Lucy Letby - have you changed your mind thread 4

[MistressoftheDarkSide]

With thanks to the original poster @kittybythelighthouse and @Tidalwave for continuing the discussion.

Ah, okay then.

Are there any other of your statements on these threads expressed as facts, with similar degrees of implied confidence and specificity, that readers should be aware may also not have been literal?

Are there any sources for it only being shown a couple of times? While I agree that even once would be appalling, it would be good to have an idea.

I've just googled how many times the shift chart was shown in court, but coming up empty. It's referred to as being shown in the opening remarks, but as it was a key feature of the prosecution, that "she was there" at every death collapse, it would have been cemented in the jury's minds and the visual prompt of the chart, however many times it was shown, would have had a huge impact.

I would imagine, that a jury on such a high profile case would assume that such an important piece of "evidence" would only be presented if it was ansolutely concrete, which of course is the whole problem.

It would be an interesting exercise to analyse how often the chart was shown, referred to, along with the assertion that she was "always there" as repetition is key to teach people information they are expected to retain.

Even if Lucy Letby was 100% guilty the prosecution definitely still used nonsense statistics. Their stats were a mess regardless of whether or not she’s guilty. That’s just a fact. Same with the recent Panorama.

Ffs. You really are something else.

You know as well as I do, to your great annoyance I’m sure, that I ALWAYS bring facts and sources.

Do you have a “source” for your nonsense claim that it was “only shown a couple of times”? Or does this self appointed Hall Monitoring only apply to those you don’t agree with?

I have a strong recollection of reading somewhere that the chart was put up and left up for a lengthy period so it was staring the jury in the face, as it were - but I can’t now find where I saw this.

If one wanted to waste a Saturday doing busy work splitting hairs to satisfy the demands of self appointed Head Girls on Mumsnet one could comb through the transcripts to see how many times NJ referred to her being “always there” or variations on that theme. It was A LOT.

However, I personally don’t take scolding from the sort that monitors the conversation not to ever contribute meaningfully, but only to leap up the ONE TIME that someone says something obviously not literal, and not meant to be literal, but also not a distortion by any stretch. Ffs. Ignore.

I recall something similar also, but it’s incredibly disingenuous for anyone to imply that the shift rota and statistical variations on that theme weren’t very front and centre (including on multiple newspaper covers) the entire way through the trial until the statistics got torn to shreds post reporting ban. Suddenly then the case was “never about statistics”.

I agree @kittybythelighthouse

It is tedious and designed to derail.
The chart was an abomination and has been shown to be wrong, and that should be the end of the matter. I should know better by now x

Well obviously not ALWAYS as you’ve just been caught out stating something that is completely untrue.

I don’t have any sources to suggest that the chart was shown twice, but I think I at least made it quite clear in my post that I didn’t know what the answer was and that was why I asked the question.

It was not only shown “once in a while”. But, as I said earlier, even if it was, a statistical clownshow is still a statistical clownshow that shouldn’t have been seen in a courtroom at all no matter how many times it was used to mislead the jury.

Arguing that rubbish stats that appeared to be damning were “only shown (to the jury) a couple of times” is like saying that one can be only slightly decapitated.

I did not get “caught out” doing any such thing you insufferable little hall monitor. Fgs.

I also could not care less about the bloody shift chart.

However, I called the poster out on this as they have also made many sweeping claims throughout these threads about individuals, including allegations of clinical negligence and professional and clinical incompetence - barely any of which has been backed up by any evidence that has been properly tested through a formal process. At one point a couple of threads ago they even named two doctors who they said had been negligent but got completely the wrong people anyway and had to be swiftly corrected by another poster and the posts deleted. As far as I’m concerned that stuff really DOES matter, and I think it’s important that people reading these threads who may know less about this case are aware not to take everything this poster says ‘literally’.

Super excited to be appointed a Head Girl of Mumsnet though.

Why don’t you care about the shift chart?

And Dewi insists the case wasn't about statistics whilst watching the police make it all aboyg statistics (bad statistics)

Where are you getting the idea that there would be anything to unscrew? One of the ports (assuming the bags used are the same as the ones I’m familiar with) does have a screw cap that is used for filling in the pharmacy, but the tubing between it and the bag is clamped off with a big old clamp (that’s not only tamper evident but designed as a seal) that you’d have to break to remove.

I am really interested in understanding what means LL could possibly have used, and whether it could have passed undetected. If she could have done it, it doesn’t really mean anything, but if she could not, that’s enormous.

Do you care about statisticians saying that COCH increase wasn't above the norm

Do you care when compared to other units between 2014-2015 COCH weren’t even in the top ten largest increases in neonatal deaths (and no one’s looking for a in any of those hospitals)

Do you care that the RCPCH inside the hospital and found serious issues with the unit?

Because it is embarrassing to the narrative that statistics, which were a central plank of the prosecution’s case as can be seen from the transcripts and coverage of the trial, were a complete ballsup.

Before the reporting ban was lifted the shift chart etc were central in discussions about the case (and on newspaper covers). As soon as the reporting ban lifted and the stats were demolished suddenly “the case was never about statistics”.

Weird to argue though that showing grossly misleading evidence to a jury is fine as long as it’s not shown literally every day of the prosecution’s case. Kind of like arguing that shooting someone in the head is fine if you just do it the once.

For all we know it was shown literally every day. It was certainly was shown during the prosecution’s opening arguments, closing arguments, and more than once during the presentation of evidence for each baby.

If I can be arsed later I will actually draw up the numbers for how often it was cited in court as much as we can tell from what’s available. I am nothing if not a petty data nerd when irritated by self-appointed Mumsnet hem measurers.

Not really, because it is perfectly possible for everything you have listed there to be true AND Letby attacked and murdered babies.

And it’s perfectly possible to bd the case in al yhd itger hospitals with with spikes, too…and yet no one is….

In one of the previous threads there was a discussion about this. According to the court evidence (Ian Allen's evidence of 29th November 2022 and Lucy Letby's defence examination of 5th May 2023) there are two levels of security:

1. The TPN bag is sealed inside a sterile cellophane bag which needs to be torn open to access the actual bag.
2. The port is covered by a hard plastic tamper-evident/tamper-proof cap. There is a tamper-proof seal over this cap.

Something like this is what was suggested to me: albiox.com/product/tamper-evident-caps-for-iv-bags/

As in previous discussions on this I am not a nurse or HCP so I defer to anyone who is.

Sure. You still have to prove it though.

I do not believe it would be possible to build, charge and prosecute a case that a murderer is operating in any of the other hospitals with spikes in deaths, purely on the basis that there is a spike in deaths.

Unfortunately it is worryingly common for the police, doctors, solicitors, barristers, and the judiciary (amongst others) to neither understand statistics themselves, nor to have the wisdom to know that they don’t understand statistics and should therefore be consulting a statistician in serious matters like the administration of justice.

There’s a good Tortoise podcast about the Kathleen Folbigg miscarriage of justice that goes into this. It’s called The Lab Detective.

“However, I called the poster out on this as they have also made many sweeping claims”

When attempting to smear me, ironically using a sweeping claim, that I am guilty of making “many sweeping claims” I at least ask that you give specific examples instead of waving at a vague miasma of possibility.

“At one point a couple of threads ago they even named two doctors who they said had been negligent but got completely the wrong people anyway and had to be swiftly corrected by another poster and the posts deleted.”

You say this as if it’s one example amongst many when you know very well that it’s one example of a mistake and that’s it.

A couple of threads ago I stated a TRUTH that baby Noah Robinson was killed by a doctor at COCH due to incorrect intubation into his stomach, not his lungs which suffocated him. This is a fact.

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-express/20180704/281603831215712

I (while at the hospital btw) accidentally stated the wrong name and deleted right away. I made a mistake and corrected it instantly. That’s one mistake out of hundreds of posts - with all other references meticulously sourced - across four threads. If more than 3 people saw it I’d be astonished. I was on my way to the hospital btw. Why don’t you shoot me for getting something wrong, then instantly deleting it, while medicated and undergoing treatment.

The reason you are attempting to smear me is because you know that I know this case extremely well and that I present evidence that you don’t like.

You, on the other hand, bring nothing to this conversation except, for some reason, a desperate need to stop people from engaging in a conversation about a matter of serious public interest.

“Super excited to be appointed a Head Girl of Mumsnet though.”

I said self-appointed, but I’m glad you have something positive in your life.