Lucy Letby - bad inference

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
snoozeofreason
Snowbonk
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by snoozeofreason » Sun Jun 16, 2024 8:18 am

dyqik wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2024 5:09 pm
Any question on those lines would likely be objected to and struck off the record by a competent defense and judge.
It would depend how the question was phrased. It would be wrong for the prosecution to suggest, as a general principle, that the jury must be sure of a defendant's innocence in order to acquit. The standard is that they must be sure* of the defendant's guilt in order to convict. But it would also be wrong for the defence to suggest that demolition of some individual piece of prosecution evidence meant that the jury could not be sure of a defendant's guilt unless that actually was the case (i.e. unless it was, by itself, sufficient to rule out the possibility of proving the defendant's guilt).

As a concrete example, consider the insulin evidence in the case of Child F or Child L. If the defence had established that this neither proved Letby guilty, nor proved her innocent, then the jury could still convict because they might feel that the rest of the prosecution argument was nonetheless sufficient to make them sure of her guilt. If, on the other hand, the defence showed that this individual piece of evidence proved her innocence then they would have had no option but to find her innocent, and the judge might direct them to do so.

So, when considering evidence as a whole, the only question in a jury's mind should be whether they are sure of the defendant's guilt. But when considering individual pieces of evidence, they (and to a certain extent the judge as well, because he/she has the option of directing an acquittal) must consider at least three possibilities. This piece of evidence might prove innocence, in which case its game over for the prosecution, or it might prove guilt, in which case it's game over for the defence, or it might be just part of a set of evidence that has to be considered in the round.

The prosecution summing up in Letby it has a "Never mind the quality, feel the width," flavour to it. The prosecution accept that the evidence is circumstantial (in some cases using the word "circumstantial" in a weirdly loving way) and that no individual piece of evidence proves Letby's guilt. But they argue that collectively, this circumstantial evidence should make the jury sure of her guilt. This is, logically, a bit tendentious. Legally however it is a perfectly acceptable line of argument, unless, somewhere in this mass of evidence, there is something that proves innocence, in which case the Jenga tower built up by the prosecution falls down.

* I am not sure what happens in the US these days, but in the UK, judges are now instructed to use the phrase "sure" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" when describing the standard of proof required.
In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. The human body was knocked up pretty late on the Friday afternoon, with a deadline looming. How well do you expect it to work?

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7264
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by Woodchopper » Mon Jun 17, 2024 1:59 pm

snoozeofreason wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2024 10:58 am
As I said, it is unclear why the defence did not push back on the medical evidence a bit harder. Aviv speculates that it might be because, although the defence would have been able to produce experts who would testify that the evidence did not prove Letby's guilt, the prosecution's first question to such an expert would have been "Well does it prove her innocence?" to which the answer would be "No". Of course that shouldn't be an obstacle if the jury understands the standard of proof that they are supposed to apply, but the defence might not have been confident that they would.
Concerning Child F and Child L perhaps the explanation is Letby herself. There doesn't seem to be much point challenging the expert witnesses so long as Letby testifies that she believes that the children were deliberately poisoned by someone in the hospital.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7894
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by dyqik » Mon Jun 17, 2024 6:51 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2024 1:59 pm
snoozeofreason wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2024 10:58 am
As I said, it is unclear why the defence did not push back on the medical evidence a bit harder. Aviv speculates that it might be because, although the defence would have been able to produce experts who would testify that the evidence did not prove Letby's guilt, the prosecution's first question to such an expert would have been "Well does it prove her innocence?" to which the answer would be "No". Of course that shouldn't be an obstacle if the jury understands the standard of proof that they are supposed to apply, but the defence might not have been confident that they would.
Concerning Child F and Child L perhaps the explanation is Letby herself. There doesn't seem to be much point challenging the expert witnesses so long as Letby testifies that she believes that the children were deliberately poisoned by someone in the hospital.
The defense would have to advise her not to testify to that - and there's no reason she would know that.

User avatar
snoozeofreason
Snowbonk
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by snoozeofreason » Tue Jun 18, 2024 7:22 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2024 1:59 pm
snoozeofreason wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2024 10:58 am
As I said, it is unclear why the defence did not push back on the medical evidence a bit harder. Aviv speculates that it might be because, although the defence would have been able to produce experts who would testify that the evidence did not prove Letby's guilt, the prosecution's first question to such an expert would have been "Well does it prove her innocence?" to which the answer would be "No". Of course that shouldn't be an obstacle if the jury understands the standard of proof that they are supposed to apply, but the defence might not have been confident that they would.
Concerning Child F and Child L perhaps the explanation is Letby herself. There doesn't seem to be much point challenging the expert witnesses so long as Letby testifies that she believes that the children were deliberately poisoned by someone in the hospital.
Well Letby did accept in court that the babies had been poisoned by insulin. In our legal system, unlike that of the US, laws around "witness coaching" would have prevented the defence from directly advising her to change her testimony on that point. However they could have sought out further evidence on the insulin, and the availability of such evidence might have changed Letby's opinion, and therefore her testimony.

So the question is whether the defence failed to call expert evidence on insulin because Letby had decided to accept that it had been administered, or whether Letby accepted that insulin had been administered because no expert witnesses had been called to question this. I would lean towards the latter explanation because the defence seemed unwilling to seek out expert evidence on anything. They didn't call experts to question the insulin evidence, but nor did they call experts to question the air embolism evidence, or the significance of the "coincidences" between Letby's shifts and adverse events.

The only witnesses that the defence did call were a plumber, and Letby herself, who spent 14 days in the dock. Letby's ability to prepare herself for that ordeal would have been greatly hampered by the fact that, by that point, she had been held in prison on remand for three years (we should probably have another thread on the sclerotic nature of the criminal justice system over here).
In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. The human body was knocked up pretty late on the Friday afternoon, with a deadline looming. How well do you expect it to work?

User avatar
bob sterman
Dorkwood
Posts: 1185
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by bob sterman » Tue Jun 18, 2024 8:26 am

snoozeofreason wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2024 7:22 am
So the question is whether the defence failed to call expert evidence on insulin because Letby had decided to accept that it had been administered, or whether Letby accepted that insulin had been administered because no expert witnesses had been called to question this. I would lean towards the latter explanation because the defence seemed unwilling to seek out expert evidence on anything. They didn't call experts to question the insulin evidence, but nor did they call experts to question the air embolism evidence, or the significance of the "coincidences" between Letby's shifts and adverse events.
Under these circumstances - would a naive defendant see it as their role to advance alternative theories to account for the evidence??

User avatar
snoozeofreason
Snowbonk
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by snoozeofreason » Tue Jun 18, 2024 9:41 am

bob sterman wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2024 8:26 am
Under these circumstances - would a naive defendant see it as their role to advance alternative theories to account for the evidence??
Sounds likely, but IANAL so I don't have any direct experience.
In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. The human body was knocked up pretty late on the Friday afternoon, with a deadline looming. How well do you expect it to work?

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5429
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by jimbob » Wed Jul 03, 2024 5:00 am

Found guilty of another murder at a retrial

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/art ... r-old-baby

If she was seen not acting to deal with a dislodged breathing tube with a bypassed alarm, that suggests more than coincidence for the other cases
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
bob sterman
Dorkwood
Posts: 1185
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by bob sterman » Wed Jul 03, 2024 6:32 am

jimbob wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2024 5:00 am
Found guilty of another murder at a retrial

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/art ... r-old-baby

If she was seen not acting to deal with a dislodged breathing tube with a bypassed alarm, that suggests more than coincidence for the other cases
Putting aside her role - there was some astonishing and worrying evidence presented in relation to this case. Specifically, disagreements between clinicians and discrepancies in the notes regarding whether a "94% leak reading" in the notes meant 94% of what was being supplied leaking (very bad) or a 94% oxygen saturation level (good). At an earlier point - prior to the alleged interference.

In the end - one of the doctor's giving evidence couldn't clarify the distinction and gave up saying "I didn't build the ventilator" and suggested the court would need to call the manufacturer to explain.

Let that sink in - a doctor on the neonatal unit was unable to explain what the readings on the ventilator screen meant.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7264
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by Woodchopper » Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:14 am

bob sterman wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2024 6:32 am
jimbob wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2024 5:00 am
Found guilty of another murder at a retrial

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/art ... r-old-baby

If she was seen not acting to deal with a dislodged breathing tube with a bypassed alarm, that suggests more than coincidence for the other cases
Putting aside her role - there was some astonishing and worrying evidence presented in relation to this case. Specifically, disagreements between clinicians and discrepancies in the notes regarding whether a "94% leak reading" in the notes meant 94% of what was being supplied leaking (very bad) or a 94% oxygen saturation level (good). At an earlier point - prior to the alleged interference.

In the end - one of the doctor's giving evidence couldn't clarify the distinction and gave up saying "I didn't build the ventilator" and suggested the court would need to call the manufacturer to explain.

Let that sink in - a doctor on the neonatal unit was unable to explain what the readings on the ventilator screen meant.
Yes, not good. Here's what was said:
An intensive care chart is shown for Child K. Mr Myers refers to a '94' leak reading recorded at 3.30am.

Dr Smith denies this means 94% of the ventilated air is leaking. He refers to the 94% oxygen saturation for Child K, and an 'FiO2' [carbon dioxide clearance] reading of 49 shows the tube is "doing what it is supposed to do".

He says it shows there is some air leak, but does not mean only 6% of the air is getting in, as it "does not make any sense".

He adds: "I didn't build the ventilator", so the person who did would have to be called to explain that leak reading.

Mr Myers asks if the number is a high leak. Dr Smith says it is a high number for a leak.
https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/ ... y-june-18/

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2967
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by IvanV » Wed Jul 03, 2024 1:30 pm

We have also now learned why leave to appeal was turned down. Guardian article

Letby presented four grounds for appeal, which the court found "unarguable". I haven't read the leave to appeal judgement, and probably we might need commentary from an informed person to understand whether it looks sound that they found those appeal grounds "unarguable". There are criteria for getting an appeal, and it does tend to be difficult to get an appeal even in pretty appalling cases of wrongful conviction.

User avatar
snoozeofreason
Snowbonk
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by snoozeofreason » Thu Jul 11, 2024 2:33 pm

I am not normally a fan of the Daily Telegraph, but they have published a good, detailed account of the issues with the Letby case. It's behind a paywall, but I think you can get a free Telegraph account with limited access (I seem to have one).

Reading it makes the defence's failure, in the original trial, to call any expert witnesses other than a plumber even harder to understand, because there were expert witnesses who could have cast significant doubt on the prosecution evidence. In particular, the prosecution argued that, in several of the counts against Letby, the babies had suffered air embolism, and backed this up by reference to a 1989 paper by a Canadian neonatologist, Dr. Shoo Lee. Dr Lee wasn't called during the original trial but did give evidence when she appealed.
Telegraph wrote: Following Letby’s conviction, Dr Lee gave evidence during the application to appeal, warning that the skin discoloration was not unique to air embolism, and said that none of the babies appeared to have suffered from the condition.

Dr Lee said that air embolism would present as pink blood vessels standing out against a background of blue skin, and appear significantly different to a general discoloration or mottling of the skin.

“There is only one diagnostic of an air embolism – pink vessels against a particular background,” he told the court.

“When air bubbles go into blood vessels they oxygenate the blood and the vessels appear pink on a blue background. Other [types of] discoloration cannot be used to diagnose air embolism.

“If you do not see pink vessels on blue background you can see that [although] there’s a problem, you can’t say it’s air embolism.”

Commenting on the case of Baby A, Dr Lee said the symptoms described by Dr Bohin at Letby’s trial were not indicative of an air embolism, and said the doctor had been wrong to draw such a conclusion simply because they had excluded other causes.

He said: “Air embolism should never be diagnosed by exclusion. The rash she [Dr Bohin] described is not diagnostic of air embolism. Air embolism is very specific.”

Moving on to Baby D, Dr Lee said experts were wrong to conclude that skin mottling was indicative of air embolism, warning that such discoloration was generic and could have been caused by a circulatory collapse.
...
That sounds to me like it casts significant doubt on the verdict, but it doesn't seem to have carried any weight with the appeal judges. I am not sure why but I notice that the CPS guidance on appeals states that
CPS wrote:The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:
  • it appears capable of belief;
  • it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
  • it would have been admissible;
  • it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
  • there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.
It is possible that it is the last of those bullet points that is the problem. The defence presumably could have called Lee in the original trial and didn't. If that is the problem with Lee's evidence, then it would presumably be a problem with any medical or statistical evidence that would have been available at the original trial.
In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. The human body was knocked up pretty late on the Friday afternoon, with a deadline looming. How well do you expect it to work?

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7264
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by Woodchopper » Fri Jul 12, 2024 3:15 am

snoozeofreason wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2024 2:33 pm
I am not normally a fan of the Daily Telegraph, but they have published a good, detailed account of the issues with the Letby case. It's behind a paywall, but I think you can get a free Telegraph account with limited access (I seem to have one).

Reading it makes the defence's failure, in the original trial, to call any expert witnesses other than a plumber even harder to understand, because there were expert witnesses who could have cast significant doubt on the prosecution evidence. In particular, the prosecution argued that, in several of the counts against Letby, the babies had suffered air embolism, and backed this up by reference to a 1989 paper by a Canadian neonatologist, Dr. Shoo Lee. Dr Lee wasn't called during the original trial but did give evidence when she appealed.
Telegraph wrote: Following Letby’s conviction, Dr Lee gave evidence during the application to appeal, warning that the skin discoloration was not unique to air embolism, and said that none of the babies appeared to have suffered from the condition.

Dr Lee said that air embolism would present as pink blood vessels standing out against a background of blue skin, and appear significantly different to a general discoloration or mottling of the skin.

“There is only one diagnostic of an air embolism – pink vessels against a particular background,” he told the court.

“When air bubbles go into blood vessels they oxygenate the blood and the vessels appear pink on a blue background. Other [types of] discoloration cannot be used to diagnose air embolism.

“If you do not see pink vessels on blue background you can see that [although] there’s a problem, you can’t say it’s air embolism.”

Commenting on the case of Baby A, Dr Lee said the symptoms described by Dr Bohin at Letby’s trial were not indicative of an air embolism, and said the doctor had been wrong to draw such a conclusion simply because they had excluded other causes.

He said: “Air embolism should never be diagnosed by exclusion. The rash she [Dr Bohin] described is not diagnostic of air embolism. Air embolism is very specific.”

Moving on to Baby D, Dr Lee said experts were wrong to conclude that skin mottling was indicative of air embolism, warning that such discoloration was generic and could have been caused by a circulatory collapse.
...
That sounds to me like it casts significant doubt on the verdict, but it doesn't seem to have carried any weight with the appeal judges. I am not sure why but I notice that the CPS guidance on appeals states that
CPS wrote:The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:
  • it appears capable of belief;
  • it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
  • it would have been admissible;
  • it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
  • there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.
It is possible that it is the last of those bullet points that is the problem. The defence presumably could have called Lee in the original trial and didn't. If that is the problem with Lee's evidence, then it would presumably be a problem with any medical or statistical evidence that would have been available at the original trial.
This is covered in the paragraphs 168-192 of the appeal judgment. I can’t seem to copy and paste from the pdf, but basically on appeal one can’t introduce evidence that could reasonably have been in the original trial. The appeal judges also state that even if it had been admissible, Dr Lee’s evidence would not have been decisive as the prosecution case was based upon much wider evidence than skin discolouration.

Link: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-letby-3/

User avatar
Sciolus
Dorkwood
Posts: 1362
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by Sciolus » Fri Jul 12, 2024 12:17 pm

From the linked judgement:
179. In R v Erskine and Williams [2009] EWCA Crim 1425 Lord Judge CJ, at p39D, said
that the considerations listed in subsection (2)(a) to (d) are neither exhaustive nor
conclusive, but require specific consideration. He continued:
“… it is well understood that, save exceptionally, if the
defendant is allowed to advance on appeal a defence and/or
evidence which could and should have been put before the jury,
our trial process would be subverted. Therefore if they were not
deployed when they were available to be deployed, or the issues
could have been but were not raised at trial, it is clear from the
statutory structure, as explained in the authorities, that unless a
reasonable and persuasive explanation for one or other of those
omissions is offered, it is highly unlikely that the ‘interests of
justice ’ test will be satisfied.”
That is utter b.llsh.t. You can have incontrovertible proof of innocence -- you could have a thousand witnesses to swear you were a thousand miles away at the time, you could have a hundred witnesses to swear they saw someone completely different with a blood-soaked axe -- but if your defence is sufficiently incompetent not to use that at the trial, then in the eyes of the law the evidence simply doesn't exist. Insane.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7894
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by dyqik » Fri Jul 12, 2024 1:23 pm

Sciolus wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2024 12:17 pm
From the linked judgement:
179. In R v Erskine and Williams [2009] EWCA Crim 1425 Lord Judge CJ, at p39D, said
that the considerations listed in subsection (2)(a) to (d) are neither exhaustive nor
conclusive, but require specific consideration. He continued:
“… it is well understood that, save exceptionally, if the
defendant is allowed to advance on appeal a defence and/or
evidence which could and should have been put before the jury,
our trial process would be subverted. Therefore if they were not
deployed when they were available to be deployed, or the issues
could have been but were not raised at trial, it is clear from the
statutory structure, as explained in the authorities, that unless a
reasonable and persuasive explanation for one or other of those
omissions is offered, it is highly unlikely that the ‘interests of
justice ’ test will be satisfied.”
That is utter b.llsh.t. You can have incontrovertible proof of innocence -- you could have a thousand witnesses to swear you were a thousand miles away at the time, you could have a hundred witnesses to swear they saw someone completely different with a blood-soaked axe -- but if your defence is sufficiently incompetent not to use that at the trial, then in the eyes of the law the evidence simply doesn't exist. Insane.
The recourse to that is an appeal on the basis of inadequate counsel. But obviously your initial counsel wouldn't be filing that.

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2967
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by IvanV » Fri Jul 12, 2024 4:23 pm

Sciolus wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2024 12:17 pm
From the linked judgement:
179. In R v Erskine and Williams [2009] EWCA Crim 1425 Lord Judge CJ, at p39D, said
that the considerations listed in subsection (2)(a) to (d) are neither exhaustive nor
conclusive, but require specific consideration. He continued:
“… it is well understood that, save exceptionally, if the
defendant is allowed to advance on appeal a defence and/or
evidence which could and should have been put before the jury,
our trial process would be subverted. Therefore if they were not
deployed when they were available to be deployed, or the issues
could have been but were not raised at trial, it is clear from the
statutory structure, as explained in the authorities, that unless a
reasonable and persuasive explanation for one or other of those
omissions is offered, it is highly unlikely that the ‘interests of
justice ’ test will be satisfied.”
That is utter b.llsh.t. You can have incontrovertible proof of innocence -- you could have a thousand witnesses to swear you were a thousand miles away at the time, you could have a hundred witnesses to swear they saw someone completely different with a blood-soaked axe -- but if your defence is sufficiently incompetent not to use that at the trial, then in the eyes of the law the evidence simply doesn't exist. Insane.
This is just one of the impediments that lead to so many innocent people being stuck prison, and unable to get an appeal despite strong grounds why they should never have been found guilty in the first place. And so many are found guilty in the first place because it is very difficult for defendants to organise and fund a competent defence. Especially when there are technicalities, and expert witnesses that aren't as expert as they say they are, and defendants and their lawyers don't understand this any more than the judge does.

The British justice system really doesn't like being found wrong.

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5429
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by jimbob » Fri Jul 12, 2024 9:39 pm

Sciolus wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2024 12:17 pm
From the linked judgement:
179. In R v Erskine and Williams [2009] EWCA Crim 1425 Lord Judge CJ, at p39D, said
that the considerations listed in subsection (2)(a) to (d) are neither exhaustive nor
conclusive, but require specific consideration. He continued:
“… it is well understood that, save exceptionally, if the
defendant is allowed to advance on appeal a defence and/or
evidence which could and should have been put before the jury,
our trial process would be subverted. Therefore if they were not
deployed when they were available to be deployed, or the issues
could have been but were not raised at trial, it is clear from the
statutory structure, as explained in the authorities, that unless a
reasonable and persuasive explanation for one or other of those
omissions is offered, it is highly unlikely that the ‘interests of
justice ’ test will be satisfied.”
That is utter b.llsh.t. You can have incontrovertible proof of innocence -- you could have a thousand witnesses to swear you were a thousand miles away at the time, you could have a hundred witnesses to swear they saw someone completely different with a blood-soaked axe -- but if your defence is sufficiently incompetent not to use that at the trial, then in the eyes of the law the evidence simply doesn't exist. Insane.
Took the words out of my mouth
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
Sciolus
Dorkwood
Posts: 1362
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by Sciolus » Sat Jul 13, 2024 7:47 am

While I'm ranting, I am not inconsiderably annoyed at articles such as this (BBC) and this (Hate) which dismiss scepticism about Letby as "conspiracy theories". It is not a conspiracy to think that she had an inept defence and that the prosecution was more concerned to get a conviction than to reveal flaws in their case. The former is rather common, and the latter is standard operating procedure.

User avatar
snoozeofreason
Snowbonk
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by snoozeofreason » Sat Jul 13, 2024 10:05 am

Sciolus wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2024 7:47 am
While I'm ranting, I am not inconsiderably annoyed at articles such as this (BBC) and this (Hate) which dismiss scepticism about Letby as "conspiracy theories".
With sadness, I think you might have to add the Guardian to that list. In fairness they have published an article that gives a reasonably accurate explanation of why some experts are uncomfortable with the verdict. But they have also published a silly one advancing the straw man that we find it difficult to believe she is a killer because she is female and reasonably nice-looking. I don't think that's the first outing this straw man has had either (possibly not even the first one to have appeared in the Guardian, which as a life-long Guardianista, disappoints me).
In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. The human body was knocked up pretty late on the Friday afternoon, with a deadline looming. How well do you expect it to work?

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2967
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by IvanV » Sat Jul 13, 2024 11:36 am

snoozeofreason wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2024 10:05 am
But they have also published a silly one advancing the straw man that we find it difficult to believe she is a killer because she is female and reasonably nice-looking. I don't think that's the first outing this straw man has had either (possibly not even the first one to have appeared in the Guardian, which as a life-long Guardianista, disappoints me).
The converse of that is that if they are like Barry George, we might be predisposed to think they are a killer, even if the evidence is a bit shonky. The police fell into that trap, though I was always very unhappy about it, as were a number of others. He did get an appeal in the first instance, but for similar reasons to here, that didn't succeed. And he was in prison for 6 years or something before it came back to the courts via the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The CCRC is massively under-resourced, which acts as a huge restraint on bring poor cases back. So we get a trickle of poor cases brought back, which gives the impression that such things are checked and tested, when in reality only a small proportion are. It is a huge battle to get the case brought back by the CCRC, and even then there are irrational and counter-productive rules and procedures which impede many cases which ought to be brought back.

So there is some truth to what the Guardian says about our preconceptions, and people can be affected by it. But, as you say, in this case it is a straw man, because no one is appealing to that point. Whereas in the case of Barry George they were pointing to aspects of his autistic tendencies to say, look how guilty he was. The issue is that the Letby evidence appears shonky. For whatever reason, the important evidence that might tell on that point was not introduced by the defence at the opportune moment. But that isn't a good reason not to have that evidence tested, if we are going to leave someone in prison for some "murders" that, on that evidence, were not in fact murders at all.

Some restraint on appeals is important, because otherwise you get the Italian system where too much can be appealed. In cases where there is any plausible dispute, the first conviction barely matters, it is bound to be taken to appeal. It's like a second bite of the cherry for the defence.

User avatar
tenchboy
After Pie
Posts: 1978
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:18 pm
Location: Down amongst the potamogeton.

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by tenchboy » Tue Jul 16, 2024 7:26 am

Somewhat multi-faceted
Screenshot 2024-07-16 082247.png
Screenshot 2024-07-16 082247.png (361.06 KiB) Viewed 428 times
I'm currently sporting an ironic smile
If you want me Steve, just Snapchat me yeah? You know how to Snapchap me doncha Steve? You just...

User avatar
snoozeofreason
Snowbonk
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by snoozeofreason » Wed Jul 17, 2024 9:30 am

Peter Hitchens has also voiced concerns about the conviction. Still, as the saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. The human body was knocked up pretty late on the Friday afternoon, with a deadline looming. How well do you expect it to work?

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2967
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by IvanV » Wed Jul 17, 2024 12:22 pm

Rebecca Watson on Lucy Letby (youtube 20mins)

The first 8 mins or so are a sane summary of the concerns over the case. Tldr - guilt has not really been proved beyond reasonable doubt, but it is unclear what the verdict might be on a better set of evidence.

The rest is about how a bunch of people have got obsessed over the doubts over the case, and by also trying to get in on the act by fund-raising, offering advice, etc, have become obsessed with each other, and having troll fights, and even court cases. Which unfortunately creates a smokescreen for anyone trying to find out what is really going on, as you try to separate the sensible from the conspiracy theorists. And that doesn't even include Mad Nad.

User avatar
bob sterman
Dorkwood
Posts: 1185
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by bob sterman » Thu Jul 18, 2024 6:14 am

One possibility worth considering - it could be the case that Letby was in fact directly responsible for 1-2 deaths (either through negligence or deliberate acts). However, the prosecution may have then used weak evidence to blame many more deaths on her - deaths that were really due to poor staffing and failings in the unit.

This would be be consistent with some of the diary entries - but the generally weak evidence presented in relation to many of the deaths.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7894
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by dyqik » Thu Jul 18, 2024 10:51 am

bob sterman wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2024 6:14 am
One possibility worth considering - it could be the case that Letby was in fact directly responsible for 1-2 deaths (either through negligence or deliberate acts). However, the prosecution may have then used weak evidence to blame many more deaths on her - deaths that were really due to poor staffing and failings in the unit.

This would be be consistent with some of the diary entries - but the generally weak evidence presented in relation to many of the deaths.
It's also plausible that she was fully or partially responsible* for many or all of the deaths, but that the evidence presented was massively flawed, and insufficient to actually show that beyond reasonable doubt.

*Responsibility doesn't have to be complete, and can be shared. It also doesn't always rise to the level of criminal culpability.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7894
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Lucy Letby - bad inference

Post by dyqik » Thu Jul 18, 2024 11:27 am

dyqik wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2024 10:51 am
bob sterman wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2024 6:14 am
One possibility worth considering - it could be the case that Letby was in fact directly responsible for 1-2 deaths (either through negligence or deliberate acts). However, the prosecution may have then used weak evidence to blame many more deaths on her - deaths that were really due to poor staffing and failings in the unit.

This would be be consistent with some of the diary entries - but the generally weak evidence presented in relation to many of the deaths.
It's also plausible that she was fully or partially responsible* for many or all of the deaths, but that the evidence presented was massively flawed, and insufficient to actually show that beyond reasonable doubt.

*Responsibility doesn't have to be complete, and can be shared. It also doesn't always rise to the level of criminal culpability.
"...to show that beyond reasonable doubt" above should be read as "...to show criminal culpability beyond reasonable doubt."

Post Reply