I wonder if the doctor next to LL in the first picture is Dr NN?
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
It was nice to hear his voice after reading his Twitter reporting for so long. He definitely thinks she’s guilty IMOJust listened to Dan’s Irish Times interview (sorry can’t find the post to quote) - really like his voice
I really don’t think we should be panicking just yet, it’s a lot of charges. They’d really need to go through each one and that’s going
I really don’t think we should be panicking just yet! It’s a lot of charges, and they need to go through each one. That’s a lot of hours. Shipman was 6 days, Bev Allit 36 hours. We aren’t even close to that yet. They have to be sure! If they came back too quickly I don’t think that’s a great sign either.
No. It was that she was convicted based on an incorrectly calculated statistic which suggested the chances of her being on shift when all of the patients died was something like 1 in 350 million (which Gill later recalculated as actually being something like 1 in 49, so a much lower chance) and also some dodgy blood tests which suggested she poisoned her patients with digoxin, but later turned out to have been completely incorrectly done. I think there was quite a lot of other medical evidence which pointed to it not being her as well + plenty of professionals willing to back up the argument that it wasn’t her.In the De Berk case did it turn out to be anyone else? Trier looking on Wikipedia but it was so wordy my brain flew away
I can see the similarities between Lucia de Berk and the Letby case, but I just don’t think they’re comparable at all tbh. I mean, you’ve got a witness who says she walked in on LL literally killing her baby for one and not a single expert willing to get on the stand and defend her.
Thank you that’s interesting. I didn’t realise there was an Italian nurse too.
Fame, they say, can be addictive. And statisticians who are “respected” in their fields (or indeed any other experts) are not immune to that.
I imagine his success in overturning Lucia de Berk’s conviction, and the Italian nurse’s, has given him a taste for a different kind of success and a different kind of fame to the one he’d previously been used to within the confines of his limited audience in the ivory tower that we call academia. No doubt this got to his head and by the sounds of it did weird things to it. Little wonder he’s jumped on the LL case in hope of replicating a similar success and experiencing a similar high that comes from it. The trouble for Richard Gill is that:
1. He’s forgotten the basic assumptions of his own field of expertise: that statistics itself is based on probability, so when he says he can definitively “prove” this or that, this just makes me laugh because what he should really have said is that “based on my statistical model, and the data that I applied that model to, there’s an ‘X’% probability/chance that this is true/false.” But he treats it as gospel, which makes me wonder why he would do or say that. Is he really as bright as we’re told he is? If so, why does he hide the fact that there’s no certainty in statistics?
2. Unlike the de Berk case, the prosecution in LL’s case was careful not to put the weight of its argument on statistics — they relied heavily on medical evidence and witness evidence instead, which is probably why BM didn’t call Richard Gill in as a witness (that, and possibly the fact that he’s made so many unhinged comments on Twitter that one wonders whether bringing him in will actually help the defence or make matters even worse).
3. The insulin cases. Why won’t Richard Gill tell us what the probability is of NICU babies in the U.K. getting poisoned in this way (let alone, get poisoned “accidentally” in this manner)? I’d be very interested in hearing how often, from the point of view of statistics, does this sort of thing happen to babies in NICU. Probably not often at all. So even if we use his own argument, it backfires on him.
I’m sorry I can’t take the likes of Gill too seriously. I’ve seen some academics in my time (people who are bright and successful within the confines of the ivory tower) let fame and success get to their heads. They are used to being surrounded and adored by throngs of fans (colleagues, PhD students, fellow academics from across the globe) looking up to them, complimenting them, begging to work with them, and massaging their ego. They get invited left right and centre to give talks, write papers, publish books etc. And let me make this very clear — whilst the vast majority of academics cope with this sort of attention admirably and professionally — some, a very small minority, from what I’ve seen, sadly, crack under the pressure of the limelight. I suspect that Gill is one of those who’s in the minority: fame seems to have just got to his head.
I don’t know him personally, so I’m just guessing based on his bizarre rants on Twitter. I believe that he may have mistaken being a successful academic statistician with being a detective. He may be an expert in one, but he’s certainly not in the other.
If you’ve read this far (on a Saturday morning of all times) thanks for hearing me out and apologies for the long reply.
Last edited:
Think you’ve absolutely hit the nail on the head with your assessment of Gill tbh.
I think he’s an excellent statistician of course, but he has little to no knowledge of how medicine or the human body works (claimed that viral infections are treated with antibiotics and that newborn babies have ‘no immune systems’) and I think he just doesn’t understand the significance or weight of a lot of the medical evidence which has been presented by the prosecution in this case.
Back then there wasn't the social media there is now so you just had your own thoughts and those of people close to you. Now with so many people saying stupid things on social media this doesn't help in creating some anxiety about the outcome.
If I was on the jury I would want to go through each baby in detail. I would want to look at both sides and question the other jurors on their thoughts. I would want to say so if this? Then is it this or this? I would want someone or myself to play devils advocate and look at logical conclusions. I think each baby deserves that. Sadly this would take time from A-Q.
I would then want to look at all of the other evidence and see if it fits into the whole or is it weak or can it be disgarded.
I would want to hear everyones opinion. There are 12 people. If you have ever attended a meeting you know some people can't half blag. Even 5 minutes each on one baby is an hour. Then there's the toilet breaks etc
This case will take time.
I would then want to look at all of the other evidence and see if it fits into the whole or is it weak or can it be disgarded.
I would want to hear everyones opinion. There are 12 people. If you have ever attended a meeting you know some people can't half blag. Even 5 minutes each on one baby is an hour. Then there's the toilet breaks etc
This case will take time.
That’s very true: his lack of medical knowledge is what makes claims unbelievable. This case hinges on the expertise of medical professionals, and the prosecution, quite rightly, framed its arguments in that context. The accusations against LL are that, medically speaking, the babies could not have collapsed/died naturally. And like you said, if Gill had engaged with the medical evidence, and done a bit more research on the medicine and how the body works, then he may have reached different conclusions.
@nosycowmoo does the judge ask the jury at the end of each day if they have reached a verdict (either on all or some charges)?
Just to lower the tone, on the shouldn't but would topic, mine would be Neil Dudgeon but only in his John Barnaby persona 
On the actual topic, some very sensible and reassuring posts about the jury. In the poll on the last thread I voted they wouldn't return a verdict until w/b 17th and on this one I've vote for Wednesday. I'm an impatient person so hoped for a verdict last week but it is going to take as long as it's going to take. Here endeth my ramble. I need more tea.
On the actual topic, some very sensible and reassuring posts about the jury. In the poll on the last thread I voted they wouldn't return a verdict until w/b 17th and on this one I've vote for Wednesday. I'm an impatient person so hoped for a verdict last week but it is going to take as long as it's going to take. Here endeth my ramble. I need more tea.
I’m not trying to shatter anyone’s illusions but anyone else who’s done jury duty will know the expectation vs reality.
Not when I did Jury Duty, we just had to let him know when we had, so if he hadn't heard from us it was assumed we had no news
Hey fellas, Dickie blocked me on Twitter for calling his comment balls (potentially outing, but idc, I don't post anything juicy on there)
(potentially outing, but idc, I don't post anything juicy on there)
As if that’s any better.
I’ve not properly caught up but I just can’t deal with Dicky.
Just on the jury deliberations, I actually think they’re going through every charge regardless of what people think. I think they want to be thorough and also might take this opportunity to discuss motive which I know they don’t need to make their decision but this is their opportunity to basically do what we’ve done for 9 months.
I think they’ll probs take another week at least and into the third week we might expect some decisions maybe…
I’m still positive they’ll find her guilty on most, if not all, the charges
Just on the jury deliberations, I actually think they’re going through every charge regardless of what people think. I think they want to be thorough and also might take this opportunity to discuss motive which I know they don’t need to make their decision but this is their opportunity to basically do what we’ve done for 9 months.
I think they’ll probs take another week at least and into the third week we might expect some decisions maybe…
I’m still positive they’ll find her guilty on most, if not all, the charges
I’ve never done jury duty so I know don’t how long these thing take. When do you think realistically we might expect them to return a verdict? (I’m anxious for a quick one but I know that I’m being unrealistic)
Hahahaha imagine, the bailiff listens up against the door and can hear "There was a murdering bleep called Lucy..."This is glorious. They might be taking so long with the verdict because they’re trying to achieve something similar
or can hear them recreating the best scenes from court - "Do you recall being born?"
I’ve done it before (though admittedly only for a two week trial and not murder) and for a case this complex and long I’d expect it to take a couple of weeks. We sat for two weeks and it still took us 3 whole days to deliberate. There was no “hard” evidence in that case either but the defendant was still found guilty at a majority.I’ve never done jury duty so I know don’t how long these thing take. When do you think realistically we might expect them to return a verdict? (I’m anxious for a quick one but I know that I’m being unrealistic)
- Status