Ooh I need to find a clip of this! Was it BBC news segment? Who was interviewing him?At least he got rinsed today with his interview on BBC and showed him up for lack of knowledge about the case and his awful waffling
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
She is hateful and very sly. I wonder what her agenda is for spreading such blatant misinformation and properganda.
---
You can listen to it here 2 mins in https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0025mn0?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile
Last edited:
Snowden & Coffey was a guest
be aware of his lack of knowledge & constant waffling! Snowden was great though
Last edited:
These self-important statisticians are infuriating.I completely missed the expert statistician!
Reminded me RSS put out statements. They originally wrote to the inquiry to suggest they look at the use of statistical evidence in trials. They didn’t get what they want. I wonder whoever it is will be able to control themselves and stick to the questions asked of them!
View attachment 3305516
They are inserting themselves into a case that did not remotely involve statistics and fabricating things to criticise.
They are NOT NEEDED. Firstly, it's bleeping irrelevant. Doctors don't need their bleeping permission to determine if a patient's death is unexplained. It doesn't matter if there was a single death and it was lower than the average rate of deaths - if that death was suspicious, it should be investigated, and only doctors can judge that.
There are too many variables in these sort of cases for statistics to be any use whatsoever. Imagine trying to work out the statistics of Letby being on shift at a death or collapse - and whether to include dozens of non-fatal collapses and five non-indictment deaths or not. Then the statistics of her not just being on shift, but actually present with the baby. Then the statistics of a parent or designated nurse leaving immediately before a collapse. Then the statistics of each individual baby with their myriad particular conditions declining or not. There's just too much to possibly consider, and different statisticians could easily draw attention to different aspects and come up with entirely different conclusions.
The only purpose of it would be to give impressive-sounding factoids to the jury. "One in a million" blah blah. But they got a conviction without any of that, proving its utter uselessness.
There's at least three famous examples of prosecutions' cases crumbling because of the needless use of statistics. (Lucia de Burk, Daniela Poggiali, Sally Clarke). The prosecution against Letby were absolutely correct to not go down that silly road.
---
It was probably Mark McFamewhore himself who leaked it to the media.
The police didn't leak it, the leak happened and the police were approached by the media. The only ones who benefit from this leak are Letby (to compromise a future case) and McFamewhore to get himself in the papers again for another bit of PR.
Last edited:
Attachments
It’s no surprise LL turned out the way she did.
I wonder what the team at the furniture shops think of him now?!
The beautiful docmum spotted this tee shirt on Saturday’s Kitchen earlier and wanted to share it with all you Twattlers. 
She also hopes everyone has a wonderful Christmas. Xx
She also hopes everyone has a wonderful Christmas. Xx
Attachments
Agree. That creepy little family really saw themselves as being untouchable. Bunch of textbook narcs.
---
Can you imagine that face when the guilty verdicts were read out?
Last edited:
I also had a giggle at Tony Singh's t shirt this morning 
Ah is that what he’s called? I used to work with a fella called Gurupta Singh. Brilliant at the karaoke.I also had a giggle at Tony Singh's t shirt this morning
I think he’s actually losing the plot now. He’s been told off by the police for his last article so he goes again. He’s not having a good week is he?
duck you Hitchens. It does highlight the fact that the Mail on Sunday and the Daily Mail have quite different editorial lines on the Letby issues. At the Mail you've got Caroline Cheetham and Liz Hull doing excellent factual reporting and analysis on their podcast and in their articles, and then at the MoS you have... whatever this insane balls is.
He has written the same thing three times!
The police must be frustrated, they spend years carefully investigating a crime and Hitchens declares it all a load of rubbish to the public without understanding it.
None of this even makes sense, it’s like he’s talking in riddles.
What is he actually on about?
He’s not a police office nor is he involved at all in the live investigation that is operation hummingbird. He isn’t a medical professional nor has he had access to all of the evidence at the trial because he wasn’t at that either? So why is his “opinion” so correct over everyone else that has access to all of this information…huh?? Imagine having this self inflated opinion of yourself, it’s embarrassing
Read too quick, whilst sat waiting for a child to go sleep - was like “as if bleeping Joe Swash is popping up in defence of her”
---
I am coming close to muting him, it’s getting incredibly tedious - esp his obsession with the Deb lady and who she is 🥲
Last edited:
- Status