Lucy Letby - have you changed your mind pt. 5

[Typicalwave]

New thread

Part 4 here - https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5400564-lucy-letby-have-you-changed-your-mind-thread-4?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

Originally started by @kittybythelighthouse

Nope, thought she was innocent before the trial. Would be prepared to believe she didn't do it if the experts had any credible evidence AT ALL+the police didn't find anything else on her. I'd say that ship has sailed though since we know they already handed a file with more charges into the CPS.

It's amazing how confident people can be in her innocence when they've not even finished investigating yet-which is why I called people dogmatic. They won't come here and apologise for being wrong, they'll just double down and get ready to rubbish the new charges no doubt. Even though Evans isn't involved and some of them are from her previous hospital.

I had believed she was guilty until a few short months ago - so, by your yardstick, zero dogma here.

Nope - not convincing.

I've never thought much about the guilty / not guilty discussion regarding LL until I heard something on the news, a good while ago now, which was describing how there is no hard evidence she did anything, and a some very dodgy statistical analysis apparently did.

Lies, damn lies and statistics was what came to my mind.

I don't profess to know if she's innocent or guilty but her conviction strikes me as very unreliable and merits a retrial.

That's what some of the media would like to have you believe. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to prove it could only have been her. Stable babies don't just collapse out of nowhere and not respond to resuscitation. The doctors knew something very odd was happening and that it wasn't natural.

The jury gave up months of their life to listen to all the evidence and then people come on here and go give her a retrial! Like it's that simple! She'll STILL be found guilty on a retrial-because she is. Even if they did best of 5.

Yes I think you said that, I have no problems with people who are open-minded.

The vast majority of people are indeed open-minded and you quite clearly do have a problem with them/us because their/our current opinion based on all the information that is currently out there doesn't match yours.

Why would I WANT her to be guilty, why would anyone. Maybe ask yourself that.

No I have a problem with people doing all they can to minimise the parents' experiences of what terrible things were happening to their baby. Christ you'd think on MUMsnet people wouldn't do that-I'm the only one calling it out, and I'm not even a mum.

People have literally been open-minded when looking at the information provided by the parents.....We have already heard the arguments that this proves guilt and that proves guilt, now they are being looked at from the perspective that maybe they don't. It's not the publics fault that the Thirlwall inquiry is throwing up even more evidence about the suboptimal care etc.

Also from your other post...
It's amazing how confident people can be in her innocence when they've not even finished investigating yet-which is why I called people dogmatic. They won't come here and apologise for being wrong, they'll just double down and get ready to rubbish the new charges no doubt

Nope I won't be apologising if I hear that they lay new charges, the evidence for the previous ones were so weak that I would need to hear the evidence presented in the trial first. And the rebuttals. And you can bet that if there is a new trial and the evidence is as weak as the other trials that a lot of very educated people will be rebutting the arguments each day as the daily updates come out, it won't be months afterwards, it will be during. Of course the jury won't be able to follow that, but the public will.

If it turned out that they laid new charges and I was convinced by the evidence put forward I would absolutely admit I was wrong, and I think so would most people here.

People have literally been open-minded when looking at the information provided by the parents.....We have already heard the arguments that this proves guilt and that proves guilt, now they are being looked at from the perspective that maybe they don't. It's not the publics fault that the Thirlwall inquiry is throwing up even more evidence about the suboptimal care etc.

I don't think whatever side you're on people should be trying to diminish the distress parents said their babies were in as if it's all normal. That's not being open-minded and accepting their testimony and experiences. If people don't want comments about Lucy's behaviour they shouldn't try and downplay what the parents are saying. If babies are often distressed and having collapses around just one member of staff who was alone with them at the time-it's a pattern.

Nope I won't be apologising if I hear that they lay new charges, the evidence for the previous ones were so weak that I would need to hear the evidence presented in the trial first. And the rebuttals. And you can bet that if there is a new trial and the evidence is as weak as the other trials that a lot of very educated people will be rebutting the arguments each day as the daily updates come out, it won't be months afterwards, it will be during. Of course the jury won't be able to follow that, but the public will.

How many charges would one person possibly be able to stack up if they were innocent?! It's potentially across two hospitals as well. Are you going to blame Liverpool for being suboptimal next? Lemme guess, Shoo Lee will come out and say if it was Canada then LWH would've been shut down too 😆

If it turned out that they laid new charges and I was convinced by the evidence put forward I would absolutely admit I was wrong, and I think so would most people here.

So you wouldn't give any weight to there being a total of potentially 30+ suspicious incidents including LL then? Only if each bit of evidence "convinced" you? Like she was caught on camera or she confessed to someone no doubt. Even then you'd say she didn't mean it. I guess you'll just have to stay mad about this terrible miscarriage of justice then.

From what I've seen people are mostly putting the statements into context, these parents have been told that LL harmed their child after all.

So you wouldn't give any weight to there being a total of potentially 30+ suspicious incidents including LL then? Only if each bit of evidence "convinced" you?

Imagine wanting to be convinced by evidence, Oh my God what a shocking prospect.

Like she was caught on camera or she confessed to someone no doubt. Even then you'd say she didn't mean it.

🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱
There you go again, Mrs dogmatic herself.
Not only is your opinion about her guilt the only correct belief in your mind, you also continue to persist in every single post telling people what they'll say or do or why they think stuff. You've been corrected on your assumptions on other people many times when you state this nonsense but you continue to do it.

So you wouldn't give any weight to there being a total of potentially 30+ suspicious incidents including LL then? Only if each bit of evidence "convinced" you?

That would depend on whether the incidents were considered suspicious before or after they knew that LL was present.

Let's not forget that there were 17 deaths over the time period and an unknown (but presumably larger) number of collapses. Once we remove the 7 deaths that were ruled as murder we're still left with 10 where the expected value was 2 or 3. Don't we still need to account for those?

As to how many charges could you stack up if you were innocent - well it depends whether just being at your place of work counts as a reason to suspect you. The more you're there, the more likely we are to find something. And the more things we find, the more likely you are to be guilty, right?

so ik not dogmatic and refusing to be convnced simple on the basis of I don’t want to change my belief? Coolio. Neither is anyone else here that I can see, and yet you keep insinuating that we’re all awful people who are denying parents experiences (which is odd Becsuse none of them though a single nurse had harmed theif child until they were told by police) blah blah blah simply because we want to believe she’s innocent Because: female, blonde, nurse, pretty, its a day tgat ends in ‘y’

I can tell you that I don’t want to deny the parents anything, I want them to have the truth.I feel they’ve bedn used as convenient pawns and put through yhe mill, and it’s sick and disgusting. And I believe (and more so every day yhe more I read) that the truth is they were horrible let down and the hospital was medically negligent, and some individuals who were if remain at that hospital know ig abc are quite happy for one person to rot in jail for it.

You seem to like to turn opinion into fact and are unable to accept that others don't agree with you.

The jury also found the Labour MP who was filimed actively calling for violent action not guilty - are you claiming that no jury decision is ever wrong or motivated by personal opinion ? For example in LL case "Baby killers are abhorrent, she's been accused so she must be guilty" - I'm not saying that happened, I'm saying it could which by your reasoning means it did.

Stop claiming "she is" guilty, you don't know that for a fact - you may notice that those who are saying the conviction is unsafe are not claiming "she is" innocent, they say they believe she didn't have a good defence team and new evidence / testimony / etc. should be taken into account at a (fairer) retrial - not she is 100% innocent and should be released today.

Anyway I remember an old saying, stop banging your head against the wall, the wall won't move and you get a sore head.

‘There you go again, Mrs Dognstic herself….’

If can be safely said that all this assuming of people’s thoughts, feelings, ideas and motives even when told repeatedly that they are wrong, that @firefly1987is the poster child for confirmation bias.

I do hope so. But reading the last 4 threads I don't think some would. Even if she is innocent of harm. She wasn't a great nurse while the hospital was very lax also. But some people will still defend her as being an amazing nurse when she wasn't. She may have been ok and innocent but definitely not amazing like some people are saying.

For example, an investment fund manager who portrays himself as a statistics expert claims that there were 17 deaths in the hospital in 2015-16 and yet Letby was “only” charged with 7 murders. Evans explains the obvious point that some of the deaths were natural, expected and not suspicious, but no one explains that there were actually 13 deaths and that Letby was on duty for 12 of them.
https://snowdon.substack.com/p/letby-the-movie?utm_source=post-banner&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true

I also found this interesting.

The film doesn’t mention Richard Taylor’s glucose error, but it does discuss the insulin poisonings in the context of a different test from the same lab which Letbyists claim is proof that the tests can’t be relied on. This was reported by Unherd while the film was being made. In short, some test results conducted in the lab in 2016 came to light. They came from an external quality assessment and appeared to show implausibly high insulin levels and implausibly low C-peptide levels. Viewers of Conviction will get no counter-argument to this, but an expert interviewed by Judith Moritz and Jonathan Coffey gave a simple explanation: someone had written in the two values the wrong way round during the quality assessment (and, no, this wouldn’t happen when results were transmitted from the lab to a hospital under normal conditions because that uses “electronic end-to-end result transmission”).1

Or:
John O’Quigley (stats professor at UCL, PhD in stats, Leeds Uni, Author of a text on survival analysis, published research in various areas of statistical application, Workd in statistical science

and

Jane Hutton - medical statistician, PhD Imperial College, professor at Warwick which is one of the world leading universities for medical statistics,

are also both vocal critics of the way Breary, Cheshire police, and the CPS abused statistics to conclude LL was the only common denominator.

Peter Elston - who does hold an MA in mathematics, doesnt need to even be a factor in considering whether statistically theres a bit of an issue here ij the evidence relied upon.

That's just Christopher Snowdon engagement farming - he's admitted that's his system.

Lucy Letby wasn't on duty for 12 out of 13 deaths, but he would prefer the sensational sounding figure. Thirlwall produced a table here: https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/evidence/inq0108782-table-produced-by-the-inquiry-legal-team-titled-all-of-the-neonatal-deaths-linked-to-the-countess-of-chester-hospital-in-2015-and-2016/

I'd trust that over Vanity Fair and Judith Moritz, never mind Snowdon who presumably is parroting them here.

Investment fund managers tend to reasonably strong in risk and probability, yes.

Afternoon. Ivd looked at this table before and it’s useful gof lots of info, but where does it indicate whether LL was present or not at the death?

Apologies - I forgot that it needs to be cross referenced with this one:

thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/evidence/inq0010072-sheet-1-of-report-from-the-countess-of-chester-hospital-mapping-staff-members-on-duty/

These are the eleven deaths on the ward before the two triplets - Lucy Letby was on duty for the two triplets' deaths as we know.

Thanks was wondering the same thing.