You don't even need stats to refute the prosecution (I don't know anything about the case beyond your text) - someone being present at the scene of a crime is not the same as them being the guilty party. You must also prove they did do the deed.
Or, it used to be you had to prove that. Not just argue it was a plausible explanation. I feel lower sentences and abolishing capital punishment perversely enough led to more people being convicted without actual proof - this gels well with what we know of how humans form consensus about reality; the less there's an immediate risk of suffering negative conseqiences for being in the wrong, and the more a group share a belief that what they are doing is in the right, the less each member of the group scrutinise what it is they are actually doing.
Asch's experiments showed this some 70 years ago. I've seen it myself when participating in such studies: people will create the reality they feel - instinctively - is the shared experience (or "the experience shared" might flow better?). You don't even need material incentives for this to happen:
One experiment (might have mentioned this?) was seven people seated around a table. Each is given a sealed envelope containing romboids, squares, rectangles, triangles of coloured carboard. The goal is to assemble a square out of all the pieces of "your" colour, it being marked on each envelope.
You may not speak (or use sign language, morse code by tapping, etc) with the others around the table, and you may not simply take the pieces with "your" colour on from their pile.
The experiment is timed and the normal time for completion is between 5-10 minutes.
My group had to be put as an anomaly. We were done in 14 seconds. Everyone looked at one another, and then shoved all the pieces they didn't need into the centre of the table.
What has this to do with the stats and the case?
The other tables (and the researcher had done this hundreds of times), people would hold on to "their" pieces, glaring at each other, and only tentatively swap pieces as if it was a hostage exchange taking place:
The shared belief (that a piece of cardboard being "yours" made it hold value) dominated any logic, rationality or intelligence of the participants.
For the prosecution in this case, no matter if she is objectively speaking guilty of anything, the shared belief that she is guilty and therefore must be convicted has led to them creating reality in such a way she gets convicted.
Which is more or less the opposite of the prosection investigating and finding out what happened.
The case against Letby is all circumstantial. Even in the prosecution's chart the article I linked states that for some of those claimed shifts Letby wasn't present but was on the previous shift. The argument then becomes that she did something to stuff so that babies on the next shift would be in danger.
The 2 primary pieces of 'evidence' are this attendance chart and some scribbled notes.
If you're not more statistically aware, then the attendance chart could be very compelling. Once you've seen that (and believe the misinterpretation of the stats) then you're basically operating under a "must be guilty" assumption and so any other slight evidence of guilt is going to look more damning.
She really does need a proper retrial - but her right to appeal has recently been rejected.
Sounds to me they really want someone to convict and she fit the bill, more than there being physical evidence against her.
We've had cases like that here, where the questioner, the prosecutor, the court, and even the defending attourney have all been colluding against the suspect to get a conviction, just because the case was high profile and/or political.
I guess there's media blackout on the problems with the case, that's usually how it goes once "everybody" settles on 'The Truth'(tm).
There was a media blackout recently - I think they tried to make the recent New York Times article (very critical of the prosecution's case) very hard to see in the UK. The UK media were prevented from reporting on it. This was apparently so that it didn't 'taint' her request for appeal.
Of course, no such restriction was placed on the press *during* the actual trial and the UK papers had their usual field day painting her as some kind of female version of Hannibal Lecter.
Interestingly, the black-outs only pertained to exonerating material. The MSM could continue to spew their vitriol, depicting Lucy as an evil serial killer of beautiful, innocent, babies.
Please explain how after several years of this hatred an "impartial" jury was found.
A Dutch statistician saw serious flaws in the police investigations. He wrote an email to the judge presiding over the trial. Now he cannot go to the UK anymore. If he lands he will be arrested. For writing the email.
In case you want to know more about what happened to the babies:
Lucy Letby lived close by the hospital and, saving for a house, was willing to work overtime. As a result, she worked more shifts/hours than other nurses. She was also one of only two nurses on the NICU ward with additional training re. premature babies. Which meant she was called when there was an especially fragile baby that needed care.
She had put several complaints about mistakes/neglicence by doctors in the hospital system.
I thought the role of a prosecutor is to accuse ? Finding out what happened should have been done by the police. But a certain Dr. Dewi Evans - a paid expert - inserted himself in their investigation. He did/does not have the proper qualifications but apparently when a young women's existence is at stake, that is not a problem. Dr. Evans said he was asked to do this - which was a lie. A report he contributed to another (not related) case, was thrown out by the judge, who labeled it "garbage".
The prosecution, who has unlimited resources apparently, brought 250 witnesses (so I am told). The defense only called the plumber.
Her mental state definitely is unhealthy. However any good defense lawyer could skewer this kind of argument— although it sounds like the press convicted her and the public reacted emotionally to the witch-hunt. (And maybe she really is a witch, but I think a life sentence requires more physical evidence than “this woman seems creepy and did weird obsessive things and if a crime occurred it was a horrific one.”) While taking no position on her guilt or innocence, one could theoretically whip people into a tabloid frenzy reporting on this poor young nurse who has been scapegoated for the failures of a rotten system and who obsessed over its failures and took them on as her own.
Yes. I imagine being accused of killing 8 babies (one charge was dismissed) might have a deranging effect on someone who was a dedicated child nurse and who was innocent. The whole process took 7 years and so, on the *assumption* of innocence we could well imagine how much stress she would have been under.
Equally, if we assume guilt, we can imagine another kind of stress - that of having been found out and facing the consequences.
Which one of these pertains to these garbled notes depends a lot on your initial assumptions.
She was badmouthed by two doctors especially, demoted to administrative work, then brought in by police two times and interrogated, before she was arrested. You think this does not hurt a dedicated, hardworking person who until this whole mess started was seen as an exemplary, talented, nurse ? She wrote what she felt, how she felt: accused. (A Dutch male nurse told his therapist that caring for Covid patients and seeing them die "felt like we were murdering them". His therapist informed the police. An criminal investigation followed. Which proved the nurse had done nothing wrong.)
Much was made from a notation in Lucy's diary "LO" - which the police said proved criminal intent. Until other nurses stated it said LD, a term used for "long day".
The UK press had a field day with Lucy Letby, describing her as an evil person, etc. No real investigative journalism was done. Shameful !
I am also amazed no nurses took up Lucy's case, because what happened to her can happen to any one of them. But apparently they were afraid to get connected to her. No one likes to be witch-hunted.
Regarding the "insulin poisonings". The blood was not properly stored/timely brought to the lab. No one had an inkling this would become part of criminal proceedings. The lab that did the test warmed it could not be used for forensic purposes. A second test was advised, but not done.
No, but that was the primary lens through which the other pieces of 'evidence' were interpreted.
The other main piece of 'evidence' are those weird scribbled notes which have been interpreted to be a confession of sorts. Yet on the same pieces of paper she essentially writes I did this AND I didn't do this.
The notes are not some kind of 'diary' in which she's gleefully recording her crimes (which *would* be damning evidence) but evidence of someone in serious mental distress trying to figure out what the hell is going on. This is not surprising since the whole process from suspicion to arrest to trial took 7 years and the notes were written during this process.
If she was innocent, then I can well imagine the kind of surreal state of mind this 7 year process may have evoked. At several points during this time she may well have been thinking "did I really do this?".
I don't find the notes to be *convincing* evidence of anything other than a person who's falling apart. You can interpret that as indicating either guilt or innocence. If you have been persuaded by the illegitimate stats arguments you may well conclude these notes are further evidence of guilt. If you think she's probably innocent, then the notes will be interpreted accordingly.
You don't even need stats to refute the prosecution (I don't know anything about the case beyond your text) - someone being present at the scene of a crime is not the same as them being the guilty party. You must also prove they did do the deed.
Or, it used to be you had to prove that. Not just argue it was a plausible explanation. I feel lower sentences and abolishing capital punishment perversely enough led to more people being convicted without actual proof - this gels well with what we know of how humans form consensus about reality; the less there's an immediate risk of suffering negative conseqiences for being in the wrong, and the more a group share a belief that what they are doing is in the right, the less each member of the group scrutinise what it is they are actually doing.
Asch's experiments showed this some 70 years ago. I've seen it myself when participating in such studies: people will create the reality they feel - instinctively - is the shared experience (or "the experience shared" might flow better?). You don't even need material incentives for this to happen:
One experiment (might have mentioned this?) was seven people seated around a table. Each is given a sealed envelope containing romboids, squares, rectangles, triangles of coloured carboard. The goal is to assemble a square out of all the pieces of "your" colour, it being marked on each envelope.
You may not speak (or use sign language, morse code by tapping, etc) with the others around the table, and you may not simply take the pieces with "your" colour on from their pile.
The experiment is timed and the normal time for completion is between 5-10 minutes.
My group had to be put as an anomaly. We were done in 14 seconds. Everyone looked at one another, and then shoved all the pieces they didn't need into the centre of the table.
What has this to do with the stats and the case?
The other tables (and the researcher had done this hundreds of times), people would hold on to "their" pieces, glaring at each other, and only tentatively swap pieces as if it was a hostage exchange taking place:
The shared belief (that a piece of cardboard being "yours" made it hold value) dominated any logic, rationality or intelligence of the participants.
For the prosecution in this case, no matter if she is objectively speaking guilty of anything, the shared belief that she is guilty and therefore must be convicted has led to them creating reality in such a way she gets convicted.
Which is more or less the opposite of the prosection investigating and finding out what happened.
The case against Letby is all circumstantial. Even in the prosecution's chart the article I linked states that for some of those claimed shifts Letby wasn't present but was on the previous shift. The argument then becomes that she did something to stuff so that babies on the next shift would be in danger.
The 2 primary pieces of 'evidence' are this attendance chart and some scribbled notes.
If you're not more statistically aware, then the attendance chart could be very compelling. Once you've seen that (and believe the misinterpretation of the stats) then you're basically operating under a "must be guilty" assumption and so any other slight evidence of guilt is going to look more damning.
She really does need a proper retrial - but her right to appeal has recently been rejected.
Sounds to me they really want someone to convict and she fit the bill, more than there being physical evidence against her.
We've had cases like that here, where the questioner, the prosecutor, the court, and even the defending attourney have all been colluding against the suspect to get a conviction, just because the case was high profile and/or political.
I guess there's media blackout on the problems with the case, that's usually how it goes once "everybody" settles on 'The Truth'(tm).
It seems very much like that to me, too.
There was a media blackout recently - I think they tried to make the recent New York Times article (very critical of the prosecution's case) very hard to see in the UK. The UK media were prevented from reporting on it. This was apparently so that it didn't 'taint' her request for appeal.
Of course, no such restriction was placed on the press *during* the actual trial and the UK papers had their usual field day painting her as some kind of female version of Hannibal Lecter.
Interestingly, the black-outs only pertained to exonerating material. The MSM could continue to spew their vitriol, depicting Lucy as an evil serial killer of beautiful, innocent, babies.
Please explain how after several years of this hatred an "impartial" jury was found.
A Dutch statistician saw serious flaws in the police investigations. He wrote an email to the judge presiding over the trial. Now he cannot go to the UK anymore. If he lands he will be arrested. For writing the email.
In case you want to know more about what happened to the babies:
https://jameganx.notepin.co
Lucy Letby lived close by the hospital and, saving for a house, was willing to work overtime. As a result, she worked more shifts/hours than other nurses. She was also one of only two nurses on the NICU ward with additional training re. premature babies. Which meant she was called when there was an especially fragile baby that needed care.
She had put several complaints about mistakes/neglicence by doctors in the hospital system.
I thought the role of a prosecutor is to accuse ? Finding out what happened should have been done by the police. But a certain Dr. Dewi Evans - a paid expert - inserted himself in their investigation. He did/does not have the proper qualifications but apparently when a young women's existence is at stake, that is not a problem. Dr. Evans said he was asked to do this - which was a lie. A report he contributed to another (not related) case, was thrown out by the judge, who labeled it "garbage".
The prosecution, who has unlimited resources apparently, brought 250 witnesses (so I am told). The defense only called the plumber.
Please read up on this case
https://jameganx.notepin.co
She wasn't convicted solely on the basis of this statistical misinterpretation though.
So what else was she convicted on?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23577375/what-was-in-lucy-letbys-diary-entries/
Her mental state definitely is unhealthy. However any good defense lawyer could skewer this kind of argument— although it sounds like the press convicted her and the public reacted emotionally to the witch-hunt. (And maybe she really is a witch, but I think a life sentence requires more physical evidence than “this woman seems creepy and did weird obsessive things and if a crime occurred it was a horrific one.”) While taking no position on her guilt or innocence, one could theoretically whip people into a tabloid frenzy reporting on this poor young nurse who has been scapegoated for the failures of a rotten system and who obsessed over its failures and took them on as her own.
Yes. I imagine being accused of killing 8 babies (one charge was dismissed) might have a deranging effect on someone who was a dedicated child nurse and who was innocent. The whole process took 7 years and so, on the *assumption* of innocence we could well imagine how much stress she would have been under.
Equally, if we assume guilt, we can imagine another kind of stress - that of having been found out and facing the consequences.
Which one of these pertains to these garbled notes depends a lot on your initial assumptions.
She was badmouthed by two doctors especially, demoted to administrative work, then brought in by police two times and interrogated, before she was arrested. You think this does not hurt a dedicated, hardworking person who until this whole mess started was seen as an exemplary, talented, nurse ? She wrote what she felt, how she felt: accused. (A Dutch male nurse told his therapist that caring for Covid patients and seeing them die "felt like we were murdering them". His therapist informed the police. An criminal investigation followed. Which proved the nurse had done nothing wrong.)
Much was made from a notation in Lucy's diary "LO" - which the police said proved criminal intent. Until other nurses stated it said LD, a term used for "long day".
The UK press had a field day with Lucy Letby, describing her as an evil person, etc. No real investigative journalism was done. Shameful !
I am also amazed no nurses took up Lucy's case, because what happened to her can happen to any one of them. But apparently they were afraid to get connected to her. No one likes to be witch-hunted.
Regarding the "insulin poisonings". The blood was not properly stored/timely brought to the lab. No one had an inkling this would become part of criminal proceedings. The lab that did the test warmed it could not be used for forensic purposes. A second test was advised, but not done.
See this for another perspective on her diaries and other things: https://dailysceptic.org/2023/09/11/lucy-letby-must-be-allowed-an-appeal/
No, but that was the primary lens through which the other pieces of 'evidence' were interpreted.
The other main piece of 'evidence' are those weird scribbled notes which have been interpreted to be a confession of sorts. Yet on the same pieces of paper she essentially writes I did this AND I didn't do this.
The notes are not some kind of 'diary' in which she's gleefully recording her crimes (which *would* be damning evidence) but evidence of someone in serious mental distress trying to figure out what the hell is going on. This is not surprising since the whole process from suspicion to arrest to trial took 7 years and the notes were written during this process.
If she was innocent, then I can well imagine the kind of surreal state of mind this 7 year process may have evoked. At several points during this time she may well have been thinking "did I really do this?".
I don't find the notes to be *convincing* evidence of anything other than a person who's falling apart. You can interpret that as indicating either guilt or innocence. If you have been persuaded by the illegitimate stats arguments you may well conclude these notes are further evidence of guilt. If you think she's probably innocent, then the notes will be interpreted accordingly.