Lucy Letby thread

[Words]

Starting this as don’t think we have a new one.

Please show your working.

@LuisCarol someone already did it for me-

s

He even compared how many night shifts and overtime she worked and he still couldn't make the stats look anything close to normal.

That bloke isn't quite the full ticket imo and seems to think every healthcare serial killer is innocent. Best ignored.

Who is Nick Barber? This isn’t the actor is it? How is he qualified to do any stats?

You will trust a random bloke on YouTube who has one video uploaded, but a professor emeritus is best ignored?

Please explain your reasons for this.

Sorry what? Dr Gill is a top world expert in mathematics and statistics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Gill

@Frequency he's a similar age to Dewi Evans, and been retired nearly 10 years. I thought we didn't listen to the views of old men who have been retired for years?

I don't think mathematics and statistics advance quite as quickly as medical science.

Plus if the choice is top expert in maths and statistics vs random bloke on YouTube...

Yes, because in ten years 2+2 can suddenly no longer =4 because of advances.
Maths & statistics aren’t like medicine.

Oh how I wish some of those who could apparently 'obliterate' these unsafe conviction arguments in 60 seconds would come here to give some of you some reasonable and mature discussion and a break from this nonsense.

Constantly slating statisticians and how they want to do their job accurately and thoroughly but then repeatedly shares some random on youtube who came up with some stats that she thinks are damning 😂

In an ideal world:

Baby A wouldn't have been left hours without liquid through his line and it would have been appropriately positioned

Baby C would have been checked for bowel issues after vomiting bile and would have been kept nil by mouth until treated; if he still had his desaturation, he would have been intubated effectively immediately at a more specialised unit

Baby D's mother would have been given antibiotics while in labour, and baby D would have received them straight away, and his lungs would have been checked before his ventilation was stopped

Baby E would have received a blood transfusion early on after his gastric bleed.

Baby O's liver hematoma would have been spotted (though there is no guarantee since that is difficult), there would have been no unguided attempt at aspiration, and he would have received a blood transfusion.

That's how one might expect that a more appropriate unit would have avoided the "air embolism" deaths.

We talked about this up the thread.

He missed the fact that she was allocated the shifts with acute cases on both her regular (often swapped) and her overtime shifts.

He claimed it was significant that she had worked more day shifts than night shifts, but he missed the fact that she worked more night shifts than other nurses.

He mixes his data types within the video - so he counts her as present if she was there when a child died but not at an earlier deterioration, but also if she was present at an earlier deterioration but not when a child died.

It is all more than a bit of a mess.

It's not me who keeps focusing on stats. Saying she was there for all these deaths doesn't automatically mean we have to get into some long discussion about statistics and Richard Gill (again)

Do you know a taxi driver reported Harold Shipman because his healthy elderly customers kept dying? But according to some on here we should wait for the likes of Richard Gill to give their 2 cents. Common sense be damned.

It is you who keeps bringing up stats!

Do you want a chart to illustrate it?

Shipman's cases were followed up with forensic evidence and further evidence of criminality. Nobody I've heard of is objecting to his conviction.

YES IT IS!

On all of these threads you repeatedly bring stats into it in your arguments.

Don't change the subject, we're talking about me being better qualified to give expert evidence than the Chester consultants according to your metric.

But you are constantly focusing on stats. You keep on saying thing like “she must have been the unluckiest nurse in the world” and “she was always there” and “what are the chances of that?”.

You are the one making appeals to statistics, and everyone else is pointing out that your statistics are bogus. You don’t even seem to realise that you’re doing it.

Saying she was there for all these deaths doesn't automatically mean we have to get into some long discussion about statistics and Richard Gill (again)

But it does, though. Saying she was there for all these deaths as evidence of her guilt is statitsics. Flawed statistics but statistics nonetheless. People will therefore use statistics to debate the points you raise that they disagree with.

Common sense doesn't come into it. Maths and science do.

Honestly, if I were as clueless about statistics as you are I wouldn’t go around making claims like that. You’re just embarrassing yourself.

I wonder how to discuss someone who killed and harmed multiple babies without ever bringing it up?

I guess that's your way of shutting down any discussion. Bravo.

Well if she gets out on a technicality I hope you'll be very happy.

You can discuss it by discussing the actual evidence. If there were any evidence that proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, there would be no need to rely on flawed statistics.

You're also free to use flawed stats if you wish, but in doing so, people will bring up the flaws, and they will refer to subject experts such as Gill and Hutton.

Also, statistics are not a technicality; they are facts.

@Frequency Also, statistics are not a technicality; they are facts.

Except when it's a guy doing a stats video you don't like apparently.

It's a huge case, obviously it comes down to the overall few things we all know about getting discussed. The amount of deaths she was present for is obviously part of that. The prosecution didn't even take all of them to court so if they'd wanted to make it statistical I'm pretty sure they would have.

But here's one I came across yesterday which I'd forgotten about, not stats related.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/sep/23/lucy-letby-inquiry-chester-hospital-baby-stoma

I was going to say another complaint to add to the list but I guess I'll have to discuss the significance with Richard Gill first 🙄

Doesn't look like she's going to be released amny time soon. The police assembled a file of evidence about babies deaths at other hospitals she worked at. But the CPS said evidence wasn't strong enough. She's guilty.

The stoma seems to have leaked, which must have been distressing, but nurses at the neonatal unit had no experience dealing with them as they explained at Thirlwall. No evidence that Lucy Letby was the nurse who left the child that way, or for how long - all we know is she wasn't in the room. So I wouldn't say this is evidence of anything, really.

It was interesting that Chester police and the remaining prosecution expert (Bohin) were surprised by this decision. The difference from the first set of charges is that the national CPS rather than the local CPS assessed the strength of the evidence. If anything I would say this suggests that the national CPS won't rush to defend the charges if the Court of Appeal quashes the conviction.

So while the timeline depends still mainly on the CCRC and the Court of Appeal, if anything I'd say that's an indication that Lucy Letby may be freed sooner than we might otherwise have expected.