Interesting to read this week's edition of The Economist. (24/08/24) The "Britain" section is led by a rather acerbic piece on the so-called statistical evidence in the Letby case, a classic case of painting the target round the arrow. Very senior academic statisticians are now openly saying that Letby's conviction is unsafe. The UK courts are going to have to do some serious work on training Judges in how to understand Statistical and Probabalistic evidence. Arguably such evidence has no place in a criminal trial as it can only ever indicate a probabilty that someone has done something, and criminal trials require proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" it is civil law that is decided "on the balance of probability". I give it no more than two years from now, and I think we'll be listening to those who pilloried Letby wriggling under cross-examination in a public enquiry.
Last night, UK TV's Channel 5 documentary laid out the bare facts of what appears to be a cover-up by hospital managers to hide the lack of facilities, staff, and failing infrastructure that were contributing factors to an increase in baby deaths.
Someone had to take the fall, and it was her. It's pretty amazing how people are fooled by only seeing one side due to the facts being hidden. Lucy complained about her removal from the unit and put on an admin job. It appears this sparked those in charge to take action against her.
Only comment if you have watched this program; I'm sure it will eventually be available on YouTube.
There should be a campaign to have a retrial. I don't know who will start this; I don't know how. Thank you. I won't reply, but I thought it important to comment.
Hello, would somebody please have the kindness to send me an email of this New Yorker article regarding the Lucy Letby case, I'm a simple , aged man who has been following this case and somehow missed this, my eyes aren't too clever these days and I need a clearer way to read it. I will be happy to put ten pounds into a cancer charity as a thank you.
So far (many weeks), I have found nothing as regards EVIDENCE 🤯 wtf is going-on .. 🤷♀️🤷♀️🤷♀️🤷♀️🤷♀️. I feel sad, and angry, and upset about the Trial and the unsubstantiated negative comments
The defence should have known about the statistics, seems fairly obvious to query the data to see if it was cherry picked. Now the police are going to do the same again matching deaths at other places she worked.
The Coroner changing cause after five years with no further evidence is beyond belief.
There was big money at stake somewhere for the government to interfere to this degree.
Fine, but just who is Dr James Egan who clearly writes well and informatively? What are his background and credentials - legal, medical, journalistic? Google has not been much help.\
This is not going to end well for Lucy Letby. Despite the facct that she could very well be innocent.
Look at this headline in today's Daily Mail : "Deluded supporters of Lucy Letby spark fury with their bid to try and free evil murderer: Campaigners backing Britain's worst baby killer are plotting a sick rally during her appeal hearing."
There was a time, a place, when/where an editor would have vetoed this. However, the witchhunt is on. Lies and hatred towards Ms. Letby is allowed, even encouraged. Anything exonerating her, suppressed.
A Dutch statistician got the Dutch police on his dorstep. Apparently the Cheshire police had asked them to warn him off. His crime ? He saw errors in the statistics used in the trial and wrote a letter with this information to the judge. The letter ended up with the Cheshire police.
Please read the extensive analyses Dr. James Egan made about this case, at
Seems to be a tone to your reply here. Not sure why, comes off rude.
I just thought this paeticular reddit page adds some insight to your comment above. You claim that this was by a retired dr in Ireland. It seems it's a pseudonym?
If someone says they did some digging, I expect a bit more. That's all.
Had you contributed what you now write, I would have agreed with you. The fact that someone gives helpful LL-innocence information but under a pseudonym, is worrysome to me too. Monnikers like ThoughtDump (Egan) or ChimpMonkeyInvestor (used by another pro-LL writer) are not helpful either. Bytheway I do not claim he is etc. Dr. Egan gives his credential in one of his blogs.
In one of his blogs he asks for input from readers, but there is no option to do this ! There is no way to email him or contact Dr. Egan. Maybe he is protecting himself. The press in the UK has not been kind to LL-exonerators and the Dutch statistician who wrote the judge an email did, as I said, get a visit form his local PD.
My apologies if I reacted too strong the first time around. (Not to self: never reply when you are in a hurry.)
Interesting to read this week's edition of The Economist. (24/08/24) The "Britain" section is led by a rather acerbic piece on the so-called statistical evidence in the Letby case, a classic case of painting the target round the arrow. Very senior academic statisticians are now openly saying that Letby's conviction is unsafe. The UK courts are going to have to do some serious work on training Judges in how to understand Statistical and Probabalistic evidence. Arguably such evidence has no place in a criminal trial as it can only ever indicate a probabilty that someone has done something, and criminal trials require proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" it is civil law that is decided "on the balance of probability". I give it no more than two years from now, and I think we'll be listening to those who pilloried Letby wriggling under cross-examination in a public enquiry.
If you drop a url into archive.ph you’ll get a free version of almost anything. (But not Substack pieces.)
Can you link the article here?
Last night, UK TV's Channel 5 documentary laid out the bare facts of what appears to be a cover-up by hospital managers to hide the lack of facilities, staff, and failing infrastructure that were contributing factors to an increase in baby deaths.
Someone had to take the fall, and it was her. It's pretty amazing how people are fooled by only seeing one side due to the facts being hidden. Lucy complained about her removal from the unit and put on an admin job. It appears this sparked those in charge to take action against her.
Only comment if you have watched this program; I'm sure it will eventually be available on YouTube.
There should be a campaign to have a retrial. I don't know who will start this; I don't know how. Thank you. I won't reply, but I thought it important to comment.
A RETRIAL - YES 👍🏼👍🏼
Hello, would somebody please have the kindness to send me an email of this New Yorker article regarding the Lucy Letby case, I'm a simple , aged man who has been following this case and somehow missed this, my eyes aren't too clever these days and I need a clearer way to read it. I will be happy to put ten pounds into a cancer charity as a thank you.
Many thanks in advance,
martintheveg@gmail.com
On the way.
So far (many weeks), I have found nothing as regards EVIDENCE 🤯 wtf is going-on .. 🤷♀️🤷♀️🤷♀️🤷♀️🤷♀️. I feel sad, and angry, and upset about the Trial and the unsubstantiated negative comments
imzadi121@yahoo.com
Sorry, I've tried reading it on the screen but it's just too long! Please can you send me a photocopy?
Many thanks, Mo
Thank you for posting this ..
The defence should have known about the statistics, seems fairly obvious to query the data to see if it was cherry picked. Now the police are going to do the same again matching deaths at other places she worked.
The Coroner changing cause after five years with no further evidence is beyond belief.
There was big money at stake somewhere for the government to interfere to this degree.
Please email forbear_siphons_0f@icloud.com
Pls could I have a copy garypf8022@gmail.com
please email this article to me
mail@mattheweden.co.uk
Could I possibly request a copy to sah4386@gmail.com?
Thank you
Fine, but just who is Dr James Egan who clearly writes well and informatively? What are his background and credentials - legal, medical, journalistic? Google has not been much help.\
nocomplacency@gmail.com
This is not going to end well for Lucy Letby. Despite the facct that she could very well be innocent.
Look at this headline in today's Daily Mail : "Deluded supporters of Lucy Letby spark fury with their bid to try and free evil murderer: Campaigners backing Britain's worst baby killer are plotting a sick rally during her appeal hearing."
There was a time, a place, when/where an editor would have vetoed this. However, the witchhunt is on. Lies and hatred towards Ms. Letby is allowed, even encouraged. Anything exonerating her, suppressed.
A Dutch statistician got the Dutch police on his dorstep. Apparently the Cheshire police had asked them to warn him off. His crime ? He saw errors in the statistics used in the trial and wrote a letter with this information to the judge. The letter ended up with the Cheshire police.
Please read the extensive analyses Dr. James Egan made about this case, at
https://jameganx.notepin.co
(Dear Mr. Brune: Please change this to black and white - white letters on dark orange background borders on unreadable !)
https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceScienceLetby/s/Ko3DgcKyZC
I did a little digging on this.
Seems to be a tone to your reply here. Not sure why, comes off rude.
I just thought this paeticular reddit page adds some insight to your comment above. You claim that this was by a retired dr in Ireland. It seems it's a pseudonym?
And I do recall, I said 'little digging'
Atb
If someone says they did some digging, I expect a bit more. That's all.
Had you contributed what you now write, I would have agreed with you. The fact that someone gives helpful LL-innocence information but under a pseudonym, is worrysome to me too. Monnikers like ThoughtDump (Egan) or ChimpMonkeyInvestor (used by another pro-LL writer) are not helpful either. Bytheway I do not claim he is etc. Dr. Egan gives his credential in one of his blogs.
In one of his blogs he asks for input from readers, but there is no option to do this ! There is no way to email him or contact Dr. Egan. Maybe he is protecting himself. The press in the UK has not been kind to LL-exonerators and the Dutch statistician who wrote the judge an email did, as I said, get a visit form his local PD.
My apologies if I reacted too strong the first time around. (Not to self: never reply when you are in a hurry.)
Fine, but just who is Dr James Egan? What are his credentials - legal or medical?
James Egan is a retired MD, living in Ireland. In one of his articles he gives his (medical) credentials.