registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,618 
Likes: 6,432
|
Post by registerme on May 24, 2024 9:48:26 GMT
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 1,735
|
Post by benaj on May 24, 2024 12:46:23 GMT
I have no issues with the decision to decline application. But
Could we have at least some transparency about why to satisfy those whom lost faith in our justice system?
In due course = when?
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on May 24, 2024 13:41:12 GMT
I have no issues with the decision to decline application. But Could we have at least some transparency about why to satisfy those whom lost faith in our justice system? In due course = when? the article also says: T"he full reasons for the judges' decision were not made public, with the full details of Letby's appeal bid also unable to be published for legal reasons." She is still facing retrial on one of the counts of murder. It would not surprise me if the reasons they are unable to publish is related to that i.e. to avoid prejudicing that retrial.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 1,735
|
Post by benaj on May 24, 2024 13:56:03 GMT
I suppose it’s just enough because there’s another trial.
At least we know we dont have to wait 117 years like Jennens vs jennens to find out the full judgement. 🤣
|
|
Mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 446
|
Post by Mike on May 29, 2024 10:11:32 GMT
Private Eye also wanted to publish an article on the case in the autumn, which is still blocked through a court order. It may come out in the retrial (it has been shared with counsel), if not then probbaly published after it's concluded. The implication is that the gist was similar to the New Yorker article - expert witnesses a favourite topic of PE.
|
|
james100
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,084
Likes: 1,287
|
Post by james100 on May 29, 2024 13:33:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jul 9, 2024 8:40:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jul 11, 2024 5:53:38 GMT
The Telegraph now latched on to this concern. Given the grinding slowness legal system it will probably take 5 years to acquit her but I'd put money on it. www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/former-cabinet-ministers-concerned-by-letby-case-telegraph-understands/ar-BB1pLcDb?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=b780ebb4890240b5b17253561df307e1&ei=68The idea that Letby may be a victim of a miscarriage of justice can no longer be dismissed as a fringe conspiracy theory. Those who have expressed skepticism include specialists associated with the University of Edinburgh, Harvard University, and the Royal Statistical Society.
The skeptics’ best defense of Letby is not that the prosecution failed to prove that the nurse murdered the babies (which is the argument Letby’s lawyers made), but that they failed to prove that the babies were murdered, period.
The apparent “cluster” of deaths at which Letby was present was based on flawed statistical reasoning. An alternative statistical reading suggests that the deaths, while tragic, were more likely to have been random.Consider the visual aid shown to the jury, a chart of every nurse on shift that appeared to show Letby as the common denominator, present during each suspicious infant collapse.
Critically, the chart included only collapses for which Letby was under investigation. Cherry-picking the data skews the results. The Telegraph reports on Alexander Coward, a former math lecturer at the University of Oxford and the University of California Berkeley, who created a model in which there were 38 fictional nurses, each working 170 shifts. On each shift there’s a 14 percent chance that a baby collapses or dies at random.
Coward demonstrated that by preselecting any of the nurses from the model, a diagram like the one supposedly incriminating Letby could be produced.From:- www.nationalreview.com/2024/07/the-disturbingly-shaky-conviction-of-lucy-letby/
If you have any doubts, Read on to the passage about the 'evidence' presented about the "murders". THE MISUSE OF STATISTICS IN CONVICTIONS OF MEDICAL STAFF. www.science.org/content/article/unlucky-numbers-fighting-murder-convictions-rest-shoddy-stats |
|
bernythedolt
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,614
Likes: 2,364
Member is Online
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jul 11, 2024 17:46:09 GMT
Most of my final university year was spent studying statistics in some depth, because that area of maths fascinated me. The most compelling lesson I came away with was just how easy it is to get the modelling wrong, introducing bias somewhere along the line. When it comes to legal cases like this one, you need real experts in statistics – well above my pay grade – to examine the case thoroughly. Like many cases before this, it is now beginning to emerge that mistakes may have crept in, with potentially significant errors introduced in the probabilities offered in court. I sincerely hope there hasn’t been another miscarriage of justice, but reading these submissions from stats and other experts, I’m beginning to feel uncomfortable. Interestingly, right from the start, my wife (who did the same degree alongside me, so is equally qualified in maths/stats) has always felt uncomfortable and that Letby could be innocent. Having read the Telegraph article on the morning it was published, she is now even more troubled. These were seriously ill babies. Were any of them actually murdered? Some seriously expert statisticians are suggesting there’s a significant, reasonable chance they were not. Thank you, captainconfident , for putting forward this alternative view. As you’ve shown, others in similar circumstances have been found guilty, courtesy of flawed statistics, then later been acquitted. Some real eye-opening cases there. |
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,677
Likes: 2,974
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Jul 11, 2024 19:35:05 GMT
I share the opinions of the last two posters BUT
I know it is the least rigorous thing in the world to speculate on guilt via the media or social media as I'm about to do BUT
Isn't that letter she wrote to herself ("I am evil I did this") pretty damming? Its not proof I suppose but I would like to see something that could explain it.
Also what are the alternative explanations for how those babies came to be poisoned ?
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jul 11, 2024 20:25:49 GMT
Private Eye is concerned that only the prosecution's exert witnesses were called. What they seem to have missed is that the defence chose not to call their experts - presumably because it would not have helped their client.
Its interesting why this case of multiple murders has become the focus of so many people - indeed, a cause celebre. I wonder if it is because unconsciously we don't want to accept that caring professionals could harm us or our loved ones, especially babies, due to the vulnerable and powerless position that puts us in - and despite the many documented cases of this in the past (eg Beverley Allit, Harold Shipman). Deep down we desperately need her to be innocent so that our world view that caring people care remains unchallenged.
A jury that sat through weeks of evidence felt beyond reasonable doubt that she wasn't innocent.
If there was a gross mistake in medical evidence, like the infamous Sally Cark case, then that will come out with the usual legal process. I trust that legal process more than I do the views of partially informed armchair critics.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 11, 2024 20:38:50 GMT
I think historically there have been quite a few miscarriages of justice arising from presentation of "the statistical probability of events" at trials. The most glaringly obvious misuse are statements like "there is only 1:100,000 probability this could have happened by chance". Meaning that is the chance of it happening to that specific person, which of course is a false representation of the chances of it happening to someone in the population, who would then end up on trial. IIRC, multiple cot deaths happening to the same family was one classic example. EDIT: having just given Mr G a visit, in the case I was thinking of the statistics of the expert witness was criticised by the RSS because it was based on each death being entirely independent events. It did not allow for the fact that underlying genetic makeup could make that a fundamentally false assumption, such that the chances of another death would likely be greatly increased if there had been a first. I haven't read the evidence in sufficient depth - or frankly in any depth - to know whether this particular case is on shaky grounds. However, like michaelc I do recall there were notes etc. that Letby had written which were suggestive of guilt. But on the other hand those could have been the product of a tortured mind of a traumatised person for example I guess. The other thing that comes to mind though is the prior suspicion of one (or more?) senior staff member/doctor/consultant ? around Letby. Was that just because she happened to be on shift and therefore still subject to the same statistical lottery, or was there anything deeper ? I also thought that there was poisoning involved, which would at least take it out of the realms of just coincidental natural deaths. |
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,677
Likes: 2,974
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Jul 11, 2024 20:40:12 GMT
Private Eye is concerned that only the prosecution's exert witnesses were called. What they seem to have missed is that the defence chose not to call their experts - presumably because it would not have helped their client. Its interesting why this case of multiple murders has become the focus of so many people - indeed, a cause celebre. I wonder if it is because unconsciously we don't want to accept that caring professionals could harm us or our loved ones, especially babies, due to the vulnerable and powerless position that puts us in - and despite the many documented cases of this in the past (eg Beverley Allit, Harold Shipman). Deep down we desperately need her to be innocent so that our world view that caring people care remains unchallenged. A jury that sat through weeks of evidence felt beyond reasonable doubt that she wasn't innocent. If there was a gross mistake in medical evidence, like the infamous Sally Cark case, then that will come out with the usual legal process. I trust that legal process more than I do the views of partially informed armchair critics. Is that because deep down you need our justice system to function well ? You can never be sure of any conviction no matter how just the legal process is. People wonder about it because it is so unusual.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 11, 2024 20:47:16 GMT
Private Eye is concerned that only the prosecution's exert witnesses were called. What they seem to have missed is that the defence chose not to call their experts - presumably because it would not have helped their client. Its interesting why this case of multiple murders has become the focus of so many people - indeed, a cause celebre. I wonder if it is because unconsciously we don't want to accept that caring professionals could harm us or our loved ones, especially babies, due to the vulnerable and powerless position that puts us in - and despite the many documented cases of this in the past (eg Beverley Allit, Harold Shipman). Deep down we desperately need her to be innocent so that our world view that caring people care remains unchallenged. A jury that sat through weeks of evidence felt beyond reasonable doubt that she wasn't innocent. If there was a gross mistake in medical evidence, like the infamous Sally Cark case, then that will come out with the usual legal process. I trust that legal process more than I do the views of partially informed armchair critics. I mostly agree with that. Though I'm not sure I agree with the bit that everyone wants to think she is innocent. Personally, I think people of my age have heard enough past horror stories such as you mention to know that such people exist. If I really had a bias, it would be to know that events were in fact due to an individual, and not due to systemic breakdown in healthcare. To the jury point: yes I trust a jury to weigh the evidence, but the question is how evidence may have been presented, in this case if statistical probabilities were presented without sufficient challenge and were not themselves rigorous. Unfortunately most jurors would not be able to do the mental leap to "challenge" them in the jury room and would take it at face value. As they largely should with an "expert witness"*. We know as a matter of fact that expert witnesses in other historic cases have painted quite misleading pictures around statistical likelihood of x happening to y purely as a matter of chance**. But yes, otherwise I like to think the jury gave due consideration to all the evidence. *Expert witnesses having a duty to the court, not to the prosecution or the defence **Not just expert witnesses in medical type trials. We only have to look at the ongoing Horizon inquiry to understand how "expert witness" testimony may not be as solid as it is made out to be. EDITS: Various
|
|
bernythedolt
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,614
Likes: 2,364
Member is Online
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jul 11, 2024 21:08:49 GMT
michaelc, IIRC, in the same note, didn't she also say she's innocent / hasn't done anything wrong? To this complete layman, her scrawlings on that note look like the work of somebody suffering a mental breakdown. Her testimony suggests somebody under an awful lot of pressure at work. From the background given, it sounds like an insane and unfair amount of pressure. People under pressure make mistakes. When our newborn baby was in a Special Care Baby Unit (SCBU) in the mid-90s, the wonderful caring nurses would dispense all sorts of drugs to the little ones. When they gave our baby surfactant, her lungs responded well and her oxygenation improved. Every time her oxygenation dropped alarmingly, naturally I would ask them to administer more surfactant to keep her alive. They told me administering too much was dangerous and would kill her. In order to sustain her little life, they were hovering the levels right at the brink of safety. What nurse wouldn't be tempted to add just a little more, if the alternative looked likely the imminent loss of a little life? Having lost our little one after 7 days of this gruelling scenario, I've seen first-hand the pressures on these dedicated nurses. I would argue that the "rules" at this level have to be at least a little flexible to allow for nurses' best intentions, judgements and interactions. I can well believe Letby had no doctors to call upon for advice much of the time. The pressure on her must have been intolerable. Based on my own trivial one week's experience in a SCBU, with bells and chimes going off every five minutes, all the little lives hanging in the balance, I formed the impression they were continuously fighting fires, in a life and death situation. Care was being administered, as skilfully as possible, but always on a wing and a prayer, with judgements learned and honed by experience. If too much insulin was administered in one or two cases, I would need some convincing to ever conclude poisoning or foul play. Who knows what happened at Chester? We didn't hear the evidence and couldn't possibly hope to defend or recap the court case in this thread.
|
|
