[News] Lucy Letby

[The Optimist]

the crucial question is why people started looking at the deaths to lead to anyone being suspected in the first place. the post match stats analysis saying half the deaths are ignored is missing the point that 1 person present for ~40% of deaths is, at the very least, extraordinarily unlikely. and present for several other anomolies in child care. and no one else suspected for those others cases. it is all rather circumstantial, and lacking real evidence, the case revolved around that. bottom line is there was murder, negligence, or a statistical freak. a lot of very expert people investigated and thought it was at very least one of the first two, the post match analysis seems to have fixed on the latter.

The high level of deaths and an at least unlikely number occurring when Letby was on duty started the process. The problem with this is is with something like 500,000 doctors or nurses working in the NHS the chances are 1 or 2 will be associated with an unlikely number of deaths.

It’s a bit like a DNA match being 1 in a million could be viewed as there’s about 60-70 other people in the country who could be a match. Therefore if arrested on suspicion of a crime and then you’re a 1 in a million DNA match then the evidence is quite compelling. But if you start with a DNA match from a database and no other link to the crime the evidence is not very compelling.

That’s probably a poor analogy and the articles in this link explain it much better.

Special Report: The Lessons of the Lucy Letby Case

After Lucy Letby was convicted in August 2023 of murdering seven babies, a number of experts contacted Eye columnist MD because they

www.private-eye.co.uk

 

[The Optimist]

That is a strange read however, using some very biased and emotive language. I suppose it wasn't intended to be balanced, but as a result, I'm not sure it gives all that much insight into the case tbh.

Absolutely agree with this. I didn’t finish reading it because it came across as so biased.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

It is a very toxic hospital all over

Countess of Chester: Chairman plotted to oust hospital boss - tribunal

The chairman of the trust conspired with others to remove Dr Susan Gilby from her job, a judge ruled.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[1066familyman]

Absolutely agree with this. I didn’t finish reading it because it came across as so biased.

I suppose the author is only arguing a case.

Unfortunately, amid the numerous details and enlightening information, there is so much biased language that I found it just weakened his case.

 

[1066familyman]

Could Lucy Letby be innocent? David Davis vs Christopher Snowdon​

Youtube interview with Christopher Snowdon who wrote the Spiked Online article

Wow!

Christopher Snowdon is doing his argument no favours here is he!

He's opening gambit is pretty astonishing!

 

[Bodian]

I've followed Private Eye's reports on this - and it does seem to me as though there are some questions that have been raised fairly - and need proper inspection. One of the things I have found interesting though is how the press have depicted her.

The photo they use is almost invariably this one

I was surprised when one article used one her looking happy. And then a few others questioning the decision used ones of her looking happy and in care of a baby.

Is this some sort of deliberate or subconscious decision by the media to say 'she's been found guilty of murder, therefore we must use a photo of her that portrays her as people might expect her to be'? But some of the articles now questioning the decisions have chosen images that portray her in a happier light?

And that raises the question of how much we ourselves are subconsciously impacted upon by the images others choose for us to see.

 

[Happy Exile]

I've followed Private Eye's reports on this - and it does seem to me as though there are some questions that have been raised fairly - and need proper inspection. One of the things I have found interesting though is how the press have depicted her.

The photo they use is almost invariably this one
View attachment 196901

I was surprised when one article used one her looking happy. And then a few others questioning the decision used ones of her looking happy and in care of a baby.
View attachment 196902 View attachment 196903 View attachment 196904 View attachment 196905 View attachment 196906

Is this some sort of deliberate or subconscious decision by the media to say 'she's been found guilty of murder, therefore we must use a photo of her that portrays her as people might expect her to be'? But some of the articles now questioning the decisions have chosen images that portray her in a happier light?

And that raises the question of how much we ourselves are subconsciously impacted upon by the images others choose for us to see.

I’ve read somewhere before that studies have shown that men who commit murder (or are suspected) are typically presented as intent on harm…while women will often be portrayed as actually evil. There’s something in the breaking of societal norms and gender expectations too, and part of that means male criminals will be presented in typical male roles while female criminals won’t be portrayed in female roles. I think it’s probably a bit deliberate to sensationalise but is also so “normal” in media that it’s probably a bit subconscious too.

 

[1066familyman]

I've followed Private Eye's reports on this - and it does seem to me as though there are some questions that have been raised fairly - and need proper inspection. One of the things I have found interesting though is how the press have depicted her.

The photo they use is almost invariably this one
View attachment 196901

I was surprised when one article used one her looking happy. And then a few others questioning the decision used ones of her looking happy and in care of a baby.
View attachment 196902 View attachment 196903 View attachment 196904 View attachment 196905 View attachment 196906

Is this some sort of deliberate or subconscious decision by the media to say 'she's been found guilty of murder, therefore we must use a photo of her that portrays her as people might expect her to be'? But some of the articles now questioning the decisions have chosen images that portray her in a happier light?

And that raises the question of how much we ourselves are subconsciously impacted upon by the images others choose for us to see.

This is a quite interesting video about media bias on the case.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I think we have a legal system that is adversarial in its basis - rather than being focussed on investigation and finding the truth, its about one side proving the other wrong by weight of argument. This one is a particularly troubling case.

We DOnhave a legal system that is adversarial in its basis.
I’m no expert on the matter, but the French system of having a “juge d’instruction” seems much more sensible, where a judge actually is involved in the investigation process, stuff being referred to him/her to see whether there is sufficient solid evidence and so on. This is only gleaned from watching a couple of excellent French Crime things over the years, notably Spiral (Engrenages in French).

and a lot of the expert evidence on which Letby was convicted seems to have been brought in to question and the expert discredited, even to the extent of questioning the causes of death cited. Yes, I’ve read a lot about it in Private Eye, too.

 

[Eeyore]

I've followed Private Eye's reports on this - and it does seem to me as though there are some questions that have been raised fairly - and need proper inspection. One of the things I have found interesting though is how the press have depicted her.

The photo they use is almost invariably this one
View attachment 196901

I was surprised when one article used one her looking happy. And then a few others questioning the decision used ones of her looking happy and in care of a baby.
View attachment 196902 View attachment 196903 View attachment 196904 View attachment 196905 View attachment 196906

Is this some sort of deliberate or subconscious decision by the media to say 'she's been found guilty of murder, therefore we must use a photo of her that portrays her as people might expect her to be'? But some of the articles now questioning the decisions have chosen images that portray her in a happier light?

And that raises the question of how much we ourselves are subconsciously impacted upon by the images others choose for us to see.

It's a valid point. I also wonder that she is white, pretty and from a middle class background that sways some sympathy too. Folk will deny it, but it's a sub conscious human trait.

The fact is, most people who are commentating on this case are doing so without medical expertise or the full facts. I haven't got a clue if she is innocent or not. Only she knows.

 

[jcdenton08]

How does that work then?
The sooner we get an A.I. jury the better.

What?

 

[Algernon]

What?

Which bit?

 

[Eeyore]

Which bit?

I think it's forgotten that AI is created by human hands and is with much fault.

 

[jcdenton08]

Which bit?

AI doesn’t work the way you think it does.

 

[marlowe]

I think we have a legal system that is adversarial in its basis - rather than being focussed on investigation and finding the truth, its about one side proving the other wrong by weight of argument. This one is a particularly troubling case.

I agree. And also when the police present their case to the CPS they will often not include certain evidence which does not support their case and in fact undermines it.

And despite having a duty to disclose that evidence they often don't and then its left to the defence to request it, but thats not always possible if they aren't aware of it in the first place.

The CPS can be just as bad. They don't always act with integrity either.

 

[tedebear]

I agree. And also when the police present their case to the CPS they will often not include certain evidence which does not support their case and in fact undermines it.

And despite having a duty to disclose that evidence they often don't and then its left to the defence to request it, but thats not always possible if they aren't aware of it in the first place.

The CPS can be just as bad. They don't always act with integrity either.

Completely agree, this has always troubled me. Relevant evidence that is withheld...It can't be right.

 

[Goldstone1976]

I've followed Private Eye's reports on this - and it does seem to me as though there are some questions that have been raised fairly - and need proper inspection. One of the things I have found interesting though is how the press have depicted her.

The photo they use is almost invariably this one
View attachment 196901

I was surprised when one article used one her looking happy. And then a few others questioning the decision used ones of her looking happy and in care of a baby.
View attachment 196902 View attachment 196903 View attachment 196904 View attachment 196905 View attachment 196906

Is this some sort of deliberate or subconscious decision by the media to say 'she's been found guilty of murder, therefore we must use a photo of her that portrays her as people might expect her to be'? But some of the articles now questioning the decisions have chosen images that portray her in a happier light?

And that raises the question of how much we ourselves are subconsciously impacted upon by the images others choose for us to see.

I’m sorry, are you saying that you’ve only just figured out that the publisher of an image chooses one that reinforces the way they want you to feel about the subject?

 

[Hugo Rune]

The high level of deaths and an at least unlikely number occurring when Letby was on duty started the process. The problem with this is is with something like 500,000 doctors or nurses working in the NHS the chances are 1 or 2 will be associated with an unlikely number of deaths.

It’s a bit like a DNA match being 1 in a million could be viewed as there’s about 60-70 other people in the country who could be a match. Therefore if arrested on suspicion of a crime and then you’re a 1 in a million DNA match then the evidence is quite compelling. But if you start with a DNA match from a database and no other link to the crime the evidence is not very compelling.

That’s probably a poor analogy and the articles in this link explain it much better.

The fact that Private Eye implies that there was not enough strong evidence to prove the case ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is interesting. It seems that the NHS might have had grounds to dismiss Lucy Letby at the lower level burden of proof for employers based on the ‘balance of probabilities’.

So you then have to think about how that looks to the alleged perpetrator, the alleged victims and the media and public. Not enough evidence for a conviction but enough evidence to lose her job.

 

[Mr Banana]

It's a valid point. I also wonder that she is white, pretty and from a middle class background that sways some sympathy too. Folk will deny it, but it's a sub conscious human trait.

There would be no intense concern for justice if she was brown or looked like Nosferatu.

The Union Jack types banging out the methinkses would be evangelically convinced if the shifts evidence had been a pattern in a vaccine, immigration or local council story.

 

[The Optimist]

The fact that Private Eye implies that there was not enough strong evidence to prove the case ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is interesting. It seems that the NHS might have had grounds to dismiss Lucy Letby at the lower level burden of proof for employers based on the ‘balance of probabilities’.

So you then have to think about how that looks to the alleged perpetrator, the alleged victims and the media and public. Not enough evidence for a conviction but enough evidence to lose her job.

Presumably if the NHS sacked her it would be on the grounds of incompetency - too many babies dying under care as anything stronger opens a can of worms. If this was before / instead of the police enquiry trial etc then no one would really know. If we are talking about the future (a future where her conviction is overturned), it would need her to try to return to work - is that likely?