Lucy Letby: Statisticians have ‘serious concerns’ over data used in conviction
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 พ.ย. 2024
- “I’ve worked for nearly 40 years in medical statistics.”
Lucy Letby's new legal team is preparing to launch a fresh appeal over her convictions. “From what I can see, I don’t yet have the evidence to say that the implicit statistical statements - and there are many - are justified", says British medical statistician Jane Hutton.
Join this channel to get access to perks -
/ @listentotimesradio
📻 Listen to Times Radio - www.thetimes.c...
🗞 Subscribe to The Times www.thetimes.c...
📲 Get the free Times Radio app www.thetimes.c...
They failed to mention similar clusters of deaths at other units. They fail to mention the clustering illusion in small populations. They did not show the raw data for all deaths on the unit.
clinical care commission had already found massive failings in the neo-natal department - this has all the hallmarks of a cover up and the scapegoating of a junior member of staff.
Damn right! This needs looked at urgently.
Nah shes guilty. There was a 14 month period where the incident rate jumped from 0.2 to 1.4 incidents per week each time she started her shift. None of the other 37 staff memebers are anywhere near these figures. And this is before you get to all the other evidence stacked against her.
If you mean the CQC -they aren't worthy of any kudos. They aren't good at remaining impartial.
No, I don't agree. I don't think there were any dishonourable actors here, just people who were (if I'm right) honestly mistaken.
Clown shoes
10:55 If the notes were viewed as a confession that means they were viewed as being true. If that was the case, then the fact she also wrote 'I am innocent' is also true.
Good point.
@@John-p7i5g I agree, I’ve used this form of therapy - stream of consciousness almost, getting it all out of your brain. It works, such a good way of processing emotions and thoughts. It’s like having a conversation with the harshest devil’s advocate. No way it should be in evidence unless the process is explained and all of it submitted (and even then it shouldn’t imo)
I agree that the handwritten notes shouldn't be viewed as a confession. For all we know, the home practice from a therapy session may have been for the patient suffering from anxiety to 'write down how you feel that others may view you'. The result of this could be for any patient to write 'I am a bad person', 'I do not deserve to live', 'I am evil' etc. In Lucy's case, this could be extended to 'I killed those babies' etc.
My ex-partner and I both suffer with our mental health. I know that it wouldn't be unusual for her to contact parents of children that were in her care, which is against her employer's policies and seems 'abnormal' to outsiders. This is an indication of her mental health struggles, not that she was involved in harming the children.
👍🏼
Not quite sure how you work that out? That certainly does not follow.
I have been a police detective for 40 years + and still working. I don't know the case, not worked on it. It is my understanding that there are no direct witnesses to any of the murders. That there is no CCTV evidence filming any of the murders, that there is no forensic evidence proving Letby's guilt in the murders and that there is no admissions to any of the crimes. The evidence is all circumstantial to my knowledge. I know people who work in the NHS in Chester and they have grave doubts as to Letby's guilt.
She felt guilty as evidenced in her "confession notes". However that was advised by mental health experts for her to write down her feelings. I too suspect she is innocent
@@aodh5966 Lucy Letby did not state during either police interviews or during court that she had been advised to write down her feelings. She stated that she had been referred to occupational health and given antidepressants. She also stated that her habit of writing down these notes was self-motivated most of the time, to process her feelings. She also said that she had not shown anyone those notes.
So you agree there were murders...
(By the way, it's fascinating how many anonymous TH-cam commenters are police detectives *and* know people in Chester in the NHS.)
@@Musicienne-DAB1995 that's what's come out in the past 24-48 hours and was on mainstream media. They don't indicate that she's a murderer, you can feel guilt and you've done wrong when you haven't. Like kids that blame themselves for a parental breakup
@@aodh5966 What has come out in the mainstream media contradicts Lucy Letby's own statements during police interview and her own defence in court. Evidently, the latter is more trustworthy than the former, which came from an anonymous source who, if she was convinced that these notes would help Letby's case, ought to have volunteered to testify for the former neonatal nurse.
Whenever anybody talks about 'conspiracy theorists', they lose all credibility. What on earth does that mean ! It's very lazy thinking.
Well there are people on TikTok who make money out of it by doctoring footage, using old footage with new. i believe that is what they meant about no live streaming of the inquiry.
I could be wrong, but I still do not buy that LL is guilty.
thanks goodness that the real experts voices are now being heard, and why on earth were these experts not called at the original trial
60 deaths happened in total, Letby was only found guilty of 7 - so what killed the others ?
There were 17 deaths she was investigated for, 10 deaths she was not present for, of the 7 she was convicted for, we now know the swipe data was false and the witness Dr J, could not have seen her with the patient as he claimed.
60? Really
@@mjowsey If you had watched the video, that is the number that the professor of statistics said, and i have seen it elsewhere.
That's a great sad but true bullet point.
Most peculiar and worrying how the prosecution team was allowed cherry pick deaths for trial.
No expert here but I read in the paper Letby was assigned the most serious cases, that could skew the statistics by a lot.
One of my concerns about this case is that it is almost imposssible for Lucy Letby to have attempted to harm the neonates in the way decribed by the prosecutions. The actual environment is being ignored.This was a small, overcrowded unit with high staff levels - supposedly one nurse to each baby in one ward and at least two in the other wards. It is just unbelievable that she would not have been observed. To describe the "notes" as a confession is a deliberate deceptive practice - they are not.
You have not accounted for the fact that the sudden collapses almost always took place when other nurses, the doctors, and even parents, had left the designated nurseries.
@@Musicienne-DAB1995 Many of the supposed methods required preparation, equipment and time to perform them - staff movement is unpredictable. It beggars belief that she could manage to do this a number of times without detection. I spent nearly 40 years working in hospitals so this just does not ring true.
@@Musicienne-DAB1995Not all of them. Lucy must have been quite the magician in most of these cases.
@@francishooper9548 also, despite the complicated manner in which Lucy is accused of harming the babies, there's no evidence of her ever having researched how to do so despite the police having performed detailed searches of her internet history.
@@Musicienne-DAB1995 the CPS has admitted the door swipe data was incorrect. It can't be trusted. There's no evidence that Lucy ever harmed anyone. No eye witnesses, no history of harmful behaviour or of Lucy researching any of the unusual methods that Evans claimed she used. Methods that neonatologists have dismissed as impossible.
There are far too many unanswered questions in this case. Nobody should be facing life in prison because lawyers and a jury don't understand statistics.
Among the questions that really bugs me is, why was the opinion of a retired pediatrician, who's evidence at another trial was described by the court as "worthless", be considered valid and overrule post mortems when "SIX of the seven babies who Letby was convicted of murdering had a post-mortem examination conducted at the regional centre of excellence - Alder Hey Children’s Hospital - by one of three experienced, paediatric / perinatal pathologists. In five, the pathologist certified one or more “natural” causes of death and in one the cause was certified as “unascertained” but was not categorised as “unnatural”."?
Because of concerns by consultant paediatricians which were then borne out by Xrays and medical test results. For example, in at least two of the cases, Xray results showed air bubbles in the great vessels, and experts discounted those bubbles could have arisen from post-mortem decomposition. The bubbles were present while the child was alive. In two other cases, liver damage akin to that of a car crash was noted. Then there was the lack of C-peptide noted in blood test results, but owing to the complexity of those tests, the significance of this information hadn't been noted at the time.
You're obviously not qualified to speak on this, around half of the causes of eonatal deaths are never understood for many reasons. That hospital ward was substandard, the technique used by doctors and nurses wasn't good enough.
@@Musicienne-DAB1995 Why didn't these consultant paediatricians report their concerns to the Child Death Overview Panel or the Coroner?
And if cause of death can be determined by looking at X-rays and doing medical tests why have post mortems?
I would have thought liver damage akin to a car crash would be picked up at post mortem.
The laboratory that carried out the blood tests has said if synthetic insulin is suspected the sample should be referred to a more specialist laboratory as their test could not detect this. There is simply no evidence any baby was poisoned with insulin.
You do realise that the medical evidence presented at the trial has been so thoroughly discredited by medical experts including consultant neonatologists it almost looks as if Evans plucked it out of thin air.
For a good overview of how and why the babies died I'd recommend Dr Michael McConville's podcasts: The Other Side of Lucy Letby.
@@ruthbashford3176 I cannot answer your first question, but I can refer you to the trial transcripts for details of what I have said. I believe the liver damage was picked up during post-mortem, if my recollection of the transcripts is correct. I did listen to an interview with Dr. Gibbs, who explained how and why the insulin test results were missed. You are incorrect to say that there's no evidence of insulin poisoning. The lackof C-peptide indicated that the insulin was synthetic, and the prosecution explained during the trial how they proposed the TPN bags had been spiked by Letby, who had access both to the bags and to the synthetic insulin. The prosecution also quoted from Lucy Letby's own police interview, where her answers indicated that she knew how the insulin would have entered the baby's body. She kept asking police, and I quote, "Have you got the bag?" Furthermore, there's the rather damning fact that Lucy Letby herself accepted that the babies had been poisoned by insulin, but suggested that it wasn't her. I am afraid that the medical evidence has not been thoroughly discredited; both the catastrophic liver damage noted in Child O and Child P, as well as the air bubbles in the great vessels noted on X-rays, have not been mentioned by any of the experts that I've listened to, Professor Hutton included.
@@Musicienne-DAB1995 It was Lucy's Lawyer who accepted the babies had been injected with Insulin - this meant Lucy had to accept it too.
But the required test to see if they had been injected, was never performed.
Their quick recovery has other experts asking if they were injected.
It's such an unsafe conviction. Her defence lawyers were awful. Her counsellor told her to write down those thoughts and feelings on paper and encouraged her to say those things. The hospital was known to be understaffed and overworked. It's just such a huge mistake to convict this poor girl. As for the families being upset about people's thoughts on the unsafe conviction they need to wake up and realise that they're responsible for putting away an innocent girl for life just so they can have 'closure'. It's a giant mess and I guarantee she'll be released eventually and it'll be overturned. Just takes such a long time. We all have to put aside our emotions and do the right thing for everyone involved.
We can't know she is innocent...but I certainly am utterly convinced that the conviction was unsound. It MUST be taken up again.
@holymoley1920 this. It's not a certainty that she is guilty.
@@teknix314 Exactly.
How do you explain similar events at the other hospital where she worked? Coincidence? I think NOT.
Anyone here like to take a guess as to the amount of compensation LL will get?
The statisticians should be satisfied the statistical evidence is correct before it is presented as evidence, it's hard to comprehend why this was not done.
Would we trust Lawyers to make the calculations involved in building a bridge without the approval of an engineer qualified in the field of bridge building?
Apparently yes.
People - not just lawyers and jurors - believe that they have an innate understanding of statistics and probability. In fact, much of these subjects is extremely counter-intuitive. Like the Monty Hall problem.
@@BenjWarrant
Yes indeed. Also, the Prosecutor's fallacy is quite prevalent in this particular case.
The prosecution did rely on their own expert witness to comment on the statistical evidence. The problem is that the evidence of that witness appears to have been flawed (as identified in this video), and Letby’s team does not seem to have had the knowledge and understanding to identify those flaws and counter them in the course of the trial.
@@McChes
The expert witness who was not an expert, in other words the evidence was never checked by an authority on medical statistics.
Dr Dewi Evan's an expert witness, whose evidence when presented in an unrelated civil case was described as “worthless” by the senior judge Lord Justice Peter Jackson.
How the heck can more experienced / esteemed experts than those in the courtroom be 'conspiracy theorists'. It makes absolutely no sense. People at one time said the same about the post office scandal!
Mr. Rozenberg said that he is not referring to experts as conspiracy theorists.
@@Musicienne-DAB1995 yeah, but he did labour the point. He knew that by doing so he would cast doubt. He's a lawyer.
As a lawyer, I appreciate this discussion about the statistical evidence used. I had great concerns during the trial and since, and I firmly believe a statistician should have been called and without one, the evidence is lacking.
I also agree. But if none will testify because of career for example?
I am an experienced statement analysis expert. It would be revealing to see her written statements.
@recruitmenttips And would these be admissible do you think or not?
@@ScruffyTubbles sometimes, it also allows accurate questions to be asked and gives a highly accurate result of whether deception is present.
@recruitmenttips And you understand why the rule against hearsay was devised over 100s of years?
Beyond reasonable doubt is the law , so if there is reasonable doubt she is entitled to it
Of course, she was not convicted of five counts, and was directly acquitted of two, so one cannot act as though the jury were hasty in their decisions.
I agree, the more I read about this conviction the more concerned I am about it's validity. I'm not saying she isn't guilty, just that the evidence used to convict her seems flawed.
Beyond reasonable doubt of the jury, not a bunch of random simps on the internet.
Good question. I know "beyond reasonable doubt" is s standard used in the American system, but I wonder if it is also used in the British system.
@@Dogfacedbloke If neonatal experts and forensic scientists don't agree and only a very finite number of people in the world are qualified to make this judgement, how can a jury?
From experience of lawyers, the money holds more attraction for them than actually finding the truth.
From her new lawyer :“Secondly, they rely upon on technical expert evidence to look back in hindsight... let’s take Lucy Letby for example, everything was seen as a natural cause, every death was seen as natural, there were numerous post mortems and all came back as normal deaths, and years later an expert gets into a witness box and says ‘well, I think this is how that person died, there is no direct evidence against her in relation of harming the patients’.
Exactly ... and he wasn't an expert ... said so himself in court. He was a long retired doctor with no forensic or scientific experience.
I have serious concerns as I don’t think her guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
No it wasn’t proven beyond reasonable doubt. It’s not about looking guilty
@@HellORhighwaters "beyond reasonable doubt" has nothing to do with looking guilty and about how much can be proven and they didn't prove much of anything at Ms Letby's trial.
Her defence team were useless. Her main mistake was not consulting the TH-cam comment lawyers.
@stevemccarron9469 Err....nice try but whitty comments usually have to be whitty....and make sense.
@stevemccarron9469 Again, 8/10 for effort. But didn't quite hit the mark. Never mind rainy face, your mum is still proud.
Don’t think you should be rating anyone else’s banter little lad… you need some sunlight on that skin.
Did you write the same hysterical “TH-cam comment lawyers” comment in the *Lucy Letby is 110% guilty* echo-chamber comment section? Ofc you did…
Seems you’re lacking that sweet self-awareness ay ‘Rusty’?
Having been in the centre of an NHS staff cover up, I am in absolutely no doubt her verdict is unsafe.
The jury convicted not on the basis of truth but what the procecution led them to believe. Now that the damage is done nobody can give this nurse her good name and charachter back.
I was concerned right from the start , I'm old enough to remember what happened to Sally Clark and Lindy Chamberlain . So called experts aren't always perfect.
Nhs scapecoat
The girl is innocent. Let her out ffs
I remember this narrative with Myra Hindley.
In Cases like this The Jury should not be made up of Joe Blogs off The Street, The Jury should of been made from random Professionals, Man on the street does not understand all the medical Jargon, they only understand the pitchfork Prosecution and Probability of guilt.
The initial jury spent over 100 hours deliberating all the technical evidence.
@@Musicienne-DAB1995 The jury heard flawed evidence
I disagree. It is the prosecution task to provide the evidence to the jury ie
to the understanding of the common man. If any of the jurors are in any doubt then the prosecution has not proved its case and a verdict of not guilty is found. I believe therefore that by not having randomly selected members of the public forming the Jury - our freedoms and protection would be at enormous risk.
@@ruthbashford3176 That is your own opinion. There's a lot of strong circumstantial evidence against Lucy Letby that none of the doubters have even acknowledged.
@@Musicienne-DAB1995 A jury is composed of laymen ... plumbers, accountants, shop workers ... unlikely to have any medical experience. They are therefore entirely reliant on the medical experts presentation. If they are presented with incomplete or flawed evidence, how can they reach a reliable verdict ?
Lucy Letby's trial had many aspects of a "show trial". The number of accusations. The length of the process. The paucity of solid evidence. Do also watch the TH-cam video from the Cheshire Police. I don't remember in it seeing anyone question Lucy's guilt or try to find alternative explanations for the deaths of the babies. A lot is made of
support for the bereaved families by the caring police.
That video from the police is strange
Don't forget the judge showboating by broadcasting his sentencing. Very media driven and unprofessional IMO.
This was a complete joke, there was no evidence she did anything other than work long hours…
This was an outrageous and egregious prosecution.you cant take someone to the highest court in the land without evidence or witnesses,your defense team hax no defense,you challenge any evidence because there is none ,and you cant cross examine any witnesses because there are none.how on earth can you defend yourself,just sit and think about that for one minute,try and defend yourself in your own mind.your only option is to say I'm innocent, appalling and indefensible judiciary must be taken to task over this.
If she was black or Asian you would never say that about a murderess of helpless babies
Check the YT channel: "Crime scene 2 courtroom" for an accurate information.
NHS management and a lot of Doctors are full of Liars, she needs new legal People the case as always been unsafe both times, Lucy sue those who have thrown you under a bus to free their own self's from guilt, This case is a scapegoat case for the Hospital, she I read had reported to the Hospital things were not right and that alone would ruffle their feathers
When I first saw this case, and I am aware I did not witness the trial. I felt very uncomfortable that a whole life order was issued based on circumstantial evidence. I know that members of my family felt the same. The problem is that it’s such a sensitive topic - the crime of killing babies is one of the most deplorable acts ever, hence most people will hold a connection to having children and be biased. When I discussed it with anyone they would be utterly convinced that they had proven the case beyond reasonable doubt, and often they would say that the notes were a literal confession. I always saw them as a person with dark thoughts and mental health problems writing this down to process… the statements contradict as well. If someone is gaslit they begin to believe it themselves. So, when it turns out a therapist had said to do this I was angry that this was not explained in court.
The data, other evidence can be interpreted in such a subjective way. I dunno. I feel awful for the families if I am wrong. But we must ask questions of these things. This is the reason why the death penalty was rightly stopped.
Very well put and I would agree persons (i.e the jury) just take her notes in context. There's another video here with Time Radio where we get to see the notes and what she wrote before what is quoted is very, very relevant; it puts the whole "confession" aspect seriously in question.
Never believed for a single second that this lassie was guilty 😢
She is
Check out HG Tudor's analysis of her. I've been raised by a sadistic narcissistic mother, I know exactly how they function
Using statistics is foolhardy to prosecute someone. Ramblings, whether in voice or writing are not an admission from a mental health patient, who is full of doubt and woe.
Both Lucy Letby's notes and the shift chart were only dwelt on briefly during the trial. The majority of the case agianst Letby dwelt on the circumstantial evidence backed by multiple independent medical expert witnesses who were, of course, cross-examined by the defence.
@@Musicienne-DAB1995 They were not independent medical experts, they were employed by the prosecution. Dr Dewi Evans was a long retired, discredited paediatrician who should NEVER have been employed as an expert witness.
Lucy's defence was abysmal as no expert medical witnesses were called and Myers even agreed with the prosecution that babies had been poisoned with insulin when there was no evidence for this.
Listen to courtroom2
@@Musicienne-DAB1995 Who chose these 'experts' ? The CPS, the Police, Dr Evans ? Were these the only experts approached ? Or did they approach more and then choose the ones they wanted ? Did these 'experts' do their own independent research, which came to the same conclusions as Dr Evans ? Or, were they sent Dr Evans reports first ? Dr Jayaram was saying that the babies died of air embolism in June 2016, quoting a paper from 1989 by Dr Shoo Lee. Dr Evans said exactly the same thing two years later. Coincidence ? Or did they discuss it ? Neither doctor had any experience of air embolism and Dr Shoo Lee has said that they misinterpreted his work and in his opinion the rashes they observed were not indicative of air embolism.
I've been suspicious since I first read about what the prosecutions case was, but even so I was not aware that these doodling pages were created by Letby after she was arrested and charged at the suggestion of the therapist who was dealing with Letby's profound mental stress at the accusations made against her.
For any enquiry to start off with the presumption that the person is guilty is totally wrong..
She was found guilty at jury trial. She is legally guilty. The purpose of the inquiry is not to re-litigate the trial.
They have no choice but to take the verdict as correct, the purpose is not to retry the case.
@@arfurascii2232 Do you want the enquiry to look at the conditions and culture in the hospital with one eye closed then ? She would not be the first person to be found guilty by a jury and later found innocent... Juries are very fallible - they often have little understanding of the medical and statistical evidence and can be mislead by a decent prosecution team... No smoking gun was ever found, all circumstantial evidence and also also of the 61 babies that died in the period, they all had post mortem investigations and were all 'natural causes ( these were very sick babies to start with in that ward, very premature births ) Letby was found guilty of 7 deaths on purely circumstantial evidence. The hospital and that baby unit had already failed care commission inspections, the hospital water system was contaminated by Pseudomonas. After Letby was suspended the hospital no longer accepted any critical cases - no wonder the survival rate improved. This is the scapegoating of a junior nurse to protect the hospital admin and senior doctors... A witch hunt
@@chrissmith2114 Do you feel better now?
@@arfurascii2232 I will feel better when Letby gets a fair trial.... not before.
The police and CPS have spent £ tens of millions on this case in order to get a conviction. There not going to back down or review this case. Imagine the criticism. Poor lucy and others
Being troubled by her conviction doesn’t make a person a conspiracy theorist. I despise that term so much. Our justice system is not infallible, juries have sentenced innocent people to prison before on the evidence shown. No one doubts the effort the jury made, nor that the decision they made was wrong based on what they were presented. It’s the evidence that’s being questioned.
If I were a juror and hearing the experts question things I’d be mortified tbh. I hope they are ok and supported.
I listened to the Daily Mail reporting on the case on TH-cam and I felt the defence didn't even seem to try to defend Lucy, which was baffling. It wasn't reported that they offered up alternative explanations eg for the post it notes. I thought they must think she is guilty too as they're hardly trying to prove otherwise.
💯 a miscarriage of justice!
When a learned professional comes out and makes allusions to conspiracy theories from those he wishes to discredit, his argument, akin to a strawman logical fallacy, becomes null and void.
As a lawyer, I appreciate this discussion about the statistical evidence used. I had great concerns during the trial and since, and I firmly believe a statistician should have been called and without one, the evidence is lacking. I’d even go so far as to say statistics should not be evidence without a respected statistician.
I have to say, I lean more to the female Saltation's arguments than the male on the otherside who seemed to care more about legal letter of the law than finding the actual truth of what happened. When the "rules" are more important than the truth, bad things like "wrongful convictions" are more the norm than the exception. This has been proven many times in Canada and even more so in the USA. The "adversarial" style in courts are fine..... AS LONG as the prosecutors fallow a high moral standard and fallow the rules with integrity. Which in many cases because of their "egos" and incentives to win out way the actual importance of finding the truth. So many "wrongful" convictions happen because of political pressure to find someone to blame, anyone will do, They don't care about finding the actual criminal, they just care about finding someone to blame and convict. Hiding evidence, bending the rules is all fine and dandy for them as long as they look good in the public eye!!!!!!!!
If there were a bacterial por viral infection going around at the time this could have been a major factor.
She Is Not Proven Guilty !!
It is clear that opinion is greatly divided as to the reliability of the verdict in the Lucy Letby case. The outcome is being questioned not only by the general public, but by lawyers, medical professionals and even politicians. Despite the court of appeals ruling, clearly, many questions have gone unanswered and we all know that many judges are too old, do not live in the real world and are 'past there best before date'.
This case needs to be thoroughly investigated and whilst that is happening (and no matter how long it takes), Lucy Letby should be released from prison and placed under house arrest.
@@controversialrebel5639 Agreed, at this point it’s beyond her guilt or innocence and everything to do with the reliability of evidence. When so many are nervous of the verdict and the whole life tariff something has to be done.
Honestly, I had doubts about the conviction. She may have been an overzealous nurse, we have those in social care, they want to take every case to court.
The simple answer to whether she is guilty or not is to ask yourself, if we still had the death penalty, is there enough clear evidence to sentence her using this form of punishment?
The sewage problems in the unit may have been responsible.
For insulin?
In what respect?
@@janlittle2148 There is no evidence of insulin being administered without prescription to any of the neonates. The accusation of insulin poisoning was raised months after the events because at th time they were accepted as being caused naturally. The tests necessary to determine if artifical insulin was present were not done. There was at least one other incident of this type recorded on this unit according to the NYT article but Lucy Letby was not accused of administering this. Neonates can have unexpected production of natural insulin without a known reason. The suggestion was that she injected insulin into iv bags in the store room so these "attacks" could not have been targeted. As far as I know there has been no suggestion that any insulin ws missingfrom the ward stores.
I heard that vampires were spotted in the area at the time also. Concerning.
@@stephenkane1074 yes she is named Lucifer Letby
I thank everybody for trying to get the truth out - The poor girl is innocent !!!!
Statistics are open to interpretation depending on what you wish to support, or oppose! As Henry Ford said “there are lies, damn lies and statistics”
She's convicted to life in prison solely using circumstantial evidence and faulty statistical arguments? And the verdict is even confirmed by appeal court? That doesn't seem to be fair.
Jury trials are not fair trials, to convict someone of a crime you need HARD evidence that is scientific not feelings by people.
I agree. Unfortunately, the reality is that circumstantial evidence gets convictions
@@roseh1132 Whatever happened to the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty ? Circumstantial evidence does not constitute proof, hence the major miscarriages of justice that have occurred recently.
@FINEFELINE333, yep, this is how the standard of proof should work
I'd have thought the best people to say whether a death was expected or not would have been the consultants - but we already know they were only doing 2/3 ward rounds a week. My question then is the validity and accuracy of the description of thise babies that died / deteriorated on the 4/5 days the consultants hadn't seen the baby with their own eyes (as opposed to determining from notes etc.)
The consultants were directly involved in resuscitation.
The statistitians tell us that there was no inexplicable rise in deaths or serious deteriorations.
@@Musicienne-DAB1995 But there were 4/5 days a week when they would not have seen the babies during the lead up to the point of resuscitation. Relying on notes and more junior interpretations is not the same as a ward round.
@@Musicienne-DAB1995 Why then weren't the consultants included in the spreadsheet ? The junior doctors, the cleaners, visitors ?
@@KingBee24 I don't know the answer to that, but presumably the nurses spent more time with the babies in shifts, with consultants coming round periodically to check on progress.
Killer or scape goat for organisation behaviour ???
Nonsense l stop jumping on the tend
Killer using her race and looks to escape detection
@@roseanncampbell3168 who escaped detection?
@@MGJS71 you know she was doing the same thing at Liverpool hospital right? Escaped detection at Chester too and when they got suspicious they still didn't believe it. A black or Asian nurse would not get that, facts
@@roseanncampbell3168 that's your opinion ... if you really believe it.
The fact they are gonna ignore the other dearhs they cant stich lucy up for is absurd. Pretend it didnt happen?
The other deaths were not unexplained, sudden or unexpected and they happened when Lucy Letby wasn’t on duty
@joycejnn u realize the murders she's in prison for were autopsies and found to be natural causes during autopsies, right? She's in prison based on theories and hypothetical nomsense from someone who is not even a neo natal expert nevemind a medical examiner
@@joycejnn The deaths of the babies Lucy was supposed to have murdered were not unexplained because they had post mortems which found they died from natural causes.
Like the doctor at Gosport hospital. 605 killed.
@@ruthbashford3176 That's not sufficient, because you're discounting the X-ray evidence, the evidence of liver damage, and the insulin result evidence. You're also discounting the fact that the babies did not respond normally to resuscitation attempts, or sometimes they dramatically recovered from resuscitation attempts without explanation, only to then suffer further collapses. All of this indicates that although doctors were unable to explain *why* these collapses were happening, this was so far out of the norm.
The game of "You are Lucy Letby" allows you to experience for yourself the questionable statistics that helped convict Lucy Letby.
Here is how it works.
There are four players, and the game has six rounds known as "baby deaths". For each baby death, each player tosses a coin. If the coin comes up heads, the player is deemed to be "on shift" for that baby death. Keep track of the score and at the end, identify the player who was on shift for the most baby deaths. This player is the "suspect". If the suspect was not on shift for some of the baby deaths, those baby deaths are deemed "non-suspicious" and are ignored. Finally, all the other players point at the suspect and say, "You were on shift for every baby death! You are Lucy Letby!"
While this game does not reproduce the exact statistics of Lucy Letby's case, it highlights some of the issues statisticians need to investigate, namely that, although it is unlikely any particular person was on shift for every death, it is quite likely that *someone* would be, and it is even easier to find such a person if you pick and choose which deaths are to be considered significant.
Great explanation.
I'm an ex AnE nurse who's been around a bit.
This Stank From The Start .....
She's a Scapegoat and I truly believe this.
I've seen the Workings Inside the NHS and the Bosses Cannot Be Trusted !!!
Stiched up feel sorry for all parents much love
It's the parent of the babies she murdered who have been stitched up
was u in court to hear all the evidence then i take it?
the doctor suspected something as the babies all died as soon as she was on duty alone!
MSbP people are so devious.
Not true, she was found guilty of deaths that occurred when she wasn't there too. Seems she was able to employ delaying devices, they didn't have a theory of what they might be.
@@annereidy7981 she may have injected them with air like the other one did, or used low dose of potassium - killers are so devious.
@@rosewhite--- and? She still wasn't there when you claim she was! If you are wrong about that, then you aren't credible. Yes she may indeed have, but that may have, that's reasonable doubt right there.
Looking more and more like the prosecution was a lot more efficient than the defence ( or the judge ) in this case.
So why did she keep the same defense for the 2nd trial
I think twins and triplets would contract a bacterium from the tap water more easily, as they would be in incubators next to eachother.
As far as I am aware, premature babies are not given unsterilised tap water. So how would this suggestion come to pass?
@@Musicienne-DAB1995 Staff using the washing facilities to wash their hands between changing babies nappies?
When babies were improving they were removed from the "sealed" covered cots that were fed filtered air. Instead they were moved to open cots that had a canopy. There are so many complex aspects to this, the best thing is to get an independent panel of neonatalogists to exhaustively examine the expert testimony used by prosecution. That will not reflect kindly on Dr Evans.
@@MindbodyMedic Still does not explain how babies would be fed unsterilised tap water.
@@Musicienne-DAB1995 my god you really have no clue how infection works do you? Do you think water was how COVID spread?lol
Professor Hutton is calmly explaining the concerns of many.
Even as a non Brit and how their justice system works, The first day I watched a documentary about this case, I came to an immediate conclusion that she did not do it. I hope she gets exonerated and gets her apologies.
The statistics were a very small part of the prosecution. So much evidence against her it's insane.
These videos are killing me lol..statisticains!! Oh boy. Next time I'm on trial I'm calling a statician!! :P
Statistics were a huge part of her convictions that’s why 🙄
Scapegoated
show evidence then
Sounds like she should have been used as an 'expert witness', given her knowledge of medical statistics.
Rosenberg claiming Lucy hid notes under her bed is nonsense -she had a shredder she could have used.The refusal to have the inquiry livestreamed is in case something 'unhelpful' might leak out.
Can anyone answer the question that seems to be the elephant in the room. Was Lucy Letby on duty for the deaths for which she was NOT charged? Is this information in the public domain? And how many were there within that period that she was not charged with?
To answer you questions:
No.
Yes.
7.
@@Ron-Ayres Thank you. Can you tell me where I can find this please
@@Ron-Ayresmy understanding is that there's 10 suspicious deaths she was not present for. 7 deaths she was present for, although the errors in the swipe data means she was not in the unit when Dr J claimed she was.
That's what the statisticians are working on. They may not have final results for many months.
@@ralphstube It's not quite that simple (of course). She was charged in respect of deaths that occurred when she wasn't present, but suspected to have interfered when she had been on duty earlier.
'Hid under the bed' or "put/had/stored/found under the bed'. A great example of of how language is used to vilify someone.
There's no explaining why she gave them insulin. I appreciate the questions over stats but that is hard evidence
I wonder how different the investigation of the consultant orthopaedic surgeon from Great Ormond street hospital will be.
Has there been other unexplained deaths since her absence from the ward? If so maybe she was a scape goat. If not then the hospital might have learned and implemented progressive practices.
I hope she gets a retrial and the court allows evidence to be presented in the correct light.
Grasping at immaginary straws
There's actually no fire without a smoke but sometimes smoke without a fire.
So if there's a crime, there must be a lot solid of evidence leaving clues.
Circumstantial "evidence"/smoke does not prove the presence of fire.
I have no idea if she'd guilty or not but there has to be absolute no doubt for someone to be convicted.
So how do you account for the fact that the initial jury acquitted her of two charges, and were undecided on six (now down to five)?
@@Musicienne-DAB1995 You didn't get me?
I said if there is a crime there must be evidence. Yes? Circumstantial evidence (the smoke) doesn't necessarily proves crime/guilt, etc.
I think the whole thing has to be investigated again. And I don't know any of it to know for sure if she's guilty or not. Having doubt around evidence can let a criminal walk free and also acting on guesses and feelings can convict an innocent.
We need Kathleen Zellner.
Interesting word salad there, I bet you wouldn't say that if she was black or Asian though
@@headlesschicken99 Everybody knows there has to be evidence for a crime to be proven, so stating this is pointless. Circumstantial evidence used to convict someone obviously does prove that someone has committed a crime. And while you may believe the whole case requires re-investigation, you also concede that you 'don't know any of it' (presumably 'it' means the evidence). Could that, in fact, be the problem? You not knowing the case well enough leads you to make conclusions unfounded by fact, and to supplement that lack of knowledge by making broad and obvious statements that nobody is challenging?
Of course you are right. The postal workers would agree with you hands down.
These ppl jumping on the free lucy needs to get all the facts before putting their opinion forward.. where were u when it was being investigated ..
What difference would my location make?
exactly they didnt hear all the evidence but says shes innocent.
With a question on the statistics being invalid / dubious. The Josh guy says the Letby’s lawyers know better. Oh yes that’s right. Look at the Post Office inquiry. Solicitors, barristers & silks bent as butchers hooks. And of course there’s never, ever been any miscarriages of justice has there ? 🤔 stinks of a medical cover up to me ☹️
Wow, clusters that follow staff shift rotas.
She watched over babies as they struggled instead of taking action to help them. She stole their confidential documents hoch were supposed to be destroyed. She facebook stalked the parents and intruded on their privacy at the hospital. Give me a break. She did it.
Doctors do not do nursing practice. Those are two different disciplines. APPEARING to do nothing to someone not immersed in that discipline doesn't in fact, mean that they weren't acting in line with their standard protocol ie., such as waiting to see if a baby takes a breath on its own before requiring intubation or oxygen. By the way, no nurses, retired or otherwise were asked to be expert witnesses regarding Letby's nursing practice. Interesting that doctors were called to be expert witnesses in fields they actually didn't practice in though. 3. She had notes for many babies including many that lived and not including some of the babies she was accused of killing all stashed randomly in a bag. She simply put notes she forgot to remove home. I studied forensic psychology, and that is not trophism. There is no selectivity or particular desire to curate or preserve SPECIFIC notes. Plus these have to legally be burned or shredded. She was probably lazy getting round to it. I have two large bags of defunct bills and flyers with my address on sitting looking at me accusingly for 3 years now, intending to incinerate, that I will probably still not get round to until after Xmas. I'm not a serial killer yet. 3. She also facebooked parents she had no dealings with, she in fact used facebook a lot for other things. I don't even think she looked up all the parents. I've looked up my work colleagues' facebook. Am I serial killer too? It's actually not uncommon behaviour in the health service though, admittedly not professional behaviour. You have something akin to the witch hunts of centuries past here. A narrative made to fit a set of circumstances that can be rationally explained by other, far less exciting means. If Letby drowns she's a witch, and she's dead. If she survives she's still a witch anyway.
Really had enough of the annoying weatherby advert
NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Never go to hospital unless absolutely necessary as most don't come out again thanks to medical incompetence, pharmaceutical strangle hold on our Doctors & Government
If there were 17 deaths in the intensive care unit in 2015 and they speculated 7 of them to one nurse who worked more shifts.
Then it's worth considering that the majority of those are due to other causes which are being fundamentally overlooked.
A jury is there to simply weigh the evidence presented to them however biased that decision making through common fallacy may be.
The Jeane Dickson effect: The tendency we all have to read more significance into coincidences than is usually justified.
Absolutely. For people unfamiliar with Statistics, in the second sentence @maximosh is referring to what statisticians call "confounding factors". Statisticians have been trying to educate the judicial system on concepts such as these but (it seems) rather unsuccessfully.
Data Management is fundamental to discovering & following the path of truth.
Well done Times Radio, Mr. Rosenberg and Prof .Hutton for bringing a lot of clarification to this dreadful issue.
I was shocked to hear some indications that some people connected to the law practice do not recognize the role of statistics in the judicial process (although I was very impressed by the position by Mr. Rosenberg to the contrary).
Also, it seems the defense did not focus on the "diseased" ("unsafe" is the term used by Prof .Hutton) statistical conclusions made by the prosecution; which to me might be grounds for inadequate defense (is there such a concept in the British judicial system?).
Oh give it a rest.
Framed, to give a false explanation for things that are about to happen.
Given the English acute hospitals, not scots or welsh, not GPs, not Pharamicists, bump off 20,000 a year from errors, that's the problem.
They needed to include the error rate before calculating the odds. They didn't.
Another example, billion to 1 on DNA matches. What's the error rate in the lab? That swamps that. What about cross contamination? Swamps that again. What about planting of evidence is that 1 in a billion? Dream on.
u need to get a life mate
I pray that momentum is building, the case will be reviewed and that Lucy will be exonerated soon
I followed the case as much as I could and I believe her defence barrister was not good
I hope you are right saying that she did not do it
I've thought of a complex reasoning problem. The prosecutor's fallacy is a form of logical fallacy. It consists of assuming, incorrectly, that the probability of guilt given a particular set of evidence is the same thing as the probability of a particular set of evidence given guilt. Those two concepts are actually separate. For example, if a prosecutor says to a defendant, "There was a study of 5000 guilty people who definitely committed this type of crime - they were convicted and eventually acknowledged their guilt. Here is an evidentiary feature that appeared in 99.9 percent of those 5000 people. Your case has that feature. Therefore there is a 99.9 percent probability that you are guilty." That is not true. The 99.9 percent statistic is based on knowing for certain that people are guilty. It is irrelevant to a situation where guilt is uncertain. It can't be used to resolve uncertainty about guilt because it only applies to situations where there is no uncertainty about guilt. Discuss the ways in which the Countess of Chester Hospital paediatricians' allegations against Lucy Letby, the police investigation into Lucy Letby, the trial of Lucy Letby, and the UK media coverage of the Lucy Letby story illustrate the logical fallacy known as the prosecutor's fallacy.
The enquiry will address the verdict as it examines what led to the excess deaths there. It might be depending on what evidence emerges suspicions Letby is innocent grow during the course of it.
She doesn’t appear to protest to much .
How much compensation would the trust have been instructed to pay the victims families if the outcome of the trial had been different.
I can only assume its a lot more.
What an admirable hero Jane Hutton is
I feel sorry for the parents of these babies that passed away… it must be hard not knowing who is to actually blame.
If it were me, I would categorically want to know who’s at fault, don’t think I could despise Letby just because I was told to… I’d want actual proof.
I’m looking forward to seeing the full transcripts of the trial, I believe they are quoted £100,000 for them.
Anyone in that hospital feel this way, that she is not guilty? Write below ⬇️
3 people in my family (all work in a hospital in different clinical roles) and they all believe she needs a retrial.
They don’t believe she’s innocent though… more that she needs to proven guilty (if she is) with objective evidence.
I also believe that^ but I work in primary care not secondary care so I don’t qualify lol.
Great 👍 interview 😮
Enlightening knowledge 😮
Jesus, wasnt there more evidence than just stats? Seems more like people cannot xome to terms with the fact a normal looking woman could ever do this awful thing....
No.. there is no more evidence than stats.. none at all.. except the word of one person who has changed their evidence 3 times and is in a position where their negligence could lead to charges being brought against them..
The problem with statistics being presented to people with no more Stats background than Yr 8 Probability, is that they don't understand what the data points mean, how the data set was collected, which statistical tools were used etc.
@@PaulaXism You are incorrect, madam. There were Xrays that showed air bubbles in the great vessels, blood test results showing high levels of insulin without the composite C-peptide the body produces, consistent observations from numerous consultant paediatricians and nurses as to unusual rashes that appeared and disappeared on the bodies of numerous babies, witnesses to Lucy Letby standing over incubators at the time of collapses (and, according to the mother of Child E and Child F, not doing anything to help), Lucy Letby's consistent habit of entering false medical information onto medical charts and nursing notes, Lucy Letby's theft of confidential documents from secure bins and taking them home, and more.
You're sick for even trying to run with this.
If it is obviously a travesty, did her defence point this out during the trial?