questions about the convictions said this about Jeremy Hunts original article expressing his doubts:
"I am glad @Jeremy_Hunt is supporting an urgent appeal for Lucy Letby, having been health secretary at the time of the baby deaths and taken a special interest in patient safety and medical error. However, had he introduced a functional safety monitoring system into the NHS, the spike in deaths would have been properly and professionally investigated shortly after they happened, and this case may never have gone anywhere near court."
@drphilhammond on X
I add this because there is still no such system. Well worth dropping your local MP a line to request one, as these types of failings will only continue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top