Lucy Letby Case #67

[sazzt]

Does anyone know what their actual argument is regarding “statistics” ??? Like how the duck do statistics prove she’s innocent ?!

I’d like to know what they’re on about too. The only thing remotely to do with statistics that I can see is the graph showing which nurses were on duty at the time of the incidents. I don’t get how they can argue that it is irrelevant because Lucifer worked more shifts than others. What does that matter? She was still the only one on duty for all the incidents!

 

[mumpty]

I would assume their argument is that the statistics don’t prove her guilt*, rather than prove innocence. They have just mysteriously forgotten the thousands of other pages of evidence against her

*by which I mean there is probably something like 0.001 chance that she was on shift coincidentally to all of the deaths. Which even to the least statistical minded would still be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ for her guilt. For what it’s worth, I do believe that in all of the ?15 possible deaths that she was on shift for, it is likely that 1 may not have been her and was natural causes. Doesn’t change the fact the she is an evil baby killing witch.

 

[ellz14]

I would assume their argument is that the statistics don’t prove her guilt*, rather than prove innocence. They have just mysteriously forgotten the thousands of other pages of evidence against her

*by which I mean there is probably something like 0.001 chance that she was on shift coincidentally to all of the deaths. Which even to the least statistical minded would still be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ for her guilt. For what it’s worth, I do believe that in all of the ?15 possible deaths that she was on shift for, it is likely that 1 may not have been her and was natural causes. Doesn’t change the fact the she is an evil baby killing witch.

Yes, just came back to say this. Generously, I guess fool might be saying "if you're going to use the fact that she was on duty for all the collapses to prove her guilt, you need some kind of statistical calculation to prove that" (as they did in the Lucia de Berk case, wrongly).

But they didn't use the statistics as the sole or even major basis of the prosecution argument so I'm calling it all bull. I think if he had proper grounds he'd be able to formulate a clear blog post articulating it. It's not the same as the Lucia de Berk case where an erroneous calculation was the large basis for her conviction and I think he probably knows that.

 

[InTheDollsHouse]

I would assume their argument is that the statistics don’t prove her guilt*, rather than prove innocence. They have just mysteriously forgotten the thousands of other pages of evidence against her

*by which I mean there is probably something like 0.001 chance that she was on shift coincidentally to all of the deaths. Which even to the least statistical minded would still be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ for her guilt. For what it’s worth, I do believe that in all of the ?15 possible deaths that she was on shift for, it is likely that 1 may not have been her and was natural causes. Doesn’t change the fact the she is an evil baby killing witch.

Which is why it’s so good that Judge Goss has covered all possible eventualities of one possibly being appealed and proven natural causes by some magical new statistical evidence in her favour, by handing down a WLO for each and every guilty verdict.

Because as you say, she’s an evil baby killing witch.

 

[LittleMy]

They’re just clout chasers, best to not feed them.

 

[sebanna]

What was written back in the spring was that Richard's science friend felt that all the deaths were caused by a virus which Gill "knew" none of the babies had been tested for. There was also a flow chart " proving" the insulin calculation used in the trial were incorrect however the flow chart was wrong as Gill's friends had confused the units.

 

[tartandog86]

Excellent article here by a journalist who was at the trial https://archive.li/QImt3

My favourite part was reading about how she sobbed when she was found guilty

 

[kabukigirl]

The prosecution case wasn’t based on statistics either…I don’t think they referred to them even once. Despite the fact that the likelihood is that the statistical probably of it being her would be significant. BNE didn’t need statistics when the case against her was strong enough anyway. Deluded egotistical lunatics - that’s all they are.

From what I gather from the ones on reddit, is that they think the case is built on that shift rota doc, showing she was always there - so they go on about statistics etc - even though like you say, statistics wasn’t key in the trial. They just ignore everything else evidence wise and bang on about that

 

[Tofino]

I fixed the wiki. A single (missing) apostrophe amongst 20,000 words was all it took to ruin the whole damn thing

 

[sebanna]

I fixed the wiki. A single (missing) apostrophe amongst 20,000 words was all it took to ruin the whole damn thing

It's a good thing we have you to sort it. I Never be able to work where the missing apostrophe went.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

I fixed the wiki. A single (missing) apostrophe amongst 20,000 words was all it took to ruin the whole damn thing

Wow, fair play Tof, I'd be useless at that unless I could have it printed in hardcopy

 

[slidders]

I bet the complaints were very trivial or completely fabricated to detract from her own terrible behaviour, peformance and conduct but management fell for it

Like Dr Ravi used a wet spoon to get the sugar out of the jar. Mel Taylor never wiped her skiddos off the bowl when she’s been for a tit.

 

[Tofino]

Wow, fair play Tof, I'd be useless at that unless I could have it printed in hardcopy

I copied the text into word to help find the error and it was 52 pages long. That’s just the main page

 

[sazzt]

This is the thing I'm finding super odd here. The Rex Vs Lucy Letby site has a bunch of evidence for their claims, but no real mention of statistics. The Lucia de Berk case had obvious statistical miscalculations but this one doesn't rely on statistics. It seems like someone ("Dr" Adams??) has tried to discredit the medical evidence piece by piece on the Rex vs LL website and fool Gill is claiming "statistics". About to have a look at his twitter to see if he ever gave any more information on what statistics but I'm not expecting a lot! I wish they would give more detail as I feel like I could analyse it more critically whereas I'm just left confused tbh.

This is a link to the post on the rexvlucyletby page that talks about statistics. There are others on the Chimp Investor website.

Post | Chimp Investor

www.chimpinvestor.com

 

[ellz14]

This is a link to the post on the rexvlucyletby page that talks about statistics. There are others on the Chimp Investor website.

Post | Chimp Investor

www.chimpinvestor.com

Thanks!

The post here basically removes Letby's killing from the data, then analyses the remaining deaths to find that they aren't distributed as you would expect either, then raises that there must have been something else going on.

The problem is, not all of her crimes may have been charged - there might well be other cases of Letby attacking babies, so removing her known crimes from the dataset does not ensure that the dataset you're left with is free from Letby crimes.

 

[sazzt]

Thanks!

The post here basically removes Letby's killing from the data, then analyses the remaining deaths to find that they aren't distributed as you would expect either, then raises that there must have been something else going on.

The problem is, not all of her crimes may have been charged - there might well be other cases of Letby attacking babies, so removing her known crimes from the dataset does not ensure that the dataset you're left with is free from Letby crimes.

Thanks for explaining that, I kind of thought that’s what they were doing but couldn’t see the point of it because as you say, there could be other deaths she has caused.

 

[Tofino]

Thanks!

The post here basically removes Letby's killing from the data, then analyses the remaining deaths to find that they aren't distributed as you would expect either, then raises that there must have been something else going on.

The problem is, not all of her crimes may have been charged - there might well be other cases of Letby attacking babies, so removing her known crimes from the dataset does not ensure that the dataset you're left with is free from Letby crimes.

Yep there is an underlying assumption from everyone that wants to argue statistics that Lucy has been ruled out of being responsible for all the other deaths. They have no idea.

The FOI report also shows the month of birth that the baby was born, not the month they died. And also if they died at another hospital then I believe the death is recorded at the hospital they were born in, not died in. The person writing that post can’t even understand the data they are trying to use to support their opinion. (I take no credit for knowing that, I think it was @F1Grid that informed these threads).

 

[sazzt]

Yep there is an underlying assumption from everyone that wants to argue statistics that Lucy has been ruled out of being responsible for all the other deaths. They have no idea.

The FOI report also shows the month of birth that the baby was born, not the month they died. And also if they died at another hospital then I believe the death is recorded at the hospital they were born in, not died in. The person writing that post can’t even understand the data they are trying to use to support their opinion. (I take no credit for knowing that, I think it was @F1Grid that informed these threads).

Thanks for explaining Tofino, there seems to be a lot more irrelevant info on the Rex v Lucy Letby page & the Chimp Investor page too. Dickies phoneys are obviously just as bad as him

 

[Ghostranch]

I've just left the two Facebook groups I was a member of because I really can't stomach the majority of the posts on there anymore, and people constantly sharing that Science on Trial crap.

I'm so sick of all the "I'm worried this is an unsafe conviction", "nothing has been proven beyond reasonable doubt", "there's no evidence", "it was a sham trial", "the defence was weak" bull.

And all the sympathy for Letby is vomit-inducing. Just really had enough of it.

 

[tay65]

Just managed to catch up on everything..glad that she had the sentencing she deserved (WLO - the only thing she deserves for her horrific acts) but feel for the families who didn't get justice for their babies and hope their cases can be brought to trial again. I do wonder if more cases may come soon as there hasn't been as much in the media about her background etc as I was expecting, unless I've missed things or that is still to come.
So many parents must now be thinking back on their experiences in NICU where she may have been working and wondering if their babies could've been harmed or worse. She certainly had obsessions with certain babies/families, the Facebook adding/searching/messaging is an absolute no no and completely unprofessional.
In terms of the photo of the baby without any oxygen support on, i have to say I have a similar photo of my own baby that I took whilst the nurse cleaned underneath the mask and changes tapes etc (literally removed for a matter of seconds and she asked if I wanted to take the photo so I had my phone ready etc and it was very safe). This obviously depends on the type of support needed - hi flow oxygen, non invasive or invasive respiratory support, in some cases it would absolutely be too dangerous but I just wanted to put it out there in case anybody had similar photos and were concerned reading the article. Knowing what we know now about Letby everything of course comes into question about the babies in her care and it could well have been something sinister on her part, who knows, but it is something that can be done safely in the right circumstances.
I do wonder if maybe something happened during her training like a sudden or traumatic emergency situations and she thrived from the attention (she would have had a lot of support especially witnessing something like that as a student). She was definitely seeking out attention from her colleagues. I also wonder if she attacked multiples to try and suggest it was a genetic issue to explain away these unexpected and unexplained events. Sadly these poor families will likely never know why.
And finally I truly hope that all those who tried to brush this under the carpet are held to account because they sadly enabled a lot of this by ignoring the concerns that were raised. I hope that massive lessons will be learnt and this will bring about change within healthcare services and the way in which investigations take place.

I listened to the latest podcast with Dr Gibbs. What a lovely, genuine levelheaded man he is. He didn’t shy away from admitting what they could have done differently. I thought he was very fair, if not generous, on when he thought management should have acted. I really ‘enjoyed’ listening to him. (I don’t like saying enjoy as none of this subject matter is enjoyable but in terms of hearing things straight and in a kind manner).
---
He’s even considered and accepts that some of the later families might be angry at him and the other consultants for not going against management and going to the police sooner.

Is this the Daily Mail podcast. What number is it. I've listened to one tonight where Caroline Hull speaks to the police officer but I'm not sure which one is the Dr Gibbs' interview.