Lucy Letby thread

[Words]

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

The prosecution didn't ask to be allowed to bring up the other deaths. So that's not really relevant.

I mention that claim about the statistician only because it counteracts your assumption that if we had heard from her, the evidence would have been against Lucy Letby.

@Oftenaddled I meant statistics-wise. I don't think the prosecution would be interested in her views about bullying consultants. Her opinion on this is completely irrelevant, grasping at straws now.

Why don't statisticians ever actually stick to stats? How on earth did she come to know that LL was being bullied by the consultants? And why is it up to her to give her opinion on something not stats related?

Ooh so now you think they should stick to stats, I don't know how many times we heard yourself, along with Liz Hull and Dewi Evans etc complaining when the statisticians were sticking to stats, saying they hadn't heard all the evidence from the trial etc. as if they should change their minds about the stats based on things like texts or comments.

I'd assume that her opinion re bullying derived from awareness that the consultants cherrypicked events involving Lucy Letby.

(This is evident from their emails to police, but also from the type of statistical analysis John O'Quigley has performed on the famous chart showing nurses' presence, taking into account the 61 total cases Evans saw before the first trial. Possibly she did a similar analysis. O'Quigley describes his at https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AbN6j-IPQAU )

It's easy to assume that the defence witnesses' testimony would have harmed Letby, but we know of only one instance where that would apply - not being expert of neonatal insulin, Hall deferred to Hindmarsh, who turns out not to have been frank, or fully informed. For the rest, Hall has been clear since the trial that he would have disputed the prosecution case.

And given that this statistician couldn't discuss cherrypicking due to the judge's directives, but apparently has referred to bullying since, I would say it is much more likely that Myers couldn't use her evidence due to the judge's restrictions than that her evidence would have harmed Letby's case.

I think I've worked out how this evidence thing works now.

Random bloke on YouTube who probably struggles to count past 10 - good stats. Give him a Mars bar.
Actual statisticians - blind to common sense and biased.

Single professor who thinks the Daily Fail and Liz Hull are best placed to publish his research into air embolism - good evidence. Give him all the Mars bars.
12 internationally renowned experts, including leading neonatologists - Clearly, they're either secretly in love with Letby or they want fame.

Group of pediatricians who saw Letby at most twice a week - Actual Gods. Don't bother with Mars Bars. These guys deserve a Galaxy.
Nurses and managers who worked with Letby daily - bad. Very bad. Obviously, they just hate the pediatricians and maybe also fancy Letby?

In other words, it is only evidence if it works against Letby; no matter who is doing the speaking, if it works against Letby, it is reliable.

If it is someone who might have half a clue what they're talking about, it is not evidence; it is the ravings of someone infatuated with a rather ordinary-looking nurse.

Is that right @Firefly1987 ?

I don't think we need to hear from them at all tbh. They want the body count to be much higher before they'll ever admit the stats are significant-obviously most normal people don't want the baby death count getting up into triple figures before she is removed and arrested. Odd how the statisticians are the only people that have been convinced of her innocence from practically the start.

Oh what a big surprise he never followed the trial at the time and someone told him it was based on statistics 🙄

Dewi Evans has explained he never knew the name Lucy Letby or that anyone was in the frame. If she's a killer she's going to look cherry-picked because almost all the collapses are going to be down to her-obviously.

For the rest, Hall has been clear since the trial that he would have disputed the prosecution case.

He had an explanation for every single collapse?

Well we certain don't need to hear from a random youtuber but yet you keep posting it on here and any other stats you deem relevant.

I know she did it, a lot more than you know she didn't.

I'd love to listen to the statisticians but it's blatantly obvious they're wrong about this. Not to mention biased because they keep insisting misuse of statistics or not having statistics =innocence and it most definitely does not. Have any of them ever entertained the fact she might be guilty? Now that I'd be interested in because at least it means they're capable of being balanced.

I've said before but if the experts can't agree (and they obviously can't) there's nothing else to do but look at the circumstantial evidence so that's what I've done. I'm not going to play expert top trumps or "I like the look of that expert I'll pick him to listen to".

In other words, it is only evidence if it works against Letby; no matter who is doing the speaking, if it works against Letby, it is reliable.

Well she's guilty so yeah. I don't see the guilty side get half as many of the case facts wrong as the innocent side do (talking to you Amanda Knox)

If she was innocent she would be going completely barmy in prison and shouting her innocence from the rooftops. Can you imagine being locked up for life for a crime you didn’t commit? It would drive you utterly mad.

However, there have been no reports of this happening. She is guilty.

@bluewanda exactly-she's best friends with Beinash Batool.

I've said before but if the experts can't agree (and they obviously can't) there's nothing else to do but look at the circumstantial evidence so that's what I've done. I'm not going to play expert top trumps or "I like the look of that expert I'll pick him to listen to

But that is exactly what you're doing, you're cherry-picking evidence that affirms your point of view whilst ignoring the majority that doesn't. Surely, when it's written out, you can see how single-minded that is?

Medical experts, for example, Professor Shoo Lee and Professor Qi Zhou, haven't been cross-examined in court; therefore, their research paper and medical opinions are worse than useless, but when Professor Clarke speaks to the Fail, that's further proof of Letby's guilt.

Your opinion on whether stats should be used in the case appears to change on a daily basis, depending on whether you remember your YouTube video has already been posted and pointed out as deeply flawed.

You can prove almost anything is true if you cherry-pick who is worth listening to based on whether they affirm your opinion rather than the veracity of their claims.

I happen to know that smoking is good for you, and I can prove it:

https://www.healthline.com/health/alzheimers-dementia/nicotine-and-alzheimers#takeaway
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8338753/

Anyone who publishes anything against smoking obviously hates tobacco companies and doesn't know what they're talking about.

She has maintained her innocence through her legal team, there is no one way for an innocent person to ask but why would you expect to hear reports about her mental state and whether she went barmy or not?

We do know that the trial was delayed for a few days early on due to her mental state after she moved prisons and they mixed up her medication, we only know that because it had to be explained in open court.

Did Andrew Malkinson do this? Sally Clark? Peter Sullivan? Angela Canning?

How do you do this, from jail? Do newspapers report on it? Do prison guards allow it? Do fellow inmates tolerate it?

Do guilty prisoners never claim they are innocent this way? Why wouldn't they if we are supposed to believe them?

This isn't a very good indication of anything.

You don't need to have followed the trial to analyse a piece of data that was presented in court and widely reported, do you?

The point is that the consultants cherrypicked the cases, not Evans. (The incidents not involving Lucy Letby which Evans found suspicious were simply removed from the investigation).

It wasn't Hall's or the defence's job to explain every single collapse. The two insulin cases didn't collapse in any normal sense of the word but Hall couldn't explain their test results. The science wasn't at that point in 2022/3. But that is not to say that he could not have challenged and critiqued the prosecution expert witness, as he has done publicly since the trial.

I think you're missing an important fact here. Statisticians, like anyone else, would be satisfied with evidence that she had killed or harmed one single baby. What they object to is people trying to prove that she was a murder by citing statistics that don't prove she did so.

@Oftenaddled

You don't need to have followed the trial to analyse a piece of data that was presented in court and widely reported, do you?

You do apparently, that's how you get the superior knowledge and all knowing-ness, by following the trial at the time and remembering all the prejudicial headlines, like this one from sky news

https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-i-am-evil-i-did-this-read-the-confession-note-written-by-nurse-accused-of-murdering-seven-babies-12718882

One of the worst things about trusting journalists to tell you about the trial at the time is that Cheshire Police manipulated the media into favouring the prosecution side.

I think it's quite well known by now that they paid Caroline Cheetham's company for "training" and "publicity" before and during the trial. She is the person who co-hosts the Mail's Trial podcast, which dedicated hours of footage to Lucy Letby.

But also - the police invited trial reporters to a special day of interviews and announcements while the trial was still running. They allowed to record the footage they would use if Lucy Letby was found guilty, where they explained their success with the case. If she wasn't found guilty they wouldn't be allowed to use this.

They scheduled this event for the final day of Myers's closing speech, when he gave his ultimate response to prosecution arguments and drew his arguments together. As a result, the media barely reported his arguments this day.

Following the trial at the time wasn't some pure experience of the objective truth. The police worked hard to ensure that the public didn't get a balanced account

Yes, of course with many trials there will be prejudicial and sensationalist headlines naturally as the case is presented but it is clear in this case that there was a very brazen attempt by the police to influence opinion.

This notion that people who followed it at the time 'know' more than the rest of us is just ridiculous, it's not a 'you had to be there' event, the trial was in 2022/2023 FGS, all of the information that was online at the time is still online, along with more complete transcripts from the trial and an abundance of new evidence.

Your post is alarming.

The Post Office victims were mostly not heard of during their imprisonment

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdjglr7lgyzo

You may consider it is too short a sentence to be bothered about. In reality, an unjust prison sentence of any length can ruin a life in terms of ability to work with money etc.

Don't bother with Mars Bars. These guys deserve a Galaxy.

Love this.

These graphs always gets me.

The graph shows the 10 hospitals which saw the largest increase in neonatal deaths from 2014 to 2015. It's expressed as a ratio of the 2015 mortality rate over 2014.

The Countess of Chester isn’t even in the top 10. It’s number 12. It’s highlighted in purple on the second graph.

Do you really think that 11 other hospitals had murderers in them? Or do you think that the state of neonatal care in the NHS in 2014-2015 was under severe strain because of drastic cuts in funding?

Which is more likely?

The data is taken from here https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/mbrrace-uk/reports/perinatal-mortality-surveillance

You can read the data from 2014 here https://triedbystats-public-site-resources.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/2014.csv
and from 2015 here https://triedbystats-public-site-resources.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/2015.csv

Because good news sources have evidence to back up their claims.

I know she did it, a lot more than you know she didn't.

Has Donald Trump joined the thread?

😂😂😂

I knew that comment reminded me of someone.