Page 40 | Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind?

Kittybythelighthouse · 2025-08-09T19:42:15+00:00

I’ve been sensing a shift in opinions on the Lucy Letby case and I’m interested in hearing from people who have changed their mind either way. Did you used to think she was guilty and now you don’t, or you aren’t sure? What changed your mind? Also vice versa: did you used to think she was *not guilty* but then changed your mind to guilty? What convinced you? The reason I’m using the term ‘not guilty’ rather than ‘innocent’ is because courts don’t prove innocence. Not guilty is a legal conclusion about whether or not the state met its burden of proof.

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:31

nomas · 12/08/2025 13:28

Your source is a reddit post and a statistician's tweet who himself has said 'It is difficult for any health professional or statistician to understand what the headline figures mean.'

So how can you say unequivocally that it's 100% wrong?

Show quote history

That quote means that the data is incomplete, which is why they are bad stats. I’ll reiterate that the statistics are objectively wrong. The maths are bad. Any statistician or even an a level maths student can see that from the data that was presented.

OP posts:

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:32

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:31

That quote means that the data is incomplete, which is why they are bad stats. I’ll reiterate that the statistics are objectively wrong. The maths are bad. Any statistician or even an a level maths student can see that from the data that was presented.

Show quote history

P.s my source is not a Reddit thread. My source is maths and statistics. Thanks.

OP posts:

nomas · 12/08/2025 13:32

Insanityisnotastrategy · 12/08/2025 13:13

Quite agree. And seconding the recommendation not to engage with posters who just want to post back and forth with nonsense. It really clogs up what is otherwise an interesting discussion. Nomas is more than capable of drawing a sensible conclusion I'm sure (but is choosing not to).

Edited

Show quote history

I would welcome any examples of my 'dogmatic, belligerent, opprobrious, vacuous' posts. But I suspect I won't get any. Because they don't exist.

My conclusion based on the evidence as a whole is that she is guilty.

itstartedinthepeaks · 12/08/2025 13:33

nomas · 12/08/2025 12:02

You wouldn't let her near your baby even if she was allowed to practice again.

Show quote history

I would. I’d certainly be more comfortable with a Lucy Letby, with a LOT to lose from any harm at all coming to an infant, than a Dewi Evans.

nomas · 12/08/2025 13:33

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:31

That quote means that the data is incomplete, which is why they are bad stats. I’ll reiterate that the statistics are objectively wrong. The maths are bad. Any statistician or even an a level maths student can see that from the data that was presented.

Show quote history

As you don't have the data, you can't say it's incomplete.

And the man you quoted doesn't seem to have the data either.

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:33

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:02

Links to the Private Eye reports on this case:

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/lucy-letby

Dr Shoo Lee’s expert panel: https://www.youtube.com/live/ctwulAqke5I?si=HuozT5ILee-2Uh9B

Posting this again for newcomers.

OP posts:

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:33

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 12:55

I’ve made a new thread www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5390441-lucy-letby-have-you-changed-your-mind

Thanks for all the discussion!

And the link to the new thread.

OP posts:

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:34

nomas · 12/08/2025 13:33

As you don't have the data, you can't say it's incomplete.

And the man you quoted doesn't seem to have the data either.

Edited

Show quote history

The stats are objectively wrong. You won’t find a statistician who will say otherwise.

OP posts:

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:35

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 12:57

Here’s a draft BBC complaint for anyone who wants to complain about the financial conflict of interest + mangled stats in last night’s panorama:

The BBC Panorama programme on Lucy Letby, presented by Judith Moritz and Jonathan Coffey, breaches impartiality and accuracy rules. Both journalists co-authored a commercially published book (Unmasking Lucy Letby) which promotes a guilty narrative. The Letby case is still under CCRC review, so having the book’s authors front the BBC’s coverage creates a clear conflict of interest under BBC Editorial Guidelines.

The programme also presented a “40 times higher” breathing-tube dislodgement rate for Letby, comparing it with a “less than 1%” rate on other shifts. The method shown was mathematically flawed: for “other shifts” each intubated baby was counted as a separate “shift equivalent”, but for Letby’s shifts only one was counted per shift, even if several babies were intubated. This inflated her apparent rate. No statistician appears to have verified this. These breaches undermine public trust and demand Ofcom investigation and a public correction.
www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints/make-a-complaint

Edited

Reposting draft BBC complaint for interested newcomers.

OP posts:

nomas · 12/08/2025 13:37

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:34

The stats are objectively wrong. You won’t find a statistician who will say otherwise.

Show quote history

The stats are objectively wrong

We don't know that.

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:38

Thanks to everyone for an interesting discussion. It’s a heated topic of huge public interest so thanks to all who were respectful regardless of where you stand on this.

Here’s the link to the new thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5390441-lucy-letby-have-you-changed-your-mind

Lucy Letby: Have you changed your mind? | Mumsnet

The other thread has had a lot of really interesting discussion but we are running out of pages so here’s a new one for those who are interested in co...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5390441-lucy-letby-have-you-changed-your-mind

OP posts:

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:39

nomas · 12/08/2025 13:37

The stats are objectively wrong

We don't know that.

Edited

Show quote history

I’m afraid you’re showing that you don’t understand how stats work. The maths are objectively wrong. Sorry.

OP posts:

Oftenaddled · 12/08/2025 13:39

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 12:57

Here’s a draft BBC complaint for anyone who wants to complain about the financial conflict of interest + mangled stats in last night’s panorama:

The BBC Panorama programme on Lucy Letby, presented by Judith Moritz and Jonathan Coffey, breaches impartiality and accuracy rules. Both journalists co-authored a commercially published book (Unmasking Lucy Letby) which promotes a guilty narrative. The Letby case is still under CCRC review, so having the book’s authors front the BBC’s coverage creates a clear conflict of interest under BBC Editorial Guidelines.

The programme also presented a “40 times higher” breathing-tube dislodgement rate for Letby, comparing it with a “less than 1%” rate on other shifts. The method shown was mathematically flawed: for “other shifts” each intubated baby was counted as a separate “shift equivalent”, but for Letby’s shifts only one was counted per shift, even if several babies were intubated. This inflated her apparent rate. No statistician appears to have verified this. These breaches undermine public trust and demand Ofcom investigation and a public correction.
www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints/make-a-complaint

Edited

This is really helpful, thank you.

The one thing I might alter is, Moritz and Coffey claim their book takes both sides and doesn't present Letby as guilty. I think it has far too many errors in the prosecution's favour, and too much open bias based on Letby's demeanour for this to be credible. But the BBC will probably take it at face value.

So I would be more inclined to say, and to believe, that Moritz and Coffey have an interest is sensationalising the story and keeping it in the public eye as a baffling mystery - that word keeps coming up in reviews! But they aren't taking a critical approach to the data which might make it a less dramatic story. And when they are using Panorama to plug a new edition of their book (out on Thursday!), that's bad.

Your wording for the data problem is really helpful though. I caught that at first viewing but it can be hard to explain.

nomas · 12/08/2025 13:40

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:39

I’m afraid you’re showing that you don’t understand how stats work. The maths are objectively wrong. Sorry.

Show quote history

You're asking us to complain to the BBC that the statistics are wrong without showing any evidence.

Surely you see the irony in this?

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:40

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:33

Posting this again for newcomers.

Show quote history

The Private Eye coverage linked above is a great place to start if you don’t know much about the recent fuss.

OP posts:

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:41

nomas · 12/08/2025 13:40

You're asking us to complain to the BBC that the statistics are wrong without showing any evidence.

Surely you see the irony in this?

Show quote history

You may complain if you wish. Some do wish to complain. You don’t have to. Again, the maths are wrong, objectively.

OP posts:

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:42

Oftenaddled · 12/08/2025 13:39

This is really helpful, thank you.

The one thing I might alter is, Moritz and Coffey claim their book takes both sides and doesn't present Letby as guilty. I think it has far too many errors in the prosecution's favour, and too much open bias based on Letby's demeanour for this to be credible. But the BBC will probably take it at face value.

So I would be more inclined to say, and to believe, that Moritz and Coffey have an interest is sensationalising the story and keeping it in the public eye as a baffling mystery - that word keeps coming up in reviews! But they aren't taking a critical approach to the data which might make it a less dramatic story. And when they are using Panorama to plug a new edition of their book (out on Thursday!), that's bad.

Your wording for the data problem is really helpful though. I caught that at first viewing but it can be hard to explain.

Show quote history

“ I would be more inclined to say, and to believe, that Moritz and Coffey have an interest is sensationalising the story and keeping it in the public eye as a baffling mystery - that word keeps coming up in reviews! But they aren't taking a critical approach to the data which might make it a less dramatic story. And when they are using Panorama to plug a new edition of their book (out on Thursday!), that's bad.”

I agree!

“Your wording for the data problem is really helpful though. I caught that at first viewing but it can be hard to explain.”

And thanks re the stats. Egregiously poor form and on the BBC.

OP posts:

nomas · 12/08/2025 13:43

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:41

You may complain if you wish. Some do wish to complain. You don’t have to. Again, the maths are wrong, objectively.

Show quote history

And yet still no evidence.

How ironic that you're asking people to believe you without evidence.

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:44

nomas · 12/08/2025 13:43

And yet still no evidence.

How ironic that you're asking people to believe you without evidence.

Show quote history

I showed my working. Can you show yours? Again, the maths are objectively wrong.

OP posts:

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:44

No statistician or mathematician could, would, or will defend those stats.

OP posts:

Oftenaddled · 12/08/2025 13:45

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:42

“ I would be more inclined to say, and to believe, that Moritz and Coffey have an interest is sensationalising the story and keeping it in the public eye as a baffling mystery - that word keeps coming up in reviews! But they aren't taking a critical approach to the data which might make it a less dramatic story. And when they are using Panorama to plug a new edition of their book (out on Thursday!), that's bad.”

I agree!

“Your wording for the data problem is really helpful though. I caught that at first viewing but it can be hard to explain.”

And thanks re the stats. Egregiously poor form and on the BBC.

Edited

Show quote history

Will be interesting to see how they respond. I am amazed they didn't take much more care, in a case where the dogs on the street know by now statistics were misused already.

nomas · 12/08/2025 13:45

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:44

I showed my working. Can you show yours? Again, the maths are objectively wrong.

Show quote history

Your 'working' was a link to a reddit thread and a tweet which had no data.

How is that 'working'?

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:46

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 11:55

The stats are 100% wrong. It’s not even a question. The maths are simply wrong. They obviously did not consult a statistician and the BBC has a public duty to be accurate, particularly about matters of serious public interest. I’ll try to explain it simply here:

They claim that during Letby’s shifts, babies’ breathing tubes came loose 40 times more often than on other shifts, where the rate was said to be under 1%.

To get that 1% figure, they count each intubated baby separately. So if there are ten babies on a shift, that’s counted as ten shifts for the calculation.

But for Letby, they didn’t count it that way. They treated her 50 shifts as if there was only one intubated baby each time. That makes her total look much smaller: 50 instead of 500, which pushes her calculated rate much higher.

This is totally egregious and shouldn’t happen on the BBC. They should have consulted a statistician. Even an A level maths student would have done a better job. Ffs.

Again I urge everyone to complain to the BBC:

www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints/make-a-complaint/#/submit

Show quote history

My working again.

OP posts:

Original poster

Kittybythelighthouse · 12/08/2025 13:47

nomas · 12/08/2025 13:45

Your 'working' was a link to a reddit thread and a tweet which had no data.

How is that 'working'?

Show quote history

I literally showed my working and I didn’t link to a Reddit thread.

OP posts:

Oftenaddled · 12/08/2025 13:47

Time for another link to the new thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5390441-lucy-letby-have-you-changed-your-mind

Thanks again for setting this up @Kittybythelighthouse