Lucy Letby case expert witness was under fitness to practise investigation

[ITMA2000]

Wow! Pot, kettle, black? Need a new investigation?
Lucy Letby case expert witness was under fitness to practise investigation during trial | Lucy Letby | The Guardian

@TheChickenOrTheMiniEgg they actually said they looked at it in teams of two and all came back with Lucy as the common denominator. At which point are they actually supposed to start investigating her according to ppl on here?

It’s been discussed extensively, including by the Royal Statistical Society, that in this case and trial, there are considerable concerns relating to the understanding and presentation of statistical evidence.

Casually referring to the ‘common denominator’ here is a prime example of this and another example of you actually displaying your argument’s weakness.

@TheChickenOrTheMiniEggSounds like an inability to accept her guilt more than anything tbh. If she's guilty she will be the common denominator, obviously. I'd love to know how better they find their suspect whilst avoiding the glaring problem of her being the common denominator!

Statisticians always moan in cases like this. Richard Gill for one believes almost all healthcare serial killers are innocent. He's utterly blind to anything but statistics and they alone cannot disprove murder.

I thought the idea of air injection via a NG tube causing death was manifest bollocks.

No we wouldn't have cos the MOJ side aren't desperate, you have seen how most people have been measured in response to the Hindmarsh news when we could have been all over it.

You just get excited every time Liz Hull posts nonsense and you're like 'Boom MOJ campaign over, what a takedown' 😂

It’s hard for us to have this conversation in any depth as your responses make me doubt you’ve understood the specific concerns relating to the statistical evidence in this case? If I’m incorrect then feel free to refute them from a statistical perspective.

They said something like they worked in teams of 2 and then after a while got everyone together for meetings and they'd describe what happened, and someone would say and then nurse LL went in and the baby collapsed and then someone else would say hmm it actually happened when LL went in with our baby too....so it doesn't sound like any team came back actually suspecting LL either, they literally had nothing at all and it was only when the group were together that they saw this 'pattern' of how she was always there.

Apart from the cases of the babies for whom she wasn’t there and so they were excluded from the evidence.

None of us here know if she’s truly guilty or not but most of us here can see why there are grave concerns regarding the safety of the conviction, at the least.

And yet none of your side linked the article, even though it's LL news. I mean you'd think you'd be thrilled she's got a new barrister (what with the first one being so useless and all) yet not a peep!

And it's no different than someone creating an entire thread about the Hindmarsh business, that's making quite a big thing about it in my eyes.

Absolutely.
They try to spin it like they handled the investigation so perfectly and that they all individually and independently suspected LL even though that is not true, it looks like the most amateur and unprofessional investigation, it's a complete embarrassment.

Why would we link the article? It's not LL news, it's nothing to do with her case 😂

He's just the barrister for the inquests, she still has Mark McDonald and if she gets an appeal most likely the inquest barrister won't be involved as she'll have a KC.

This isn't reddit where the threads are all focused on the news story in the post and people only comment if they're interested in that, one LL thread fills up and someone then starts a new one, normally by posting whatever new news story there is, there might be a small bit of chat about that but then the thread goes back to discussing the case in general and we normally just keep rehashing the same things over and over again with you.

Er yeah, how else would it happen if the teams weren't in contact with each other until the end? They'd only have their own cases to go by and have no idea the others had also found Lucy was always there. You're literally describing exactly what would happen if she was guilty. Of course they wouldn't see the pattern until they had all the other officers findings. How is this the wrong way to investigate? You're literally saying they didn't suspect her until they got together, which is going against everything that's been claimed so far about them only ever looking at her.

No I'm just bored of all the statistics talk, like I said before they can't prove or disprove murders so they're a bit irrelevant to me. They have little to do with the case. I don't remember them being much of a feature at all. I mean yeah we have the chart obviously showing she was actually present for the collapses she was accused of. Pretty standard I'd have thought.

Good god, I do hope you don’t serve as a jury member one day.

@TheChickenOrTheMiniEgg I'd say the same for anyone obsessed with and talking nothing about this case other than statistics! And no discussion about WHY I'm wrong about how much the court case focused on statistics? Just personal insults, of course.

There’s plenty of detail on why the statistics are integral to the case, on this thread. I asked if you’d read the information in order to discuss and you dismissed it.

Here’s (re-linking) a great start, if I’ve misjudged you and you’re genuinely interested then I apologise…

rss.org.uk/news-publication/news-publications/2024/general-news/rss-statement-on-the-statistical-aspects-of-the-lu/

Same here.

I doubt it was a "perfect" investigation with it being so long and complex. I think you have to give them some grace that they did the best they could (ugh am loathe to defend the police) but someone said on reddit something like "all roads lead to Letby" and I firmly believe that. Anything else is just unwillingness to accept this is what made them investigate her. I've never known a case like this with people determined to pick holes in absolutely any way the investigation was done just because they don't like that it would land on LL every single time.

If you only examine cases involving Lucy Letby, and then exclude incidents not involving Lucy Letby, all roads will indeed inevitably lead to Lucy Letby.

Found this chart. How's this for stats? Has the doctors on it as well.

ETA-hopefully MN approves the image.

One of the many issues people have with this case is that it started with a suspect, they then went looking for an incident.

Look, this is approximately how the statistics were worked.

Let's say MN has been a bit unstable tonight. There has been brief loss of service at
20:17
20:21
20:38
20:55
20:56
21:05
21:19
21:23
21:33
21:36
21:49

There were some updates done during the day that one of the technical crew said might mean that MN is unstable.
However they decide this must be due to a hacker, without considering the updates.

They chance upon this thread and realise that FireFox has posted at
20:17
20:38
20:55
21:19
21:23
21:33
21:49

They conclude without looking at any other threads that FireFox definitely must have had something to do with it because they posted at those times when Mn was unstable.
They decide that the other times when they'd initially thought it was unstable when FireFox hasn't posted don't count. There isn't really any difference between them, but now they can see FireFox hasn't posted at those points they ignore them.
So the reality being FireFox was on at 7/11 or 63% of the time, but they're considering them being there 100% of the time.
They also haven't taken into account that when FireFox starts posting on this thread they tend to post a lot, increasing the likelihood that their posts are more likely to correspond with times. If someone only posts normally once or twice on a thread, they're less likely to hit the right times.

So when FireFox appeals against being banned, they put to the appeal committee (that I don't think they have) the following information:

FireFox has posted at the following times which are all the times it was unstable.
20:17
20:38
20:55
21:19
21:23
21:33
21:49
They don't mention that FF posted more than anyone else on that thread between those times.
And they also fail to mention the updates that they were warned might cause issues.

So the appeal upholds the ban because they assume that

1. MN has looked at all threads and this is the only person who has posted at the times when Mn was unstable
2. FF was on every time it was unstable
3. There is no other obvious cause.

All of the above assumptions are incorrect, but this is all the information the appeals committee has so they are not considering the full picture.

Yes, this is a basic example, but surely you can see how by assuming it has one answer they are making it a self-fulfilling conclusion.

You're literally saying they didn't suspect her until they got together, which is going against everything that's been claimed so far about them only ever looking at her.

No, I'm saying that they said that, that's how they've described their wonderful top notch police work, no one finding anything suspicious about Letby and then just deciding that she did it when they started to discuss the collapses and said 'OMG LL was there when our case collapsed too'

It was amateur and embarrassing and I'd say some involved have now seen that too. Of course some would double down and say it was perfect, but the issues with it are plain to see and with around 70 people working on operation hummingbird at least some of them will realise now just bad it was.

You're interested in lots of stuff that doesn't prove or disprove murders.
The evidence you're so convinced by and that you decide is so relevant certainly doesn't prove murders.