• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Concerns over baby killer ignored? / Nurse Lucy Letby killed babies in her care

Because expertise in one area of specialization can't possibly contribute anything useful to any other area of specialization, right?
My friend Victoria has an applied maths degree that is basically writing computer code to crunch numbers and analyse data sets.
She works in Bioinformatics, an interdisciplinary field that uses computer science, statistics, and biology to analyse and interpret biological data.
 
My friend Victoria has an applied maths degree that is basically writing computer code to crunch numbers and analyse data sets.
She works in Bioinformatics, an interdisciplinary field that uses computer science, statistics, and biology to analyse and interpret biological data.
Far too complex for Vixen to fathom.

Her view appears to be that ONLY doctors (and limited to only the ones she agrees with) have anything valid to say about things she has already made up her mind about.
 
My friend Victoria has an applied maths degree that is basically writing computer code to crunch numbers and analyse data sets.
She works in Bioinformatics, an interdisciplinary field that uses computer science, statistics, and biology to analyse and interpret biological data.
Ah, I remember Informatics, back before it became Data Analytics.
 
Nope, an observation!
Letby wasn't convicted on statistics. Cheshire Police made a conscious decision to charge and try each case - with the approval of CPS - on its own individual merits. That way, a defendant, such as de Berk, can't just get off the charges because some statistician somewhere made a wrong calculation [cf. Roy Meadows and Sally Clarke]. Gill is furious that he can't meddle in this case, He's a nice guy - we follow each other - but he is basically a Lord Longford do-gooder somehow besotted with nurses. Gill decided Letby was innocent before the trial even started.

<sfx hysterical cockney voice booms out over the internet>

"LEAVE IT, FIXX, 'E AIN'T WORFF IT!!!"
 
Letby wasn't convicted on statistics. Cheshire Police made a conscious decision to charge and try each case - with the approval of CPS - on its own individual merits. That way, a defendant, such as de Berk, can't just get off the charges because some statistician somewhere made a wrong calculation [cf. Roy Meadows and Sally Clarke]. Gill is furious that he can't meddle in this case, He's a nice guy - we follow each other - but he is basically a Lord Longford do-gooder somehow besotted with nurses. Gill decided Letby was innocent before the trial even started.

<sfx hysterical cockney voice booms out over the internet>

"LEAVE IT, FIXX, 'E AIN'T WORFF IT!!!"
Word saladous non-sequitur.
 
Are you able to particularise, i.e., be specific, as to which statistics you believe to be misleading in this case?
As I pointed out, this has been discussed previously, and in the various analyses of the case against her. I will not be wasting time I could be utilising more productively and enjoyably by rehashing this material to indulge your laziness.
 
Looks like you've stopped waxing lyrical about Dr. Shoo Lee and his 'world-beating' 'eminent team of experts'. Duly noted.
Why would I need "wax lyrical"?
To defend qualified people whom I respect and agree with?
To defend qualified people from the weasel words of some Nancy Nobody on the internet?
 
Last edited:
As I pointed out, this has been discussed previously, and in the various analyses of the case against her. I will not be wasting time I could be utilising more productively and enjoyably by rehashing this material to indulge your laziness.
Why not just be honest and say, no, you don't know of any misleading statistics in Letby's trial that led to her convictions.
 
Evans has back-tracked on his original evidence and issued a new report, which police and the CPS have refused to pass on it to Letby’s defence team.

Dr. Dewi Evans has submitted a new report about the cause of death for “Baby C”, a boy who died at the Countess of Chester Hospital on 14JUN2015 and, it was originally alleged, murdered by Lucy Letby using an injection of air.
This claim was made at the Letby trial, illustrated by an X-ray image. However this image was taken while Letby was not on duty.
 
Evans has back-tracked on his original evidence and issued a new report, which police and the CPS have refused to pass on it to Letby’s defence team.

Dr. Dewi Evans has submitted a new report about the cause of death for “Baby C”, a boy who died at the Countess of Chester Hospital on 14JUN2015 and, it was originally alleged, murdered by Lucy Letby using an injection of air.
This claim was made at the Letby trial, illustrated by an X-ray image. However this image was taken while Letby was not on duty.
Why are you rehashing previously debunked claims?
 
It's people like that who inspire my desire for bench trials.
Oh, that would be a bad thing. Juries are a way around biased or corrupt judges. By way of exams, do you think Karen Read would have been found not guilty if the sole arbiter of guilt was Judge Beverley Cannone?
 
Oh, that would be a bad thing. Juries are a way around biased or corrupt judges. By way of exams, do you think Karen Read would have been found not guilty if the sole arbiter of guilt was Judge Beverley Cannone?
Judges, in my experience (and we aren't as stupid as USAia in selecting judges) are less open to emotional manipulation and dubious arguments.
As for that specific case I have no idea.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom