If you enjoy The Jolly Heretic, please consider supporting us with a $5.99 monthly subscription — the price of a pint in London or half a gay cocktail in San Francisco:
Yes, but I would very much like to see the statistics surrounding all the other babies that died (or who were left permanently damaged) not at Letby's hands. What numbers are we talking about? How many holiday hiatuses? Are they statistically significant numbers? I agree that Simon's analysis was superficial, but I think he was right to point out the dangers of the probability/coincidence arguments in the dreadful Sally Clarke and de Berk injustice cases.
Judging prima facie from basic facts, e.g., retrospective determination of murder long after autopsy verdicts of death by natural causes were recorded, it would appear that she's the victim of an internal NHS hit-job compounded by exigencies of the adversarial judicial process.
It's been suggested that her defence lawyers were associated with the NHS. After reading some defence submissions, allied to the fact that the sole defence witness called was a plumber, that seems all too plausible. An expert witness told the jury that the insulin found in one victim was synthetic. But the mother had gestational diabetes and no lab test can determine synthetic insulin from natural. How could the defence let that go?
No evidence of crime here at all. The glaring question to my eyes is on what grounds was the original natural causes verdict reversed such as to bring a murder charge when there was no suspicion at the time? But such fundamentals are not being reported at all.
The girl's been thrown to the wolves purely on the snowballing corporate conviction of the media mob. Against which there is no known immunity. Not even a doctorate in psychology.
Yes, but I would very much like to see the statistics surrounding all the other babies that died (or who were left permanently damaged) not at Letby's hands. What numbers are we talking about? How many holiday hiatuses? Are they statistically significant numbers? I agree that Simon's analysis was superficial, but I think he was right to point out the dangers of the probability/coincidence arguments in the dreadful Sally Clarke and de Berk injustice cases.
Judging prima facie from basic facts, e.g., retrospective determination of murder long after autopsy verdicts of death by natural causes were recorded, it would appear that she's the victim of an internal NHS hit-job compounded by exigencies of the adversarial judicial process.
It's been suggested that her defence lawyers were associated with the NHS. After reading some defence submissions, allied to the fact that the sole defence witness called was a plumber, that seems all too plausible. An expert witness told the jury that the insulin found in one victim was synthetic. But the mother had gestational diabetes and no lab test can determine synthetic insulin from natural. How could the defence let that go?
No evidence of crime here at all. The glaring question to my eyes is on what grounds was the original natural causes verdict reversed such as to bring a murder charge when there was no suspicion at the time? But such fundamentals are not being reported at all.
The girl's been thrown to the wolves purely on the snowballing corporate conviction of the media mob. Against which there is no known immunity. Not even a doctorate in psychology.