Cheshire Police are an incompetent bunch of useless bastards

[GossIsAGit]

After Sally Clark

They should have remembered that If a doctor of medicine tells you that a coincidence is so unlikely it must mean a woman has been killing babies then maybe you should consult a statistician and actually listen.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/10/lucy-letby-police-cps-handling-case-raises-new-concerns-about-convictions?CMP=ShareiOSAppOther

I suppose.
This is interesting from the Telegraph again

https://archive.is/HmHHb

I meant to say I suppose that’s understandable of Dr Hawdon to feel she hadn’t been given the full picture.

Without wishing to sound cryptic, this case is informing my approach to something resonant and brewing that I am peripherally involved with. And on a personal level it's a Herculean task not to jump to conclusions when certain information seems hinky. Nature and the imagination abhor a void, so I'm working hard on cold, rational logic, while my instincts dance an undignified fandango. Sometimes you can't make this shit up.

Good luck @MistressoftheDarkSide! That does sound cryptic.

But the stats weren't just in Chester, in a prev hospital the breathing tubes were dislodged at 40% of Letby's compared to the usual rate of 1% - stats definitely have a part to play in these sorts of cases - where malicious incidents occur in a situation like a hospital and have often been a way that the killer or predator is identified.

I believe she is guilty.

Thank you @GossIsAGit .

I really wish I could say more, as it's potentially "in the public interest" level stuff. However, knowing how careless and sensationalist reporting can damage people, and ruin the concepts of truth and justice, I have to remain frustratingly tight lipped. I really really hope it's not what it looks like right now, but only time will tell.

From the Telegraph
“While the inquiry heard that tubes were dislodged on 40 per cent of Letby’s shifts, other scientists have pointed out that there is extensive scientific literature suggesting that breathing tubes can become dislodged in newborns between one per cent and 80 per cent of the time.”

Read the whole article here
https://archive.ph/Nw0b
Statistical evidence should be analysed by a statistician.
Cheshire Police have been the only force investigating.

Why did the defence not call a statistician then?

You’d better ask them.

Dr McPartland certainly cast a lot of doubt on the Baby D case yesterday
“Not only was there pneumonia, there were hyaline membranes which indicated acute lung injury which you don’t normally see, so that did lead me to believe that there was more extensive lung injury from the pneumonia than you might expect, so that could explain then why the child didn’t behave as the clinicians might have expected.”
She added: “In my experience when babies have died often they do have a fluctuating course beforehand, and I have had cases before where the baby has collapsed, been resuscitated and then collapsed again and then eventually resuscitation fails, so a fluctuating course didn’t seem to be that unusual to me.
“And then obviously she has become mottled and stopped breathing again and her heart has stopped. So the whole picture did seem to suggest that she was unstable and very unwell.”

Why didn’t the defence call Dr McPartland is another good question.

Presumably because it wasn’t relevant. I’m guessing His Majesty’s Counsel has greater oversight of and able to apprise the evidence better than you and all the other pound shop Columbos.

I agree the charts and other statistical evidence in and of themselves are not sufficient evidence of guilt but each piece of evidence is just a tiny thread in the whole
body considered by the jury - which only people who heard all of it can legitimately opine on.

I just think it’s amazing all these so called experts chiming up in support of this baby killer were nowhere to be seen during the time and in the place their statements would actually have been of any significance. In the witness box, during the trial. Their ramblings now are irrelevant.

I love the phrase ‘so-called experts.’
It’s so Daily Mail.

The jury didn’t hear all the evidence.
The trial wasn’t fair so the people who were there were not well placed to judge the defendant.

The Thirlwall Inquiry is busy making sure that it ONLY reflects on how they could have stopped Letby from killing babies on the unit.

Justice Thirlwall has stated that they won’t be retrying the case. Witnesses (contemporary nursing colleagues of Letby) that have written in saying they don’t believe she could have done it have been excluded from giving oral evidence at the Inquiry. Thirwall really is not interested in exposing the shocking state of the unit, nor in examining why all the other babies (that Letby couldn’t possibly be responsible for killing) ended up dying.

Which will make any conclusions it reaches, when Letby eventually gets a fair shot at a trial, look nonsensical.

Why are you so determined to believe that our notoriously poor ‘Justice’ system can’t be wrong in this instance?

Were you equally sure (and many were!) that the Birmingham Six were guilty? How about the Satanic Panic, or the shaken baby syndrome cases?

So many miscarriages of justice over the years, and we have a system in place that actively throws hurdles in the way of appellants getting back into a court.

I didn’t say it can’t be wrong, did I?

However the opinions of pound shop Columbos with no medical or legal expertise and of “experts” who were nowhere to be seen during the actual judicial process mean absolutely fuck all.

She’s been through due process. She’s getting a referral to the CCRC. If there’s been a miscarriage of justice (and I don’t think there has been) then it can and should be dealt with through these proper channels. Same as how the MC of justice cases you mentioned were ultimately resolved. Not via the uninformed opinions of idiots gobbing off on SM.

Yeah sure thing

And your username is ridiculous as well OP. Goss didn’t convict Letby. Neither did Cheshire Police. Are we now just calling people gits for doing their job?

I wouldn’t know, I don’t read it.

I've only recently become interested in the Lucy Letby saga. I have to say .. while claiming a belief in innocence might be a step too far (for me, at the moment). I would hesitate to say it is anywhere near obvious that she is guilty.

This case doesn't have any solid evidence to it at all and was entirely built on the presumption of suspicion, rather than an investigation where all possibilities were treated equally. The death of each baby has not been analysed as 'these are the findings of death – what happened on the ward that day and prior?', they have been treated as 'if Lucy Letby was responsible, how might we show that?'

Police just want a conviction. They don't care if the right person is convicted. And that's tale as old as time.

You’re right. A rational person wouldn’t have taken the job.

No, for not doing their jobs.

I'm no fan of the police but you don't think in this case they'd much rather there had been an innocent explanation or at the worst negligence, rather than a nurse was an actual serial killer?

I think because the Lucy Letby association had been established and reported first, rather than evidence or post mortems that confirmed unnatural deaths, then yes the police were under pressure to build that case rather than throughly explore an alternative. And unfortunately, due to the complicated nature of a case reliant on specialist medical knowledge, they were never going to be apt at examining an alternative case.