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

And I clearly have a crush on LL?
Maybe you need a break.

There are plenty of people who have been acquitted who were very likely guilty.

There is a high profile one in fact whose own child disowned her because she didn’t believe she was innocent of the crimes she’d been acquitted of committing.

So using one person as an example is entirely irrelevant, because for those that are acquitted for being innocent, there will also be those who are found not guilty or acquitted of crimes that they absolutely did commit.

Yeah i don't get the outrage over this inconsequential 'lie'. I often wear PJ bottoms and a short nightdress on top and put a hoodie on if I'm cold or the doorbell rings. I'd still say 'arrested in my pjs or nightie' not arrested in my hoodie.

I find the people who are adamant there can’t possibly be a problem with the conviction much weirder tbh, given that a conviction is supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt and so many highly qualified people in the relevant fields have gone public over their doubts.

Because 'highly qualified ' people and 'experts' are never wrong? Or to be doubted?

Or corrupt?!

Good point. It seems to be seven methods.

Indeed they can be wrong and their testimony should always be approached critically. One of the various things that rang alarm bells with other scientists re Dewi Evans’ evidence was that he was far more certain than the evidence justified. It’s one thing to say a death might have been caused by air embolism and another to go down the Dewi Evans route and claim you have definitively excluded everything else and are certain.

For the defence lawyer it throws up a problem in deciding whether or not to use an expert witness because a scientist who is more cautious and honest about the limits of their expertise is likely to play less well with a jury than one who is more prepared to express certainty. We don’t KNOW why Myers didn’t use more expert witnesses; one possibility that has already been raised is the difficulty of finding people in cases like this. But he did have one he chose not to use and it is equally possible there might have been others who would have been willing to speak but he thought they would have been too careful and answered their questions with too many qualifications so it could have actually harmed the case when set against Evans’ certainty.

Corrupt how? To be corrupt they would have to be perverting the course of justice to their own (likely financial) benefit. I don't see how this could be happening. Cui bono?

Much more likely to be hubris, incompetence, and as the linked article points out, a fundamental misunderstanding of how probability works. I suspect none of the medical experts called as witnesses had studied S+P since first year undergrad, and they would goggle at you if you so much as mentioned Bayes theorem. The one medical stats expert who was retained was never actually asked to perform an analysis.

Oh look, bad luck again I assume, I'm sure this happens to every nurse-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq8xjqxv0y9o

Another 'accident' I suppose!?

@WhatsInTheRug I'm sure the excuses for her will come thick and fast.

Are you that strange friend that has professed her innocence from the beginning?

Two nurses are required to administer controlled drugs. Presumably the other nurse involved should now be under suspicion.

I've often pondered if it was that she was grossly incompetent in a unit that was totally chaotic.

What is the 'usual' rate of mis-drugging? We need that to put LL's incidents in perspective.

There’s a very good chance she didn’t have the competence required to cope in an understaffed, chaotic unit with a shortage of experienced staff when she was only a year into the job. You would really need to know the usual rate of misdrugging under those circumstances.

Hardly the evil genius we were supposed to believe in!

The astonishing fact that someone could go from ‘not competent to administer controlled drugs’ to often being the most senior nurse on the unit within as little as 2 years really does say something about how short of experienced staff that setting was. Regardless of whether there were serial killers about would you really want your very vulnerable baby to be cared for somewhere like that?

Think about the people who believed, when there was really no evidence, that a psychologically normal, respectable mother of three would kill her own child with a pair of nail scissors and then hide the body and blame a dingo .

Is that the kind of person you want to be?

No one ever thought she was a genius? Attacking two of the triplets and another baby within just days of returning from Ibiza wasn't smart. But then she couldn't control her compulsions.

Genius enough to kill her first victim in full view of at least three people, and then Baby C when she wasn’t even in the hospital that day.

Cheshire police have always been shite

@GossIsAGit

Genius enough to kill her first victim in full view of at least three people, and then Baby C when she wasn’t even in the hospital that day.

Have you got a link for her not being in the hospital that day?

Sorry your message was supposed to be in bold but it did t work for some reason.

Oh don't worry just accessed a telegraph article on archive ph