Lucy Letby

The police, the cps and the court didn't think so

It has been three months since Lucy Letby was sentenced to life in prison for murdering seven babies.

But now she’s living a life of comfort behind bars with access to her own private en-suite bathroom, TV, phone and desk.

Axel will be next door soon

Bit of a setback with the strange death of Mike Lynch because now he won't be able to help David Davis. According to the Independent, Mike was a world-class expert on probability theory, and he saw straight through the statistical weaknesses in the Letby prosecution. Richard Gill is getting involved too, he has said he will get her out but it will take time. Gill was instrumental in debunking the flawed statistical evidence used against Lucia de Berk.

statistical evidence was not used to convict letby

That's right no statistical evidence was used to convict letby, apart from the statistical evidence regarding the mortality rate in the neonatal unit where Letby worked which was significantly higher than what would be expected, and the statistical evidence regarding the disproportionate number of deaths and near-fatal incidents which occurred when Letby was on duty, and the statistical evidence to illustrate that the patterns of deterioration in the infants’ conditions were not typical for the types of medical conditions they had. Apart from that, no, statistical evidence didn't really play a part.

the prosecution did not use statistical evidence

the statistical evidence regarding the mortality rate in the neonatal unit where Letby worked which was significantly higher than what would be expected, and the statistical evidence regarding the disproportionate number of deaths and near-fatal incidents which occurred when Letby was on duty, and the statistical evidence to illustrate that the patterns of deterioration in the infants’ conditions were not typical for the types of medical conditions they had.

but when you put it like that she sounds pretty guilty doesn't she?

for 15 life sentances or whatever it is, there is too mich doubts about this case imho

what are the doubts?

A_T it sounds like you have gone from claiming there was no statistical evidence, to claiming the statistical evidence makes her sound guilty. Which is it?

statistical evidence was not used by the prosecution. but you kindly made some points regarding statistics. i mean it must be a million to one she didn't do it don't you think?

I'll have a fiver on if you're offering.

So you are telling me that even though you find the statistical evidence convincing, you think the prosecutor didn't bother to use it. You are not making much sense.

it convinces me but i'm not the courts. the prosecution didn't use statistical evidence but 3 courts so far have been convinced of her guilt. that's all that really matters

I see, in the alternate reality you inhabit statistical evidence wasn't used, but you find it convincing - got it. I find the multiverse theory very wasteful.

statistical evidence was not used by the prosecution  - surely that's not hard to understand

but when you so kindly brought up the statistics surrounding the case you sound very convincing

the statistical evidence regarding the mortality rate in the neonatal unit where Letby worked which was significantly higher than what would be expected, and the statistical evidence regarding the disproportionate number of deaths and near-fatal incidents which occurred when Letby was on duty, and the statistical evidence to illustrate that the patterns of deterioration in the infants’ conditions were not typical for the types of medical conditions they had.

There's no need to keep explaining that you are easily fooled by faulty statistical arguments.

thanks. as i said it's the courts that matter.

incidentally the inquiry into how letby was able to attack and murder babies starts today:

Thirlwall told the inquiry that doubts cast on Letby’s convictions have come “entirely from people who were not at the trial” as she opened the inquiry at the Countess of Chester hospital’s neonatal unit where Letby was a nurse between 2015 and 2016.

Thirlwall said it was not for her to review the convictions, adding the court of appeal had done that with a clear result. “The convictions stand,” she said.

Richard Gill wasn't at Lucia de Berk's trial, but he still debunked the faulty evidence, and her case was overturned.

he won't be able to do the same with letby because she was not convicted using statistics

Alternate realities are very expensive on universes. Do you still believe the Birmingham six are guilty?

no they were acquitted by the court of appeal - letby was refused leave to appeal by the cop

https://metro.co.uk/2024/09/09/lucy-letby-supporter-attacks-witness-helped-convict-serial-killer-21569735/

ron was this you?

You keep saying she was not convicted using statistics. Were you in court during the Letby prosecution, or do you have a complete transcript of what was said in court?

Why do you think she was convicted using statistics?

and "cos richard gill says she was" is not an answer

Does that mean your weren't in court? And you don't have a complete transcript of what was said in court?

https://theweek.com/law/lucy-letby-and-the-importance-of-understanding-statistics-in-the-nhs
/

Ronaldmcdonald • September 10, 2024 3:55 PM BST
I wasn't in court. I don't have a complete transcript of what was said in court.

fyp

that's the rss i.e. richard gill

i told you "cos richard gill says she was" is not an answer

There are some great courses you can do in the evenings if you are struggling with your comprehension skills.
The article says Dr Andrew Garrett, president of the Royal Statistical Society (RSS), and its chief executive Sarah Cumbers, pointed to the importance of statistical evidence during the trial. Chief among these was the duty roster spreadsheet showing staff shifts, through which the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was "able to show the jury that Letby was the one common denominator in the series of deaths and sudden collapses on the neonatal unit".

letby's presence at the scene of all the crimes listed in the indictments was established using the rota. no claims were made about any statistical significance - and the defence made no suggestion that there were either at trial or at the court of appeal

richard gill is obsessed with letby and thinks she was convicted using a wrong interpretation of probability. she wasn't.

The biggest issue Letby faces is trying to disprove something that may not even exist.

In most cases like Stefan Kisko, Colin Stagg etc.... there was a crime and it was a case of who done it.

There was unquestionable evidence a crime had occurred and they were able to show via forensics eventually who had done it...

In this case they don't even have solid evidence a crime has even occurred.

even though the data showed letby was present at all the incidents which formed the charges on the indictments - the jury was unable to reach a verdict on some counts and acquitted her on others - showing that her mere presence was not a determining factor in her convictions.

If you are right A_T, and you are not just trying to waste everyone's time by leading us down a fruitless cul-de-sac of nonsense, that would mean the president and the chief executive of the Royal Statistical Society are wrong about whether statistics were used in the trial and you are right. I think we might be in the presence of a statistical genius. And you are such a statistical genius you are able to know that statistics weren't used in the trial with attending the trial or reading a full transcript of the trial. Amazing.

the idea letby was convicted because of a misunderstanding of statistics is just plain wrong - the defence knew that so didn't bring that to the court of appeal. this wasn't like lucia de berk or sally clarke where the prosecution made outlandish claims about probability.

it won't be going to the criminal cases review commission on these grouns either or if it is it'll be given short shrift. unless her defence can come up with some compelling new evidence she's never getting out.

  Ronaldmcdonald • September 10, 2024 5:13 PM BST
you are right A_T, I have been just trying to waste everyone's time by leading us down a fruitless cul-de-sac of nonsense

fyp

But hang on second, you repeatedly said that statistics weren't used in her prosecution, and now you are saying she wasn't convicted because of a misunderstanding of statistics. So are you saying statistics were used in her prosecution or not?

Oh dear I have used the same expression more than once. Whatever next.

you repeatedly said that statistics weren't used in her prosecution, and now you are saying she wasn't convicted because of a misunderstanding of statistics.

there's no contradiction there

So you are still claiming statistics were not used? Bizarre.

what's bizarre is your belief that richard gill and his colleagues have some special insight into the trial

Do you accept statistics were used in Letby's trial or not? Or is the question too difficult for you?

already answered

what do you believe were what you called "the statistical weaknesses in the Letby prosecution"?

No, not already answered. You first said statistics weren't used in her prosecution, and then you said she wasn't convicted because of a misunderstanding of statistics. Do you now accept statistics were used in Letby's prosecution?

It's a very simple question and it would be very easy for you to say yes or no to my question if you weren't trying to wriggle out of giving a proper answer. I hope you are not expecting anyone to take you seriously when you can't answer the simplest question about your apparent flip flopping.

anyone read the 13,000 word New Yorker article Hitchens keeps referring to?

here if anybody fancies a pop, i dont at the minute

https://londonletter.substack.com/p/special-edition-the-lucy-letby-new

ronny is the thickest troll we've had on here for a while. He can't understand that the two statements "statistics weren't used in her prosecution" and "she wasn't convicted because of a misunderstanding of statistics" are not in the least contradictory.

He will also never answer the question "what do you believe were what you called "the statistical weaknesses in the Letby prosecution"?". Because the trolls he follows on twitter haven't told him that for him to write down here.

https://jameganx.notepin.co/

ron what do you believe were what you called "the statistical weaknesses in the Letby prosecution"?

I am happy to answer your question after you have answered mine. Do you now accept statistics were used in Letby's prosecution?

no

ron what do you believe were what you called "the statistical weaknesses in the Letby prosecution"?

and no "richard gill says so" please

One minute you are claiming repeatedly that statistics were not used in her prosecution, and the next you are refusing to answer as to whether you are still making that claim. No one who was arguing in good faith would do that. Does it amuse you to make bad faith arguments like this? How hilarious.

you claimed there were "statistical weaknesses in the Letby prosecution"? what were they?

So you are still refusing to answer. It's disgraceful that you are making bad faith arguments about an issue like this where babies died.

obviously you can't answer because you don't know and are just parroting something you read on one of your conspiracy theory sites

You are disgusting.

the inquiry yesterday heard how despite warnings letby's managers would not take her off the unit while she was killing babies - there was even a plan to bring her back after she and her parents went on the offensive with grievance procedures. thankfully the police were called in - but babies could have been saved if warnings had been acted on earlier. very distressing for the families.

You said statistics were not used in her prosecution and now you are unwilling to say if you still believe that, so nothing you say can be trusted. What are you getting out of making bad faith arguments about a serious issue where babies died?

statistics were not used in her prosecution



you claimed there were "statistical weaknesses in the Letby prosecution"? what were they?

What is your source for your claim that statistics were not used in her prosecution? Do you have a full transcript of everything that was said in court? You must have some basis for making this claim if you are not making it in bad faith.

ron you claimed there were "statistical weaknesses in the Letby prosecution"? what were they?

What is your source for your claim that statistics were not used in her prosecution?

you can't show something that isn't there



ron you claimed there were "statistical weaknesses in the Letby prosecution"? what were they?

I have already given you a source, but here's another one.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question
/
It says in the article:
The prosecution’s case instead drew on accounts from doctors and nurses on the hospital’s neonatal unit and relied heavily on statistical evidence and expert opinion on complex medical points, some of which took days to explain to the lay jury. It is these opinions that some clinicians claim do not stand up to scrutiny.

I have not heard anyone except you claiming statistics were not used, so what is your source for this bizarre claim?




What is your source for your ridiculous claim about statistics not being used in her prosecution?

the only mentions of "statistics" in the article is: "Prominent statisticians have described as fallacious a shift table shown to the jury implicating Letby because she was the “one constant presence” when babies died or collapsed." And the same table is referenced further on.

I withdraw my earlier comments as I can see where you have been fooled, but have to say this kind of material is not what I would describe as "statistical" evidence, but merely a factual statement of Letby's opportunity to commit the crimes.

No I haven't been fooled. It says very clearly in the Guardian article "The prosecution’s case instead drew on accounts from doctors and nurses on the hospital’s neonatal unit and relied heavily on statistical evidence and expert opinion on complex medical points, some of which took days to explain to the lay jury.".

Dave - are you and the A_T account operated by the same person? And if not, which earlier comments are you withdrawing?

The only so called statistical evidence is the table. And it merely illustrates her opportunity to murder the babies.   

this is the comment I withdraw

He will also never answer the question "what do you believe were what you called "the statistical weaknesses in the Letby prosecution"?

Haven't followed this story as closely as others since the wave of support for Letby, but what is the motivation of David Davies not only supporting her but saying it's 'highly probable she's innocent' at that 'several senior doctors have been in touch with him and sent alternative diagnoses for every death Letby has been found guilty of.' ??

the prosecution "relying on statistical evidence" is a false claim relating to the showing of the rota in court which showed letby was on shift for all the the murders and assaults. the rota was clearly not relied upon as "statistical evidence" as she was acquitted on some charges and on others the jury could not decide. the rota established letby's presence at all of the crimes no more than that.

unfortunately richard gill (who has a thing about defending nurse serial killers - he's been banging on about ben geen for 20 years) decided the prosecution was making a statistical argument and has been stalking prosecution witnesses ever since. he's convinced bayes theorem proves her innocence (and geen's)

the defence never claimed a "statistical" prosecution either in the trial or at the court of appeal. the letby supporters claim the defence was incompetent.

letby's only avenue is now the criminal cases review commission who receive many referrals very few of which go to the court of appeal. it's not clear if there is any new evidence to take there - the "statistics" thing won't help at all since no claims were ever made in that regard by the prosecution.

letby's going to spend the rest of her life in prison.

the royal statistical society told everyone they were going to be at the thirlwall inquiry to talk about the use of statistics in medical-setting trials. in a humiliating climbdown they have had to withdraw that claim.

I think you have made it clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

Ronaldmcdonald • September 11, 2024 5:18 PM BST
I think I have made it clear I have no idea what I am talking about.

fyp

ron with your tendency to believe conspiracy theories it's no surprise you have also fallen for this one

anyway doesn't matter what you or i think - letby is in prison and never getting out

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf

appeal papers - the word "statistics" doesn't appear anywhere or the word "rota".

No proof of anyone being murdered but I suspect the hospital trust
would rather pin it on a murderer than blame a failing department.

Dave are you and A_T the same person? You both appear to be making the same brain dead claim about statistics not being used.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf

appeal papers - the word "statistics" doesn't appear anywhere or the word "rota".

No proof of anyone being murdered but I suspect the hospital trust
would rather pin it on a murderer than blame a failing department.



strange then that the hospital management went out of their way to protect letby

today at the inquiry:


Barrister brings up incidents connected to Letby at a second hospital

Mr Baker sets out how unexpected collapses of children would usually be a rare occasion, but these incidents increased during Letby’s shifts.

Letby had training placements at Liverpool Women’s Hospital between October to December 2012 and January to February 2015.

“Given the prevalence of dislodgement of endotracheal tubes, in this case, my lady may perceive it as a common event, but the evidence suggests that it isn’t at all common. It is very uncommon, you will hear evidence that it generally occurs in less than 1 per cent of shifts,” he said.

“As a side note, you will hear that an audit carried out by Liverpool Women’s Hospital, whilst Letby was working there, dislodgement of endotracheal tubes occurred in 40 per cent of shifts that she worked.”

one for the statistics lads

so what planet is David Davies on when he says it's highly probable she's innocent

The planet were fading politicians are desperate for attention so that they can delude themselves that they are still important.

so what planet is David Davies on when he says it's highly probable she's innocent

same planet as nadine dorries and peter hitchens

Refusing permission last December, Court of Appeal judge Lord Justice Jackson said Dr Evans’ report was “worthless” and “makes no effort to provide a balanced opinion”.

He went on: “He either knows what his professional colleagues have concluded and disregards it or he has not taken steps to inform himself of their views.

“Either approach amounts to a breach of proper professional conduct.

Thats how Dewi Evans (Prosecution "Expert" witness) was described at another trial. I also read yesterday that Evans first approached the police to get involved in the Letby case. It was described by the report as touting for work.

Anybody that can land 100/1 shots every 3.5 bets
will be doing OK on here.

Racingqueen • September 18, 2024 4:03 PM BST
Refusing permission last December, Court of Appeal judge Lord Justice Jackson said Dr Evans’ report was “worthless” and “makes no effort to provide a balanced opinion

Not only was this issue discussed at the trial, but also at the appeal.

I never said it wasnt. I have already stated I think her trial and even more so the appeal was a joke.
It also points to the total incompetence of her defence that this was only questioned 3 months into the case when Evans was already well into giving his evidence.

The material Evans reviewed was also reviewed by Dr Bohin who reached the same conclusions as he did - this was presented at trial. There were also 6 other consultant physicians who were witnesses for the prosecution. The defence called no "rebuttal" witnesses.

It's all been dealt with by the courts.

It also points to the total incompetence of her defence that this was only questioned 3 months into the case when Evans was already well into giving his evidence.

this was addressed by the court of appeal "This tends to suggest that the real bone of contention was not
Dr Evans’ qualifications or competence per se (matters that otherwise could and should
been addressed pre-trial) but concerned the way in which he gave his evidence."


as to a previous criticism of evans:

The effect of Dr
Evans’s evidence, and we summarise, was that the criticisms made in the decision were
based on a false premise. The report was not an expert report prepared for the court or
a witness statement; rather, it was a letter to the solicitors in the care case, and had been
used by the solicitors (for the purposes of the application for permission to appeal)
without his knowledge or consent. Further, he had not known of the decision before it
was brought to his attention by the prosecution. Everyone in this trial (i.e. that of the
applicant) had seen the decision before he did

Mendip Times Article

https://x.com/gill1109/status/1843810837066387575
/

some of his observations are sensible and likely correct. these are two of them:

"none of this will make any difference"
"she is unlikely to win in the court of appeal, even if she makes it that far"

Useful to know the dame hasn't got a clue what she is talking about.

The information from Professor Hutton was never disclosed to the defense!!! What is this, some kind of banana republic trial?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/10/lucy-letby-police-cps-handling-case-raises-new-concerns-about-convictions
/

There wasn't any information from Hutton. She wasn't engaged by the police.

Outrageous. It's like living in a banana republic.

Another appeal request denied.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqe4dEuK128
/