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.
Yes, too little discussion of the Clarke and de Berk cases from the midwit “we know Letby is guilty for certain” camp. Given what we know of these cases the most sensible approach is to retain an open mind in case of future appeals and extra-legal demonisation and persecution, but support her continued legal punishment until / unless her conviction is overturned.
The trouble with court justice is that it tends to rely on the clarity of hindsight and an absence of overall context. Everybody is entirely focussed on what we now know (or think we know).
Yes. Truly appalling to hear Dutton blithely state a spurious estimate of the likelihood that Letby did it given that this is exactly the statistical misconduct perpetrated in the de Berk case. He clearly hasn't done the homework necessary to discuss the case competently.
I'd like to know why hospital / NHS admins aren't gathering mortality rates and comparing with other hospitals as a matter of course? Many lessons as to best practice could be learned by doing that and the Shipmans / Allitts of this world would be spotted very quickly.
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.
The daily skeptic just published an interesting piece, which I think you may find interesting. It seems the evidence is not as clear-cut as it may appear at first glance.
The NHS and various departments and agencies around it, including the ONS and UKHSA, have all shown themselves to be fundamentally unreliable, manipulative, dishonest and disingenuous when it comes to communicating public information to the public. How many times have we seen evidence of blatant malpractice and worse simply covered up and responsibility and accountability lost in the ambiguous ‘findings’ of an investigation or inquiry?
This simply doesn’t feel as cut and dry as the media’s “Britains worst serial baby killer” headlines seek to make it. I’d like to see the psycho analysis broadened to examine the personality types attracted to working with sick children and babies. Anecdotally, a close friend spent a lot of time in hospitals growing up and was subjected to a lot of emotionally cruel treatment from doctors and nurses. Should we be thinking bigger? Has SRA reached frontline medicine?
It seems impossible for SIMPS to admit that a fertile, not hideous woman can be guilty of any crime. It's incredible how irrational and reproduction oriented human beings are. Just ridiculous.
No idea how the British legal system works. Many countries don't have juries in such serious penal cases. I believe it's a very American thing but rather uncommon in continental Europe. I'm no legal expert though.
Glad you reacted to Simon's video, I was interested to see the contradiction and have to say was swayed by Simon's opinion. I haven't read your book How to Judge People by What They Look Like, but could she be judged in this way? She does look like an innocent person and I did think that Simon was swayed by that although he denied it's because she's white. He said yesterday that a man convicted of a crime (Siddharth Mahajan) looks like a criminal.
Is she innocent? No she was found guilty in a court of law. Was the evidence false or incomplete? Quite possibly but I doubt it will show she didn't kill any of those children, there are too many for them all to be wrong.
Believing everything is NOT the same as not believing anything because if you believe everything fed to you by the media it will be used by those with money and power to manipulate and cheat you. If you don't believe anything you may be worse off in some cases but I believe those cases are so rare as for this to be a far more beneficial stance.
I'd add that "believe" isn't something anyone should do. I don't "believe" in bacteria, I've seen them and so have others and they can be tied to diseases using scientific testing. As I understand it I cannot see the COVID virus in enough detail to differentiate it from any other corona virus, nor can anyone else, therefore I remain skeptical as to its existence - I don't believe Covid exists and I don't know it doesn't exist. It is an unanswered question and I will continue to behave in that way until there is proof that I accept.
This article is a little old, but I like many of the posts by "All Mouth and Trousers"... so I will comment on this one.
I don't see how not "believing" is even remotely possible. We are finite / limited creatures and, therefore, by definition unable to know anything or all things with certainty. However, on the balance of probabilities many beliefs are reasonable and assist people operating on a day-to-day level. For example, I believe my father is actually my father even though I wasn't there (in conscious form) when the event occurred. However, I look enough like my father and my mother says he is my father, so I have no reason to believe otherwise... it is a reasonable operating premise. Likewise, when I board an aircraft, I would assume all required maintenance and operating procedures have been followed to ensure the aircraft won't crash. I didn't see the maintenance records or the work actually being completed but given the majority of aircraft don't crash it is a reasonable operating premise to assume all is in order. If I didn't accept this and required proof of everything, would I ever get out of bed?
Likewise for the "rona".... there are medical professionals who "fix" all sorts of diseases, so appears they know something about this new disease. As such, it is a reasonable operating belief to behave as if this new disease does exist. However, that's not to say we can't question the evidence and ask for additional proof and also seek opinion of medical professionals who think otherwise.
It may be just semantics, but I don't think "believing" is 100% without reason and is simply a requirement for operating in a world filled with varying degrees of uncertainty.
Her writings were selectively quoted from in the media. She was under intense distress and wrote that she felt guilty but also that she was innocent. Of course the media only publicised the parts that supported the prosecution case.
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.
Yes, too little discussion of the Clarke and de Berk cases from the midwit “we know Letby is guilty for certain” camp. Given what we know of these cases the most sensible approach is to retain an open mind in case of future appeals and extra-legal demonisation and persecution, but support her continued legal punishment until / unless her conviction is overturned.
The trouble with court justice is that it tends to rely on the clarity of hindsight and an absence of overall context. Everybody is entirely focussed on what we now know (or think we know).
Yes. Truly appalling to hear Dutton blithely state a spurious estimate of the likelihood that Letby did it given that this is exactly the statistical misconduct perpetrated in the de Berk case. He clearly hasn't done the homework necessary to discuss the case competently.
Yes definite affinities with that case. Useful facts here:
https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/
I'd like to know why hospital / NHS admins aren't gathering mortality rates and comparing with other hospitals as a matter of course? Many lessons as to best practice could be learned by doing that and the Shipmans / Allitts of this world would be spotted very quickly.
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.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7vj6mOQZjDiy8PSzDAuxcn?si=QmeS7mpKSFek2O-gJqLgmg
To clarify I think there will be an appeal and there are grounds
Hi Ed,
The daily skeptic just published an interesting piece, which I think you may find interesting. It seems the evidence is not as clear-cut as it may appear at first glance.
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/09/11/lucy-letby-must-be-allowed-an-appeal/
The NHS and various departments and agencies around it, including the ONS and UKHSA, have all shown themselves to be fundamentally unreliable, manipulative, dishonest and disingenuous when it comes to communicating public information to the public. How many times have we seen evidence of blatant malpractice and worse simply covered up and responsibility and accountability lost in the ambiguous ‘findings’ of an investigation or inquiry?
This simply doesn’t feel as cut and dry as the media’s “Britains worst serial baby killer” headlines seek to make it. I’d like to see the psycho analysis broadened to examine the personality types attracted to working with sick children and babies. Anecdotally, a close friend spent a lot of time in hospitals growing up and was subjected to a lot of emotionally cruel treatment from doctors and nurses. Should we be thinking bigger? Has SRA reached frontline medicine?
It seems impossible for SIMPS to admit that a fertile, not hideous woman can be guilty of any crime. It's incredible how irrational and reproduction oriented human beings are. Just ridiculous.
But it was a jury of her peers, men and women, that found her guilty?
No idea how the British legal system works. Many countries don't have juries in such serious penal cases. I believe it's a very American thing but rather uncommon in continental Europe. I'm no legal expert though.
Glad you reacted to Simon's video, I was interested to see the contradiction and have to say was swayed by Simon's opinion. I haven't read your book How to Judge People by What They Look Like, but could she be judged in this way? She does look like an innocent person and I did think that Simon was swayed by that although he denied it's because she's white. He said yesterday that a man convicted of a crime (Siddharth Mahajan) looks like a criminal.
Is she innocent? No she was found guilty in a court of law. Was the evidence false or incomplete? Quite possibly but I doubt it will show she didn't kill any of those children, there are too many for them all to be wrong.
Believing everything is NOT the same as not believing anything because if you believe everything fed to you by the media it will be used by those with money and power to manipulate and cheat you. If you don't believe anything you may be worse off in some cases but I believe those cases are so rare as for this to be a far more beneficial stance.
I'd add that "believe" isn't something anyone should do. I don't "believe" in bacteria, I've seen them and so have others and they can be tied to diseases using scientific testing. As I understand it I cannot see the COVID virus in enough detail to differentiate it from any other corona virus, nor can anyone else, therefore I remain skeptical as to its existence - I don't believe Covid exists and I don't know it doesn't exist. It is an unanswered question and I will continue to behave in that way until there is proof that I accept.
“there are too many for them all to be wrong”
Whether Letby is guilty or innocent, this is flatly untrue. Please read about the Lucia de Berk case.
This article is a little old, but I like many of the posts by "All Mouth and Trousers"... so I will comment on this one.
I don't see how not "believing" is even remotely possible. We are finite / limited creatures and, therefore, by definition unable to know anything or all things with certainty. However, on the balance of probabilities many beliefs are reasonable and assist people operating on a day-to-day level. For example, I believe my father is actually my father even though I wasn't there (in conscious form) when the event occurred. However, I look enough like my father and my mother says he is my father, so I have no reason to believe otherwise... it is a reasonable operating premise. Likewise, when I board an aircraft, I would assume all required maintenance and operating procedures have been followed to ensure the aircraft won't crash. I didn't see the maintenance records or the work actually being completed but given the majority of aircraft don't crash it is a reasonable operating premise to assume all is in order. If I didn't accept this and required proof of everything, would I ever get out of bed?
Likewise for the "rona".... there are medical professionals who "fix" all sorts of diseases, so appears they know something about this new disease. As such, it is a reasonable operating belief to behave as if this new disease does exist. However, that's not to say we can't question the evidence and ask for additional proof and also seek opinion of medical professionals who think otherwise.
It may be just semantics, but I don't think "believing" is 100% without reason and is simply a requirement for operating in a world filled with varying degrees of uncertainty.
(Body Cams for nurses?)
What about all her copious writings ?
Her writings were selectively quoted from in the media. She was under intense distress and wrote that she felt guilty but also that she was innocent. Of course the media only publicised the parts that supported the prosecution case.
An interesting summary of the trial and highlights of the evidence