Anyone else doubting Lucy Letby's guilt?

[Nickersnackersnockers]

Don't know if I am allowed to share a link so please Google 'Science on Trial Lucy Letby'.

It's written by a scientist with no association to LL who is asking questions that were not addressed in court.

I am very disturbed by the article. Don't start slinging mud at me, make a large coffee, go read it, come back, and tell me what you think!

The article is about how to do proper statistical analysis of baby deaths in NICUs when looking at who was on shift when they died. It’s an article on statistical methodology. It uses Berk as an example. It is clear though that this methodology wasn’t used for Letby when it should have been.

@SkintMamasita Overturning a conviction doesn't always mean they didn't do it. A conviction can be overturned for not enough evidence, mishandling evidence and following incorrect procedures.

I'd be interested to know how many of these overturned convictions were because the real whodunnit was caught

Sorry I did not realise your question was a rhetorical one so I answered it on good faith.

Not trying to be annoying and I personally believe in LL guilt but also don't think that means she is.

For all the people saying 'scientific evidence' that convicting her shouldn't be questioned and 'conspiracy theorists under-estimating the qualifications and expertise of the experts'.

In the case of the Maguire 7, family members of Gerry Conlon, one of the Guildford four. All of whom later had their convictions quashed, with all of the Maguire 7 either serving their entire sentences in prison, the youngest accused being arrested aged 13 and Giuseppe Conlon, Gerry Conlons father dying in prison during his sentence and being exonerated many years after his death.

The Maguire 7 were solely convicted on 'scientific evidence'. No bomb making equipment was ever found near them or in their home and they were convicted solely on being associated with Gerry Conlon, an innocent man. And 'scientific evidence' which said hand swabs taken from them upon arrest showed they had come into contact with nitroglycerin commonly used in IRA bombs.

That 'scientific evidence' was later debunked but not until Giuseppe Conlon had died in prison, Annie Maguire and her husband served 14 years and their underage children Patrick who was 13 on arrest for terrorism offences and 14 on conviction and served 4 years in prison. And their son Vincent who was 16 upon arrest, 17 on conviction and served 5 years in prison.

I think LL is guilty but no-one should put too much faith in the science or experts used in a criminal trial who are only going on the current idea of scientific evidence and their own opinions.

Sally Clark and Louise Woodward were largely convicted on scientific evidence by experts who later realised they were wrong.

People hear science or expert and think well that's that; there's the proof.

And science changes.

And experts can be full of shit. It was less than a year ago that the river-search expert inserted himself into the Nicola Bulley search and claimed if she was in the river, he would find her. And when he didn't he cast doubt on the Police investigation which had said based on all the evidence, she'd fallen in the river.

And then when she was found in the river, he backtracked up his own arse, said he hadn't really meant what he said in the way the public and media interpreted it and was being made a scapegoat.

When his earlier statements were extremely clear.

Or in the case of Berk, no one murdered babies. Babies died due to things like staff shortages or poor training or medical error.

LOL, given that Lucy Letby faced 17 charges that's only 6.5 hours per charge. Hardly excessive is it?

And yes in some of the charges they found insufficient evidence to convict which actually, if you think rationally about it, should give you increased confidence that the jury took their duty of finding guilt beyond reasonably doubt seriously.

So I'm not sure what your point is. Do you think that 6.5 hours is too long for a jury to consider charge of murder or attempted murder or haven't you actually thought this through?

A lot of them, historically, were to do with wrongly obtained confessions and police misconduct which resulted to changes and the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. (PACE).

This obviously is not applicably to Lucy Letby as she did not confess.

I have thought about it. I think that looking it as “6.5hrs per charge” is an oversimplified way of thinking about jury deliberations and how they go. I know the jury took it seriously, the 110hrs deliberation is a clear indication not only of taking it seriously but also dozens of hours of discussion and reconciling doubt.

I agree it is unlikely it is a wrongful conviction. I just have doubt that she is definitely guilty. Apparently many on the jury also had some doubts as it took them 110hrs to come to a decision.

How do you know about the jury's doubts, or more specifically, what were these doubts regarding, and can you quantify "many on the jury"? Taking 110 hours to come to a decision isn't evidence of 'many on the jury also had some doubts', just that they did a thorough job deliberating on the mountains of expert witness evidence. Of course there would have been doubts on some aspects of the evidence, or some of the cases, but, all told, they came to a majority verdict. They were told by the judge that they didn't have to come to a "unanimous" decision, but rather, a "majority". However it turned out it was unanimous anyway. If my understanding is wrong, I'm perfectly willing to hear otherwise.
@SkintMamasita

It’s not a red herring when you think of the consequences of there being too many babies for the staff to care for

This is just too simplistic. If you heard about some of the stores of practices and behaviours in some hospital trusts by individual members of staff it would make your hair stand on end (and it's not solely a consequence of 'not enough staff').

You were not on the jury, you have no idea.

If they scrutinised the evidence that is a good thing. I have no idea why you think otherwise.

I know the jury took it seriously, the 110hrs deliberation is a clear indication not only of taking it seriously but also dozens of hours of discussion and reconciling doubt.

Well, yes. @SkintMamasita

No I asked about assumptions and you clearly stated you had none.

110hrs is evidence of discussion and on a jury the discussion is always between the two verdicts, guilty or not guilty. If there were no doubts, there not be discussions going for 110hrs.

When you quote one phrase out of one sentence and ignore the rest of the two paragraphs I wrote on the matter, that one phrase taken in isolation can seem too simplistic.

That’s not what I stated actually. But hey ho. You’ve said you weren’t interested in any responses to your question so no worries.

The Maguire 7 case was 48 years ago. Things are different now, in term of science and courts. You just can't use that case to prove any point.

I don't understand people who say "she might be innocent, the evidence is circumstantial" then use the most random circumstantial examples and statistics to prove she might not be guilty...

Nor were you. I have however, been on a jury for a murder trial so I have some experience to draw from.

Maguire 7 were largely convicted on the basis of coerced confessions, anti-Irish prejudice and police corruption. Louise Woodward remains a convicted killer (secondary manslaughter). Not sure what relevance they have to the Lucy Letby trial and misuse of statistical evidence.

Is it true that no remains were exhumed to further investigate. And why would that be? The coroner recorded no cause of death for all but one of the babies

So explain to me why her defence team didn’t challenge this

I would also very much like to know the answer to this question. It’s a complete mystery, and there are many people asking this question. There are various possible answers, including that the defence team did not do their job competently or that the judge disallowed certain testimony / evidence, for legal reasons we are not privy too.

Did you know that the stats presented include stillbirths at hospital?

I’m not sure what you mean by this exactly?

Golaz
Fascinating stuff you are posting. I've read the chimpinvestor link

Right oh!

So when you sat on the jury were you directed by the judge to consider each charge individually and to weigh up the evidence presented to you as a juror before coming to a verdict? Or were you told not to properly consider the evidence? As for a trial with evidence lasting 10 months it's fairly ridiculous to suggest that a jury spending an average of 6.5 hours per charge is being excessive.

If you sat on a trial and didn't consider the evidence properly before coming to a verdict then may I respectfully suggest that you didn't listen to the judge's directions and the verdict in your trial might be unsafe.

Did the defense team ask the remains to be exhumed and were denied?

The prosecution might not have needed an exhumation as the autopsy/tests/pictures might have been enough to build a case.

Exhuming babies would be horrendous for their families, there is no need to do it just because

Everyone conveniently forgets that the vast number of previous miscarriages of justice, especially famous ones, involved wrongfully obtained confessions and overbearing police.

As I said upthread non of this is relevant to LL who did not confess and whose interviews and charges were done under PACE (which was introduced as a result of these miscarriages.).

They were implicated by false confessions but nailed on 'scientific evidence'

That's why the Guildford 4 confessions were quashed in 1989 but it took another 2 years for the Maguire 7 to be exonerated which criticised the trial judge, Mr Justice Donaldson and "unearthed improprieties in the handling of scientific evidence".

The UK government were still trying to get it to stick and not admit their conspiracy and abuse because of 'the scientific evidence'.

And Louise Woodward has a Dr who gave evidence for the prosecution who most recently said he would not give the same evidence in court now nor assume her guilt as the basis of his 'scientific evidence' now is not the same as it was then.

I made my comments in response to people taking about 'the experts' and 'scientific evidence'.

Not sure why you're getting pissy about statistics and wanting to dismiss previous occasions of miscarriages of justice conspired by the government or judiciary or just 'experts' going on the science at the time which time and again is proven to not be the case always.

I don't think LL is innocent but people shou