Reply to: The Letby Case

[Paracelsus]

Full page spread in Private Eye regarding the Letby case. I don't think the conviction will hold. Too many doubts.

I was waiting for M.D to cover it. I hold him in high regard and have adjusted my impression of the case as a consequence.

[agentzero]

Full page spread in Private Eye regarding the Letby case. I don't think the conviction will hold. Too many doubts.

[xoggoth]

Looks like this is going to be investigated:

Former minister David Davis to launch Lucy Letby conviction probe after experts cast doubt | The Independent

[Zigenare]

King Charles?

Nah, the "real" power behind the throne - the Rothschild's!

[WTFH]

It wuz a giant lizard what dun it.

King Charles?

[xoggoth]

It wuz a giant lizard what dun it.

[Lance]

Like most people on the internet I have no specialist knowledge of either the law, or the medicine in this case.
Unlike most people on the internet, I understand my lack of knowledge and have no opinion on the facts of the case.

However...... The idea that there has been a miscarriage of justice, appears to stem from the USA, and the evidence they use is the fact that the UK press have not reported lots of stuff they cannot.
On that basis, I suggest that her innocence is just another conspiracy theory.

[ladymuck]

Why didn't she put up a defence?

BTW The Guardian keeps referring to the number of neonatal deaths in the unit over the years but put different numbers in different articles.

That's the high quality journalism one expects from the Grauniad.

If there is genuine reason for doubt then it sounds like her defence team did a poor job (or didn't think she was worth defending). Makes you wonder why she didn't change her legal team but it's also possible that she couldn't afford better representation?

[SueEllen]

Obviously genetics has nowt to do with Letby case but there are similarities in that scientific evidence was ignored and a diary was used in conviction.

Why didn't she put up a defence?

BTW The Guardian keeps referring to the number of neonatal deaths in the unit over the years but put different numbers in different articles.

[xoggoth]

Obviously genetics has nowt to do with Letby case but there are similarities in that scientific evidence was ignored and a diary was used in conviction.

[SueEllen]

You do wonder about some cases, how some things were not considered in court. Rather similar case, involving supposed infant murders here:

Kathleen Folbigg’s children likely died of natural causes, not murder. Here’s the evidence my team found (theconversation.com)

The case against her was overturned after many years fortunately:

Everything to Know About the Kathleen Folbigg Case | TIME

She too made supposedly incriminating diary entries:

Kathleen Folbigg diary entries not an admission of guilt, inquiry hears - ABC News

Cases where it is your own multiple children are different from cases where you are caring for different non-related children.

[xoggoth]

PS Back to x silly mode. A thread by me getting a few posts. Wow!

[xoggoth]

You do wonder about some cases, how some things were not considered in court. Rather similar case, involving supposed infant murders here:

Kathleen Folbigg’s children likely died of natural causes, not murder. Here’s the evidence my team found (theconversation.com)

The case against her was overturned after many years fortunately:

Everything to Know About the Kathleen Folbigg Case | TIME

She too made supposedly incriminating diary entries:

Kathleen Folbigg diary entries not an admission of guilt, inquiry hears - ABC News

[SueEllen]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/former-cab...193710771.html

What do they know? They're only statisticians. Bloody amateurs.

The prosecution gave data to the jury but didn't call any expert witnesses who were statisticians.

The reason for this was other cases where there were miscarriages of justice due to the use of expert witnesses who are statisticians.

However the defence didn't call any expert witnesses who were statisticians either. This bit is the odd part as the defence should have been throwing reasonable doubt on the prosecutions case.

[DoctorStrangelove]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/former-cab...193710771.html

Several former Cabinet ministers have expressed concern over the conviction of Lucy Letby, the former nurse, with the issue likely to be raised in Parliament, The Telegraph understands.

The Royal Statistical Society (RSS) has also announced it will “convene a meeting” in the wake of the verdicts, stating that it was aware of “concerns” from RSS members and the wider community regarding the use of statistical evidence in the case.

What do they know? They're only statisticians. Bloody amateurs.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/lucy-letby...060042164.html

A Guardian investigation has interviewed dozens of these experts and seen further evidence from emails and documents. Those raising concerns include several leading consultant neonatologists, some with current or recent leadership roles, and several senior neonatal nurses. Others are public health professionals, GPs, biochemists, a leading government microbiologist, and lawyers. Several of those still working in the NHS have asked to remain anonymous, fearing the impact if they are named.

These experts said they were acutely aware of the suffering of the families involved and did not want to reopen their trauma, but were so troubled they felt compelled to become involved.

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.

The Guardian also conducted interviews over several hours with the lead prosecution witness, Dr Dewi Evans, and the specialist instructed for the defence, the neonatologist Dr Mike Hall.