|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jul 11, 2024 21:45:35 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. Those are fair points, but when skilled mathematicians like the ex-University of Oxford's Dr Coward, plus other eminent medics and professors, now come forward and start demonstrating just how flawed the prosecution's statistical AND medical case was, it will leave a feeling of unease if no appeal is to be allowed. With this stuff coming out of the woodwork now, it begins to look like her defence team didn't do a very good job.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,591 
Likes: 1,735
|
Post by benaj on Jul 12, 2024 5:40:43 GMT
It’s uneasy to hear when new government to decide release 20,000 prisoners while “nice” Lucy is caught without “concrete” evidence and sentenced to life.
The hospital didn’t act early enough and now desperately to find “someone” responsible for the mess.
Does her life sentence reflects the possibility to her harming our society and other babies again?
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 12, 2024 7:46:56 GMT
It’s uneasy to hear when new government to decide release 20,000 prisoners while “nice” Lucy is caught without “concrete” evidence and sentenced to life. The hospital didn’t act early enough and now desperately to find “someone” responsible for the mess. Does her life sentence reflects the possibility to her harming our society and other babies again? the new government has been left with no choice. It's just one more example of the last government's utter incompetence and failure to do the fundamental basics of actually governing. While spending plenty of time fighting their internal political battles and positioning themselves through populist stances. But govern ? No, that's much too like an adult thing to have to do.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 1,735
|
Post by benaj on Jul 12, 2024 7:49:57 GMT
😅 Funny enough, eligible voters were left with no choice picking a better government due to our voting system.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,978
Likes: 5,131
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 12, 2024 10:21:46 GMT
😅 Funny enough, eligible voters were left with no choice picking a better government due to our voting system. Except our voting system isn't designed to count your vote towards a government of any stripe. It's designed to count your vote towards your MP, no more, no less. Our constituency had a 60% vote swing this time, overturning a 25k majority and 63% of votes cast last time. "Not enough of my neighbours agree with me" is not the same as "no choice". Whether it's the best or even right system is a very different question... And, yes, there's a good reason why the incoming Prisons minister might - after less than a week in the job - need to take drastic measures to address our abysmally failing prisons system. Not sure how that's something to beat the new government with, rather than the old one.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 1,735
|
Post by benaj on Jul 12, 2024 10:52:33 GMT
I have only just learned the “key cutter” has the key to release 20,000 prisoners early. Well, I suppose it could be a “win-win” to reduce the cost feeding inmates and spend it on new police recruits. researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04334/SN04334.pdfWhether, it has an “immediate” impact reducing crimes, not crime numbers is yet to be seen. |
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jul 13, 2024 10:48:43 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. First Q - yes, I do. Second para - I agree. Hence "reasonable doubt" rather than "certainty". But I don't think people are "wondering" about it, there is a strong sense coming across that many people feel strongly that there has been a miscarriage of justice. I am the one wondering where that comes from (and also that if it is right, then the truth will out - eventually).
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jul 13, 2024 10:59:54 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. Those are fair points, but when skilled mathematicians like the ex-University of Oxford's Dr Coward, plus other eminent medics and professors, now come forward and start demonstrating just how flawed the prosecution's statistical AND medical case was, it will leave a feeling of unease if no appeal is to be allowed. With this stuff coming out of the woodwork now, i t begins to look like her defence team didn't do a very good job. Could well be the case. But unless the errors were gross then too bad otherwise everyone found guilty would want to appeal/retry their cases. Google tells us that The Court of Appeal has ruled that only in extreme circumstances will they allow an appeal as a result of bad legal representation. I suspect that flawed expert evidence (if that is the case) a more likely route. I am however very familiar with expert evidence in Court cases, and just because another expert disagrees with you doesn't mean the Court can't accept your evidence over theirs. If there was such a strong case to be made by so many other eminent experts, why wasn't one of them called to Court to look at all the evidence and give their view and be cross examined on that view? No doubt she will have lawyers looking at all of this and if there genuinely is mileage in it, then as I said before I trust that justice will eventually prevail.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jul 13, 2024 11:07:19 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. Again Berny, great sympathy with what you must have gone through back then, and you more than any of us will know how harrowing it is as parent or professional having very young babies in SCBU. I fully agree with that last point, which people who haven't sat through trials may not fully appreciate.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jul 13, 2024 12:22:29 GMT
Those are fair points, but when skilled mathematicians like the ex-University of Oxford's Dr Coward, plus other eminent medics and professors, now come forward and start demonstrating just how flawed the prosecution's statistical AND medical case was, it will leave a feeling of unease if no appeal is to be allowed. With this stuff coming out of the woodwork now, i t begins to look like her defence team didn't do a very good job. Could well be the case. But unless the errors were gross then too bad otherwise everyone found guilty would want to appeal/retry their cases. Google tells us that The Court of Appeal has ruled that only in extreme circumstances will they allow an appeal as a result of bad legal representation. I suspect that flawed expert evidence (if that is the case) a more likely route. I am however very familiar with expert evidence in Court cases, and just because another expert disagrees with you doesn't mean the Court can't accept your evidence over theirs. If there was such a strong case to be made by so many other eminent experts, why wasn't one of them called to Court to look at all the evidence and give their view and be cross examined on that view? No doubt she will have lawyers looking at all of this and if there genuinely is mileage in it, then as I said before I trust that justice will eventually prevail. Given how much of the prosecution case relied upon expert testimony, shift pattern statistical analysis, specialist medical expertise and so on, it beggars belief that Letby’s defence team did not call any scientific, medical or data experts. Now it's no longer sub-judice and with reporting restrictions lifted, there's a body of real experts emerging who feel there could have been a miscarriage of justice. Shades of the Post Office scandal, possibly. The NHS would find it very convenient to blame a scapegoat for these deaths in their care, after all. There was a good in-depth article in Tuesday's DT, deconstructing the case point-by-point. Paywalled, but may be viewable via the Wayback machine here. Consultant neonatologist and defence expert Dr Michael Hall, instructed by the defence team but not called, had this to say: “I don’t know whether Lucy Letby is guilty or innocent, but what I do feel is she did not have a fair trial. And the reason is that some of the information given to the jury was flawed, and some was misinterpretation. My concern is that the legal system allowed it to happen.” Expert statisticians have debunked the damning shift table which showed Letby supposedly always on duty. The flaw in the statistical argument presented is very basic and other trials have fallen foul of it, with defendants initially found guilty then later having to be acquitted. Summed up, as ever, that correlation does not equate to causation. You will understand this better than most. An ex-University of Oxford lecturer and expert, Dr Coward, has shown how easy it is to incriminate any nurse by cherry-picking the data, which he says is exactly what's happened in this case. With so many experts troubled by the evidence, like you I do hope justice will eventually prevail.
|
|
james100
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,084
Likes: 1,287
|
Post by james100 on Jul 13, 2024 12:25:39 GMT
I assumed the latest interest was due to the prosecution's statistical evidence not fully aligning with the guidelines (inc confidence limitations) of the Royal Statistical Society for use of stats in serial healthcare murder cases. Not a deal breaker in theory unless it's the main basis for prosecution (which I understand it was). The RSS is contributing to the Thirlwall inquiry and made contact shortly after the original court case highlighting the work they'd already done in this area ( RSS Report 2022) so there's some sort of benchmark to evaluate against. There are definitely some strange psychological undercurrents in the public interest though and the usual nuance-less picking of sides. Terribly sad for the parents and babies. Edit: cross-posted with bernythedolt - the link here is actually the full Report quoted in the DT 's article referenced above |
|
spiral
Member of DD Central
Posts: 967
Likes: 486
|
Post by spiral on Jul 14, 2024 6:40:40 GMT
I am no statistician but the first case I remember being absolutely astounded by regarding poor analysis of statistical data with very serious consequences was the Challenger disaster back in 1985.
I remember seeing a programme (probably Nat Geo) regarding the disaster. The problem was they'd underestimated the risk of failure due to "cherry picking" the data to assess risk of launch temperature. Basically when assessing the risk of O ring failure (the cause of the explosion) they only used data from when there was a failure thus excluding all the data where no failure occurred. This resulted in them grossly underestimating the risk of a failure.
That seems to be the argument here in the LL case. The data has been cherry picked and is therefore preventing a full picture of what has occurred.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jul 24, 2024 10:41:38 GMT
Private Eye has a long article on p38-39 of the current issue devoted to this case. Following the verdict in August 2023 the Eye published a "lessons learned from the Letby case" article, but then received so many submissions from concerned professionals and experts that they had an article casting doubt on the proceedings of the trial ready to go in September 23. This was blocked by a court order which PI unsuccessfully appealed. This order was lifted 9th July 24 and following the New Yorker (May) , and now Telegraph, Guardian, Independent and Mail, we get the Eye's summary. None of these publications can say "Lucy Letby is innocent". But what they all say is, there is no evidence of a crime. Statistically the evidence presented in court has been rubbished by numerous experts both inside and outside the medical profession. Any nurse doing shifts in this unit could have been accused of killing the babies. It was presented to the jury that there were 25 "untoward events" when Letby was on duty. What was not mentioned was that there were more than 35 "untoward events" when she was not on duty. She was convicted of 7 deaths. There were ten more when she was off duty. That leaves evidence of Letby or anyone else murdering babies to be considered. There is no evidence of any of the babies being murdered, just some hypotheses presented about how they could have been murdered. But not any of the suggested materials were found in the bodies that were examined. Because murder was not suspected at the time, such tests as were made were not sufficient to prove anything. The alternative theory of injection of air into the babies' feeding tubes would simply have produced farting. The Letby defence team let six experts present hypotheses for the prosecution and tried to challenge each of them, but did not present any experts of their own even though some were ready and waiting to present counter evidence. Maybe the jury was impressed that the prosecution had experts, the defence none. Nobody knows. It is possible that all this has come about because investigators "focus on a particular conclusion and then filter all evidence in a case through the lens provided by that conclusion" - confirmation bias. Other plausible explanations or combination of circumstances were not discussed in front of the jury, says the Eye. The Criminal Cases Review Committee, a much criticised body, should take up this case as a matter of urgency but in the meantime pressure will be maintained by David Davies, the Brexit Bulldog. Well done to him. Former minister David Davis to launch Lucy Letby conviction probe after experts cast doubtwww.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lucy-letby-child-killer-nurse-b2583362.html |
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Aug 12, 2024 7:30:21 GMT
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,376
Likes: 2,780
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Aug 12, 2024 7:43:21 GMT
Private Eye has a long article on p38-39 of the current issue devoted to this case. Following the verdict in August 2023 the Eye published a "lessons learned from the Letby case" article, but then received so many submissions from concerned professionals and experts that they had an article casting doubt on the proceedings of the trial ready to go in September 23. This was blocked by a court order which PI unsuccessfully appealed. This order was lifted 9th July 24 and following the New Yorker (May) , and now Telegraph, Guardian, Independent and Mail, we get the Eye's summary. None of these publications can say "Lucy Letby is innocent". But what they all say is, there is no evidence of a crime. Statistically the evidence presented in court has been rubbished by numerous experts both inside and outside the medical profession. Any nurse doing shifts in this unit could have been accused of killing the babies. It was presented to the jury that there were 25 "untoward events" when Letby was on duty. What was not mentioned was that there were more than 35 "untoward events" when she was not on duty. She was convicted of 7 deaths. There were ten more when she was off duty. That leaves evidence of Letby or anyone else murdering babies to be considered. There is no evidence of any of the babies being murdered, just some hypotheses presented about how they could have been murdered. But not any of the suggested materials were found in the bodies that were examined. Because murder was not suspected at the time, such tests as were made were not sufficient to prove anything. The alternative theory of injection of air into the babies' feeding tubes would simply have produced farting.The Letby defence team let six experts present hypotheses for the prosecution and tried to challenge each of them, but did not present any experts of their own even though some were ready and waiting to present counter evidence. Maybe the jury was impressed that the prosecution had experts, the defence none. Nobody knows. It is possible that all this has come about because investigators "focus on a particular conclusion and then filter all evidence in a case through the lens provided by that conclusion" - confirmation bias. Other plausible explanations or combination of circumstances were not discussed in front of the jury, says the Eye. The Criminal Cases Review Committee, a much criticised body, should take up this case as a matter of urgency but in the meantime pressure will be maintained by David Davies, the Brexit Bulldog. Well done to him. Former minister David Davis to launch Lucy Letby conviction probe after experts cast doubtwww.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lucy-letby-child-killer-nurse-b2583362.htmlThe accusation was introducing air into the blood stream, not feeding tube.
|
|
