TriedByStats
@triedbystats
Followers
1,346
Following
352
Media
99
Statuses
835
Explore trending content on Musk Viewer
Milton
• 860093 Tweets
Florida
• 777746 Tweets
DeSantis
• 207055 Tweets
60 Minutes
• 163573 Tweets
Sparking Zero
• 130980 Tweets
#ファミマのスイーツパン誕生
• 75502 Tweets
Chiefs
• 72964 Tweets
Floridians
• 67749 Tweets
#WWERaw
• 65715 Tweets
Saints
• 58333 Tweets
Sami
• 32053 Tweets
Worthy
• 31717 Tweets
Kelce
• 17184 Tweets
Skubal
• 16354 Tweets
Gunther
• 14518 Tweets
Kerry Carpenter
• 14463 Tweets
衆院選公約
• 14321 Tweets
Glock
• 13592 Tweets
物価目標
• 11085 Tweets
Pinned Tweet
NEW: Over the past several months, I have obtained a number of court transcripts and have now identified several serious issues in the case against Lucy Letby concerning the murder charge of Baby C.
1. Lucy Letby wasn’t on shift on the day prosecution experts identified harm
35
140
432
Got him. Dr Evans confirms AGAIN the “biggest concern was the x-ray”. From the 12th! When Letby wasn’t there!
Dr Evans pretending he has forgotten about his cross examination. He knows full well Letby wasn’t there on the 12th.
23
99
337
I made a small website exploring the statistics behind Lucy Letbys conviction. I started with the assumption that she was guilty, now I’m convinced she is innocent.
These are the salient points:
35
104
293
Fourth telegraph article in a week! In journalism I believe this is known as smelling blood…
Eminent Neonatologist Dr Desmond Bohn: ““I think it is highly likely that there has been a grave miscarriage of justice here””
3
44
132
From conspiracy theorists to chorus of voices. What a week
As the chorus of voices raising concerns about the conviction of ‘killer nurse’ Lucy Letby grows louder, former commissioner at the Criminal Cases Review Commission, David James Smith, looks at how seriously they should be taken
10
30
74
3
36
114
They are rattled. The guardian quoted 8 doctors currently working in the NHS. The daily mail has countered by quoting one who’s been dead for 5 years.
It's time for this Lucy Letby is innocent madness to stop: I sat through almost every day of her two trials. Here's the evidence I believe proves her guilt, writes LIZ HULL
37
10
36
4
20
98
I missed this… another nurse serial killer alleged. That’s 5 nurse serial killers since 2000 in the uk. Instinctively seems extremely high when compared to other countries given population
18
26
95
The point I’ve been marking for months appearing on the Letby subreddit. Even the pro guilt journalists can’t seem to find any experts willing to back the prosecution.
The experts that have spoken out are just tip of iceberg. There’s so many more with concerns behind the scenes.
5
27
92
In less than 24 hours of that blog dropping the case has completely collapsed around Baby C.
Now Dr Evans is contradicting what he told the BBC when he said the biggest concern was the x-ray, and is contradicting what he told the court.
The jury was told, once, in the whole
Dewi Evans has just given another interview to the
@Telegraph
.
He tells
@sarahknapton
that he's changed his mind about the cause of Baby C's death—though he still thinks Letby killed him.
Evans' comments come on the heels of a bombshell BBC report.
45
51
196
7
29
115
2) the real data table is also directly false by its own standards. It includes times she’s not on shift and an event happens. It also excludes some “suspicious” events BECAUSE she’s not there. It’s a charge sheet not a statistical pattern
2
8
88
@CartlandDavid
I made a website walking through the evidence in detail showing why it’s deeply, deeply flawed
I made a small website exploring the statistics behind Lucy Letbys conviction. I started with the assumption that she was guilty, now I’m convinced she is innocent.
These are the salient points:
35
104
293
2
9
84
This is actually pretty crazy from the appeals ruling. They are taking a medical research paper and then making a new medical discovery from that paper.
The point at the end of 142 is just plainly incorrect. The author of the paper did not identify these other discolourations
9
24
82
*New* There was an outbreak of a deadly bacteria in the hospital during the exact same timeframe as Letby was allegedly killing babies. That bacteria has caused sudden spikes in deaths at other neonatal units.
Hospital where
#LucyLetby
worked suffered bacteria outbreak ‘lethal’ to babies
Leaked risk report shows pseudomonas aeruginosa colonised taps in nurseries of neonatal unit
4
38
78
2
40
81
@drphilhammond
Not to mention if you rely heavily on a paper you cite in your work and the author of that paper publicly says you’ve misrepresented it and made “a fundamental mistake of medicine”.
In academia that would prompt reconsideration of your findings, to put it mildly.
4
15
80
@DebbieKennett
Yes, it’s terrible. The police phoned them up to say their baby had been murdered and they had no basis at all for that
2
5
85
One frustrating part of the coverage of this case is that some journalists who were at the 2nd trial are not writing about the swipe data scandal revealed. We know it happened because the Mail podcast begrudgingly revealed it.
Every time the police said in the first trial
FINALLY! The
@MailOnline
admits that the police got the swipe data WRONG in the first trial.
Listen to
@lizhull
&
@RadioCaroline_
say that “this change[s] nothing”:
6
14
74
10
29
79
@LucyLetbyTrials
@guardian
“The notes mention her cats, Tigger and Smudge, her dog, Whiskey, and Tiny Boy, thought initially by investigators to be a reference to babies she killed but in fact her nickname for the small Yorkshire cross terrier dog”
Another L for the Chester codebreakers.
1
11
77
Dr Evans described his initial report as “giving [the police] ideas”.
He told them the baby was smothered or that the baby was poisoned with potassium chloride.
Do you think one of his differential diagnoses was natural causes or just a list of murder theories he dreamt up?
12
23
75
BBC reporting on the x-ray. They note, out of abundance of impartiality, that the jury was told about her not being there by Ben Myers.
That’s true. But Myers seemed to miss the part about Marnerides testimony. That’s the new part. It’s entirely based on the wrong day.
7
27
77
I’ve warned about talking about the extra deaths being a shift chart problem. That’s not the issue with the chart! The issue with the chart are “suspicious events” when Letby is not on shift.
Dr Evans’ scattershot allegations produced multiple false positives. If Letby is not
15
22
73
@drphilhammond
@ClarkeMicah
You should ask him if he ever identified harm or suspicious event when Letby wasn’t on shift. He did, 12th of June 2015. Letby wasn’t on shift.
However, I’ve spoken now to a few journalists who told me he said to them on the record that he never identified harm when she wasn’t
4
14
71
@carovinuesa
The alleged means of harm in that case is particularly absurd. Dislodging a breathing tube. Dr Jayaram described it as “possible but improbable” to have been dislodged by baby.
One paper says it’s the 4th most common adverse effect in American NICUs
4
15
65
“Statistics had no role in the case”
Marnerides: “We are not discussing possibilities here, we're discussing probabilities. I cannot see how it is probable. Possible, it could be.”
The natural cause in question here being classed as unlikely is meaningless on its own since
8
16
68
They’re really nailing their colours to the mast. There’s a storm coming with lifting of reporting restrictions. This article will not age well.
What are the “errors”
@RachelAviv
’s
@NewYorker
article contains
@lizhull
?
Why the Lucy Letby conspiracy theorists are wrong: The New Yorker article that stoked toxic theories contains errors and cherry-picks evidence, writes LIZ HULL - who watched every hour of her trial
22
1
6
7
14
64
Good to see the guardian emphasising that the deaths *were not unexplained at the time*. The part which is new to me here is that the other 4 were explained by an actual neonatologist.
How can you reach a “diagnosis of exclusion” knowing other dr’s have diagnosed something else?
6
14
62
In the appeals judgment they correctly point out that no one diagnosed air embolism. Only that “experts” said it was consistent with air embolism. Something they’ve never seen before.
I’m surprised to see it admitted in such terms: there is no objective evidence of air embolism
9
11
62
We could say the evidence is certainly shaping up to be consistent with Dr Evans being a charlatan, if not “diagnostic of”
2
17
61
“For… statisticians... to think they know better demonstrates not only ignorance of the clinical process but a serious level of arrogance and lack of humility.”
The clinical process in question involved saying “baby collapsed, died” five times in a row when asked for evidence
Dewi Evans has given another interview, this time to
@lizhull
at the Daily Mail.
"Key witness in trial of Lucy Letby says it's arrogant of experts to question killer's conviction"
43
20
84
18
20
61
Shocking not only because of the witness intimidation but also the bleak description of how the neonatal unit was being run.
🔴 EXCLUSIVE: NHS hospital told nurse who tried to support Lucy Letby ‘she shouldn’t give evidence’
1
20
71
3
11
59
@drphilhammond
@PrivateEyeNews
If they charge her with something else I hope the defence brings an army of experts this time.
Can’t help but feel the real motivation behind charging her isn’t to add another life sentence onto someone already serving 14 of them but is to restore reporting restrictions.
5
9
60
@cjsnowdon
Nothing suggests air embolism either… there’s no need for an alternative theory.
The babies died of the natural causes diagnosed by pathologist at autopsy, as accepted by the coroner, accepted by internal hospital review, accepted by external review from RCPCH, accepted by
4
10
59
1) Given random data you will always produce the “single common factor” chart, for any nurse. The probability any other nurse works the same shifts as your suspect is 0 essentially. It is meaningless on its own.
The website has an interactive demonstration, try it!
3
7
60
New blog post dropping this week: The findings of an investigation I’ve been working on that reveals serious problems with the prosecutions case for one of the babies.
I suspect it will make quite the splash…
3
15
58
“I am still licensed to practice medicine”
No, he’s isn’t. Even that’s wasn’t true
10
23
59
@CanadianForMed
Worth asking him how he was able to identify blunt force trauma as the cause of the haematoma on the liver, in just “10 minutes” of getting the file. Given he’s not even a pathologist.
The prosecution pathologist acknowledged it could have been caused by CPR. Evans was able to
6
3
58
The judge did not sentence Letby to life in prison on this count because she killed him by some unspecified means.
“As a result of you having infused an excessive amount of air down his NG tube”. That is categorically what Dr Evans now says didn’t happen.
It is what the jury
8
28
78
5) There is likely some other factor on the ward, as evidenced by 7 excess deaths on the ward in the period even accounting for those Letby was charged with.
Given how flimsy the evidence is for the first 7 it’s unlikely they have anything to do with her.
1
5
58
This is actually unbelievable from Evans. He’s been told by the author the skin discolouration doesn’t match and he doesn’t care! (from reading the paper it clearly doesn’t)
And he changed his mind on the cause of murder AGAIN after she’s been convicted! Insane.
Here is what Dewi Evans, the prosecution’s main expert witness against Lucy Letby, told Channel 5 in response to the documentary’s request for comment:
10
9
30
6
26
57
Evans included “unsuccessful resuscitation” in his diagnostic criteria for air embolism. That almost implies that people are immortal until they die of air embolism.
How can you pick something consistent with every hospital death and say it’s diagnostic of one kind?
7
12
55
“But the idea that injecting air into the stomach via a nasogastric tube could cause collapse leading to death was described as nonsensical or “rubbish”, “ridiculous”, “implausible” and “fantastical”, by eight separate expert clinicians who spoke to the Guardian, seven of them
Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence
99
160
503
1
16
54
Note that these articles never manage to find a new medical expert willing to say Evans got it right. Other than Evans even the trial experts are quiet.
Even the Times article which acknowledges the issues through gritted teeth sought out experts and quoted none who back Dr E
2
19
54
This is the really insane part of this story. The media in the court just sat on it.
Do their editors know they had this story the whole time?
Huge credit to
@sarahknapton
at the
@Telegraph
for chasing this story down. Her post-retrial reporting has been phenomenal.
I first revealed the swipe data fiasco nearly two months ago. EVERY British journalist in court knew about it. NONE reported it.
6
30
142
3
9
52
Great article. One comment, they correctly say: “The superbug did not show up in blood tests on the babies”
That is true. However, the babies were on antibiotics which, as noted in the autopsy report for D, can result in false negatives.
A superbug, doctor shortages and a neonatal unit ‘out of its depth’: failures at Lucy Letby hospital revealed
27
60
182
1
17
51
@sarahditum
“The association between her presence and unexpected harm coming to babies seems too strong to be discounted”
This is taking the prosecutions claims at face value. As a Letby truther, my position is that the original autopsies were correct when they diagnosed natural causes.
3
6
50
3) The existence of at least one false positive shows that the “suspicious event” standard is not some black swan “beyond all medical explanation” event as portrayed.
Applying bayes rule shows even one false positive dramatically reduces the chance of these being actual murders
1
5
51
Did you know Lucy Letby’s hospital isn’t even in the top 10 hospitals by increase of neonatal infant mortality rate 2014->2015? It’s number 12, in blue.
10
16
47
From Ton Derksen’s book on Lucia de B.
Parallels with the appeal decision in Letby. Court is told directly by the author of a paper that Evans misinterpreted the paper.
Court says that the author misinterpreted *his paper* and comes up with its own interpretation of the paper
4
17
47
A woman has been convicted to life in prison based on people’s subjective recollection of what a rash looked like.
Ignoring whether it’s correct as a matter of law it is very morally broken
3
7
47
This really is a brilliant piece. There’s no new medical revelations but it is the best breakdown of the case I’ve read (other than New Yorker). Nails the problems with the case and explains the stats really well.
The Lucy Letby case is extraordinary for its evidential shape as much as its notoriety. I think it might well have been a miscarriage of justice.
My piece in
@unherd
, taking in the Court of Appeal judgment and other recent developments.
87
232
845
1
16
46
@LucyLetbyTrials
Makes you wonder what experts Chester police used to rule out “bad bugs in the water”. The only “expert” I’ve read they consulted originally was Evans...
6
10
44
No rational motive or explanation was put forward as to why she would do this.
Dr Ravi said it was murder because a tube being dislodged by the baby was “possible but improbable”. Available medical data suggests it’s actually a very common event.
His testimony was contradicted
Lucy Letby cried from the dock "I'm innocent" as a judge sentenced her to a whole-life prison order for attempting to murder a newborn girl.
Members of the baby's family looked visibly shocked and emotional at the outburst.
It came as Letby was being taken to the cells.
28
29
131
3
11
45
@LucyLetbyTrials
@lizhull
One problem the case notes argument runs into, especially with Shoo Lee’s comments, is that often the evidence relied on in court wasn’t in the case notes.
For instance for baby A there is no contemporary description of skin discolouration in the notes… doctors only mentioned
1
8
46
Also the appeal revealed that Justice Goss admitted how argumentative Evans was.
This was in the context of another judge giving a stunning rebuke of his subjective pseudoscience. Goss wouldn’t allow the defence to tell the jury about it.
Jury is allowed to speculate on his
8
20
46
This is such a great exchange. Prosecution saying 31 Facebook searches for parents shows a fascination and imply the only alternative could be coincidence.
If they are correct they should be explaining why it’s just a coincidence that she searched for 2,256 other people. If a
9
15
43
I think the letter from a paediatrician here on the “whoosh” test is super interesting.
Briefly looking around this test is indeed well established in the literature. Not only that but seemingly there are myriad reasons for doctors and nurses to inject air via NG tube.
The Lucy Letby trial and the limits of expert opinion | Letters
2
17
52
9
14
42
4) The exact numbers are highly selective based on the prior probability of a murder occurring.
It’s somewhat subjective but it’s low. Whatever the prior, a “murder” identified is more likely to not be a murder even at a 1% false positive rate. Vastly.
1
4
43
@LucyLetbyTrials
@thetimes
I’ve read the full transcript of Dr Warks testimony she does not confirm the accuracy of the tests involved in this trial.
She discusses a routine accuracy assessment performed by Guildford on the other laboratories including Liverpool. That assessment is only checking that the
4
11
41
This clip is SO important to understand. This is what they’ve done consistently throughout this case. Presenting the likely as impossible and the improbable as certain.
“This baby wasn’t kicking, he wasn’t vigorous, the _only_ possibility is that someone removed it
Defense AND prosecution agree: this trial, in prosecutor Johnson's words, "Comes down to a single question: Do you believe what Dr Jayaram says he saw?"
For reference, here's how Dr Jayaram described the night in question to
@PaulBrandITV
last year.
19
3
24
5
15
42
@LucyLetbyTrials
The File on 4 documentary will feature their findings and investigation. For total clarity their investigation is independent of me, I just shared my findings a while ago which prompted them to look.
1
4
42
@DebRoberts22249
The attendance data is produced by random data in order to show that the “single common factor” chart not just *can* but always *will* be produced from random data. The point is to show that simply producing the chart as evidence is meaningless because it exists independently of
3
2
41
The problem is one we’ve been partly aware of but the depth of the problem and its significance seems to have been missed. At least certainly missed by me.
Transcripts reveal the problem runs right to the core and seriously undermines prosecution case for this charge.
3
6
39
@ClarkeMicah
@NewYorker
I was horrified after reading the New Yorker piece. It prompted me to look again at the case and I built a short website to explore some of the statistical problems with the conviction
I made a small website exploring the statistics behind Lucy Letbys conviction. I started with the assumption that she was guilty, now I’m convinced she is innocent.
These are the salient points:
35
104
293
1
7
39
External forensic review specifically looked for air embolism and found no evidence.
@carovinuesa
From the opening statements of the management team at CoCH we learn that, in addition to the PMs a consultant pathologist carried out a forensic review of some of the cases including Child A. She found "no evidence of air embolism". (HT
@NeilRos55889793
)
5
17
46
1
15
39
@NadineDorries
For those that are defending the conviction I, as someone who previously believed she was guilty, wrote a short website outlining some of the major problems with this case and why she is certainly innocent.
I made a small website exploring the statistics behind Lucy Letbys conviction. I started with the assumption that she was guilty, now I’m convinced she is innocent.
These are the salient points:
35
104
293
1
6
38
@drphilhammond
Even more extraordinary that he was able to identify it as deliberate harm in just 10 minutes given he isn’t even a pathologist. The prosecution pathologist acknowledged that it was possible it could have been caused by CPR.
Evans could rule it out. He’s just that good.
2
3
38
I understand what Dr Evans is claiming is that Letby injected so much air down the tiny NG tube that the *air pressure* prevented the diaphragm from moving?!?
The only units I can find him giving for achieving this level of air pressure are: “two dollops of air” (baby P).
12
10
38
@corruptNovelist
@ClarkeMicah
@PatHerbert2
I mean 100%. Almost all the cases had an autopsy and a coroner report conclude natural causes.
The suspicious incidents are subjective reinterpretations of previously understood events. They only applied this reinterpretation to the cases they knew involved Letby.
If you only
0
11
35
Lucia de Berk, the tale of the “irrefutable” digoxin poisoning.
“it is established in the opinion of the court that the administration of digoxin, …caused the death of [victim 1]”
First trial:
“after an extensive toxicological examination by several
3
19
36
This is an incredibly rose tinted view of the police investigation. Whether or not the detectives took one baby each (they didn’t) is immaterial because all they did is hand the stack of the handpicked “suspicious” events off to Dr Evans.
No other expert was consulted. Just
7
8
34
@LucyLetbyTrials
Days since journalist mistakes the air embolism pseudoscience for the air via NG tube pseudoscience: 0
(That aside this is an amazing tone shift)
2
10
34
Wow. This piece is really wildly hostile. I’m genuinely taken aback. Portrays the defence as clutching at straws, totally dismissive of any scepticism, even of Dr Shoo Lee testimony.
Only person quoted is a barrister calling people conspiracy theorists. Just wow
Our reporting of the last year or so of the Lucy Letby story has been heavily restricted. Now her retrial is over, here’s the detail. 👇
32
37
189
9
7
36
I think not. Referral to the CCRC is probably not something to be rushed. We need to debunk the case in public before it goes back to the judges imo.
They will just invent new medical findings like in Sally Clark’s 1st appeal, Lucia’s 1st/2nd, Lucy’s 1st
Is the CCRC fit to decide on Lucy Letby’s appeal?
by Michael Naughton
3
18
52
6
7
36
There’s going to be a lot of finger pointing as the truth comes out. The blood prof will say he wasn’t told the test used couldn’t be used to diagnose exogenous insulin as he was told by prosecutors, the prosecution will say the doctors told us how should we know, etc..
You really had to be there last week to see how this played out in court
Police analyst Kate Tyndall on the stand, looking furious. Prosecutor Nick Johnson going line by line with her, correcting errors she'd made. Like watching two people fix a badly botched Excel spreadsheet
10
41
130
1
13
35
I can’t get over how insane the claim Lucy Letby killed her first victim in a 5x8 room with three other people in it.
The incubator is the one visible centre screen. This would have been approximately the point of view of the two doctors in the room
4
10
34
@sarahditum
“even if the embolisms are discounted and the insulin poisoning deemed tendentious, there is still evidence of severe trauma and overfeeding in some of the babies.”
There’s no evidence of this. The overfeeding is speculation from Dr Evans. He read a description of vomit and then
2
5
34
Key section I trimmed from Marnerides testimony in the blog. Restored it because I think it is key to understand.
“Yes, the air you refer to is there”. After the meeting *about the X-ray on the 12th* Marnerides looked at the autopsy photos and said ok I can accept that this air
2
10
35
@DPJHodges
Our problem is with the fundamentals! We always talk about the fundamentals of the case. A non exhaustive thread
@carovinuesa
has highlighted many problems with the evidence. Can you even find one post of hers which *isn’t* about the factual evidence.
#LucyLetby
. This post concerns the case of one of the insulin babies, Baby F. I would like the opinion of my immunology colleagues and clinical laboratory-based immunologists.
Does anyone know the immunoassay used by Liverpool Hospital lab to measure insulin in 2015? In assays
14
26
96
1
3
33
The blog post which was promised *should* be dropping this week. I shared my findings with media a few weeks ago who conducted their own investigation. I’m waiting for them to report first before I post my blog.
It’s coming though!
New blog post dropping this week: The findings of an investigation I’ve been working on that reveals serious problems with the prosecutions case for one of the babies.
I suspect it will make quite the splash…
3
15
58
3
9
33
@hughosmond
The statistical evidence is just the beginning. It is awful for sure, but the more important point is the medical evidence is now being described as pseudoscience by medical experts.
Once you work through the evidence you realise it almost entirely should be excluded.
The case
1
4
31
@sarahditum
Likewise the “severe trauma” at the time was believed to be because of aggressive CPR by a doctor. Even by that doctor. There’s no evidence whatsoever to suggest that contemporary assessment was incorrect.
Except of course… the subjective opinion of Dr Evans.
0
3
31
@DrRJWebb
No it’s the weakness of the case against her. I, like many of us, knew what she looked like and had assumed she was guilty based on the coverage of the trial.
The evidence presented was so much weaker than its presentation in the media. That is what shifted my opinion.
2
2
32
@DebRoberts22249
The context is the cross examination of Dr Evans during the trial on Tuesday November 1st. Dr Evans confirms that he identified injection of air as the “most likely cause” of a collapse on June 12th, when Letby wasn’t on shift. You can read reporting of it here:
2
0
32
Doctors notice the pattern, patient suddenly deteriorates, doctors can’t explain, digging through cases to find suspicious patterns. Letby or De Berk?
They insist the evidence is medical not statistical. It eventually becomes statistical and then it becomes obvious…
6
12
31
Then they tacitly _accept_ the central premise of the defence argument. Only that discolouration is diagnostic of air embolism.
What should the jury have inferred from the testimony of the rashes? It’s not diagnostic of air embolism so why should it be allowed in testimony?
2
10
31
Also,
@JabesAllowed
independently spotted this issue in the court reporting
I've come to the conclusion that Dr Marnerides, the expert witness pathologist, inadvertently used x-rays taken on 12th June 2015 in his testimony that Letby had injected air into Child C's nasogastric tube, which directly caused the baby's collapse and death on 14th June 2015.
6
19
62
2
8
30
@LucyLetbyTrials
Also makes you wonder if the consultants mentioned this little tidbit when they called in the police and handed over the files. They knew, I wonder if the police knew.
3
8
30
@LucyLetbyTrials
@lizhull
“Dr Evans admitted to me that injecting air in a nasogastric tube is 'utterly bizarre' and something he'd never heard of before. But he added: 'That doesn't mean it can't exist.”
His inability to stop talking is incredible
2
2
28
Dr Ward Platt, one of the medical experts behind Angela Cannings’ wrongful conviction told that court that 14% of all SIDS could be attributed to maltreatment.
There were thousands of SIDS cases at that point in time. That’s hundreds of baby murders a year in his imagination.
2
7
29
The most obviously explanation as to why she searched for 31 people is any of the same reasons that she searched for the other 2,256
2
1
28
@lizhull
Virtually red handed. So not red handed. Sadly we will just have to use the power of imagination to visualise what he would have seen had he actually caught her red handed.
1
3
27
@TPGRoberts
Yes swipe card data which was mislabelled to say that every time someone entered the unit they actually left.
In the first trial they used to say she was alone and a doctor walked in catching her “virtually red handed”
In the second trial it showed she wasn’t actually alone and
4
1
28
Brilliant article on the statistical issues in the Letby case.
@SimonMagus
@carovinuesa
That is really not true. There is a fundamental statistical problem at the heart of her conviction.
4
11
36
3
7
27
@DPJHodges
@IlloHouseofLord
@ClarkeMicah
@PrivateEyeNews
@drphilhammond
There aren’t “dozens” of medical experts in the prosecution. There are dozens of medical experts raising concerns.
0
0
27
In some threads recently I got the feeling people think this account is run by a stats expert. I’ve never said that but I want to be totally clear: I am not a professor in statistics! I’m a software engineer working in AI.
That gives me a background with more maths & stats
3
3
27
@lizhull
accuses the New Yorker of cherrypicking because it didn’t look at the weakest evidence of her guilt. Ironically DM ignored the strongest evidence of her innocence
It actually did talk about those and highlighted the fact that the British press over indexed on them.
5
5
26
What is going on at the BBC? It’s really weird how they’ve not said anything about this
.
@privateeyenews
today contains another excellent analysis of the Lucy Letby case. It’s ‘behind a paywall’, i.e. you have to buy the magazine to read it. This is how independent journalism survives (ps, has the BBC yet even mentioned doubts about the Letby verdict?).
27
48
214
2
9
25
@LucyLetbyTrials
Also is not on shift for Child F. That is the one where they got the insulin result when she’s not on shift and just came up with a new theory of her poisoning the IV bags the day before
3
4
24