Since the questions about academia led me to actually post something in this thread, I thought I'd weigh in on the Dick Gill use of statistics to blanket claim that medical professionals can't be serial killers. I actually worried about the potential misuse of statistics in this case early on and it's one of the few parts of the case that I can say I have some expertise in.
There was a point during the trial where BM claimed that evidence was being fitted around Letby. I can't remember the exact wording, but it was along the lines of "babies collapse when she is on shift? Evidence it's her. Babies collapse when she's just left? Evidence it's her. She writes up the notes? Evidence. She doesn't write up the notes? Evidence". He was definitely going for the argument that they had their suspect and any evidence of anything she did would be taken as guilt. But he was actually the one twisting the evidence to fit his argument. The prosecution didn't say "writing medical notes is evidence against her" or "not writing notes is evidence against her" - there was far more nuance - they were saying "obviously falsified notes are evidence against her, as is the absence of notes where there should be some". Similarly they weren't saying "being on shift is evidence, as is not being on shift", they were saying that for all the collapses she was either on shift or near to her shift time - i.e. she had availability.
I was also a bit worried early on that if they had identified Letby as a suspect and then investigated all her babies, of course she'd be the common factor between them all. But they didn't do that. They investigated all of the unexplained collapses and found that she was present at all of them. Literally everyone here knows this anyway, but that's why it's so important that all the detectives were given one baby/incident each and the "sterile corridor" was maintained between the detectives in the early part of the investigation. The fact that they all, independently, came to the same conclusion despite not working in close collaboration at that time makes this different to the Lucia De Berk case. They didn't fit the evidence to Lucy, safeguards were put in place, and honestly I'm surprised that a statistics professor wouldn't be able to see the obvious statistical difference between the two cases (everything else aside).
Also cannot believe this man defended Geen, the man found outside the hospital who, when he saw officers approaching, discarded a syringe of a potentially lethal muscle relaxant that he just happened to be carrying to work with him. It's proper weird to have such an interest in defending the indefensible tbh.
archive.ph
) and my children have aged. I literally speak to no one. When I’m a nurse, I’m a nurse and I cannot be there for anyone else.
nobody needs to debate whether these things are weird or significant anymore. She’s a proven and convicted murderer. There’s absolutely nothing typical, usual or ok about what she did with handovers.
, her special arrangements meaning everyone had to let her get seated first, told baby E’s mum to speak up and her flounce for Noname though. Think she genuinely wanted to be there for the attention, to hear it all again and see/hear the parents.
