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

[catsmate]

We don't know 'there wasn't actually a murder' until there has been a trial and appeal process. You seem unable to comprehend how it works.

Quite a degree of hypocrisy given your pontificating on the Knox case....m

 

[catsmate]

Please refer to my earlier answer.

Trying to evade again I see.
Pathetic.

 

[catsmate]

If you wish to discuss a completely different area of criminal law, please may I suggest you start a new thread? Clark, Channing and Anthony have nothing to do with the Letby case.

Oh look @Vixen is trying to dodge an awkward question again mmmmm

Can you confirm you are not just taking the p!ss, as I note you follow me around asking endless questions which comes across as harassment.

Rubbish. You refuse to answer questions and then whine.

 

[catsmate]

Er, they were charged with murder were they not and they were convicted in a Criminal Court of Law. They had their sentences quashed. We are looking at what constitutes making a conviction unsafe. To say, oh this applies to Letby because she is also a female accused of killing little children is arrant nonsense, and a waste of everybody's time.

And yes, post-natal depression is real and can be exceedingly serious.

They were innocent. A concept you seemingly cannot understand.

 

[Mojo]

It is facile and nonsensical to claim the CPS systematically convicts women of murder for specious reasons with zero evidence. Please try to take a more balanced view instead of claiming all convicted killers are really a case of Miscarriage of Justice.

I have claimed no such thing, so I'll thank you not to falsely attribute claims to me that I have never made.

 

[Mojo]

I am not aware I am wrong.

Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments - PubMed

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[smartcooky]

Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments - PubMed

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Vixen]

Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments - PubMed

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This reads:

Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.

This refers to people in the '12th percentile'. Your self-deprecation is amusing and touching.

 

[Rolfe]

Can we agree that Sally Clark, Angela Cannings and Donna Anthony were acquitted on appeal? There was no evidence against any of them apart from Roy Meadows' false statistical analysis, which the juries unfortunately trusted. Sally's baby was later shown to have died from meningitis, and that plus the realisation that juries were no longer buying Meadows' line in bullcrap led to Angela's and Donna's wrongful convictions being overturned.

While some or all of these women may have suffered from post-natal depression - it's a common condition after all - this has no bearing on the matter. The overwhelming majority of women who suffer from post-natal depression do not kill their babies, and none of these women actually killed their babies!

Can we also agree that none of this has the slightest bearing on the Lucy Letby case, as she was not a new mother and she didn't suffer from post-natal depression.

 

[Vixen]

Can we agree that Sally Clark, Angela Cannings and Donna Anthony were acquitted on appeal? There was no evidence against any of them apart from Roy Meadows' false statistical analysis, which the juries unfortunately trusted. Sally's baby was later shown to have died from meningitis, and that plus the realisation that juries were no longer buying Meadows' line in bullcrap led to Angela's and Donna's wrongful convictions being overturned.

While some or all of these women may have suffered from post-natal depression - it's a common condition after all - this has no bearing on the matter. The overwhelming majority of women who suffer from post-natal depression do not kill their babies, and none of these women actually killed their babies!

Can we also agree that none of this has the slightest bearing on the Lucy Letby case, as she was not a new mother and she didn't suffer from post-natal depression.

No, Cannings and Anthony weren't 'acquitted on appeal'. It was an exceptional case of all of Roy Meadows' previous cases were reviewed and the latter two were singled out as being as unsafe as Clark's. The unsafeness came from Meadows' improper application of statistics. In the case of where a mother is one-on-one with her child (or any one-on-one suspected murder carried out in private and with no witnesses) all a court has to go on is a case built up by the police, expert witnesses, medical and otherwise (in their case, a statistician, Roy Meadows working out probability of SIDS) and other circumstantial evidence, including forensic. We can't know whether they 'did it' or not. The jury simply has to weigh up whether they are 'sure'. Meadows' statistics were rubbish and eccentrically calculated. This came to light when the meningitis pathology report was discovered to have been left out of Clark's files. The defence were arguing SIDS - sudden infant death syndrome (- not post-natal psychosis [ed.], which actually if accepted by the court would make them Not Guilty of Murder by way of Diminished Responsibilty). The convictions of the three were thus 'unsafe'.

I agree this cannot possibly apply to Letby as to plead diminished responsibility arising from a mental illness [such as depression] would mean to admit to having killed the neonates in her care (NB the former three pleading SIDS does not mean they are admitting anything [or by way of post-natal depression], just going along with the advice of their defence). Letby has always denied any culpability.

 

[catsmate]

Can we agree that Sally Clark, Angela Cannings and Donna Anthony were acquitted on appeal?

That would be factually true. At least to a reasonable observer

There was no evidence against any of them apart from Roy Meadows' false statistical analysis, which the juries unfortunately trusted. Sally's baby was later shown to have died from meningitis, and that plus the realisation that juries were no longer buying Meadows' line in bullcrap led to Angela's and Donna's wrongful convictions being overturned.

Agreed. Meadows was one in a line of dubious "expert witnesses".

While some or all of these women may have suffered from post-natal depression - it's a common condition after all - this has no bearing on the matter. The overwhelming majority of women who suffer from post-natal depression do not kill their babies, and none of these women actually killed their babies!

Can we also agree that none of this has the slightest bearing on the Lucy Letby case, as she was not a new mother and she didn't suffer from post-natal depression.

Agreed.

 

[Vixen]

You are incapable of understanding that. The causescif death may, according to expert testimony, be related to the health of the babies.

Only where it is relevant. The one relevant case was when it was argued one of the babies had inherited a thrombosis syndrome from its mother. A leading haemotologist under close cross-examination explained why this was not medically so. If you do a search you can find the details of this, by typing in the relevant key words.

Babies are independent of their mothers and even if they were desperately disabled or ill (the fragile skull syndrome) it doesn't make it any more legal to injure, harm, assault, manslaughter or murder them.

 

[catsmate]

No, Cannings and Anthony weren't 'acquitted on appeal'.

Cannings conviction was overturned as unsafe by the Court of Appeal.
Donna Anthony's case was overturned by the CCRC.

It was an exceptional case of all of Roy Meadows' previous cases were reviewed and the latter two were singled out as being as unsafe as Clark's.

Yes and no. Meadows was an arrogant, incompetent, fool.

The unsafeness came from Meadows' improper application of statistics.

No, the was more to the cases.

 

[Rolfe]

No, Cannings and Anthony weren't 'acquitted on appeal'.

Yes, they were. After Sally Clark was acquitted when new evidence turned up showing that the baby had died of meningitis (it wasn't even a cot death as such) and the events of the Trupti Patel trial, it became clear that parents who had suffered multiple SIDS bereavements should not even be suspected of murder in the absence of any substantive evidence. The system corrected itself and the two other women were declared to be innocent.

I thought that's how you agreed it works, Vixen. That if someone suffers a wrongful conviction then the appeals process will correct it. Here we have the appeals process doing just that, and yet you don't accept it.

It was an exceptional case of all of Roy Meadows' previous cases were reviewed and the latter two were singled out as being as unsafe as Clark's. The unsafeness came from Meadows' improper application of statistics. In the case of where a mother is one-on-one with her child (or any one-on-one suspected murder carried out in private and with no witnesses) all a court has to go on is a case built up by the police, expert witnesses, medical and otherwise (in their case, a statistician, Roy Meadows working out probability of SIDS) and other circumstantial evidence, including forensic. We can't know whether they 'did it' or not. The jury simply has to weigh up whether they are 'sure'. Meadows' statistics were rubbish and eccentrically calculated. This came to light when the meningitis pathology report was discovered to have been left out of Clark's files. The defence were arguing SIDS - sudden infant death syndrome (- not post-natal psychosis [ed.], which actually if accepted by the court would make them Not Guilty of Murder by way of Diminished Responsibilty). The convictions of the three were thus 'unsafe'.

I agree this cannot possibly apply to Letby as to plead diminished responsibility arising from a mental illness [such as depression] would mean to admit to having killed the neonates in her care (NB the former three pleading SIDS does not mean they are admitting anything [or by way of post-natal depression], just going along with the advice of their defence). Letby has always denied any culpability.

There was never any evidence of murder in any of the four cases - Clark, Cannings, Anthony or Patel. Charging them with murder was a gross error that the courts were led into by Roy Meadows' arrogance and misunderstanding of statistics. It's grossly dishonest to imply that because these women were the victims of misguided charges (and then acquitted, Mrs Patel at the court of first instance) that they may still be considered to be guilty because "we can't know". On that basis anyone who has ever suffered a bereavement for which they don't have a cast-iron alibi may be implied to be a murderer.

The defence in the Sally Clark case argued for SIDS because they didn't know about the microbiological and cytological evidence of meningitis. Once they knew about that, of course the hitherto unexplained was explained and they moved on to that ground. Of course they weren't arguing for post-partum psychosis because Mrs Clark did not have that (although it's said she did have a degree of post-natal depression), and get this. That would have been a plea in mitigation. It would have involved admitting that Mrs Clark had actually killed her babies. Which the defence did not admit, on the very reasonable ground that she didn't kill them.

And once again, while I believe there is a thread somewhere about these cases, they have virtually nothing to do with the Lucy Letby case.

 

[Vixen]

Mass huge sizeable er, a not inconsiderable, large-ish, - go on then, tiny demo outside the Royal Courts of Justice today, including Knight in White Armour, Richard Gill and, um, the Spartacist League...

"A class-struggle, non-sectarian defence organisation, championing causes in the interest of the working class, associated with the Spartacist League/Britain."

https://twitter.com/x/status/2097725522822205722

 

[Planigale]

Yes, they were. After Sally Clark was acquitted when new evidence turned up showing that the baby had died of meningitis (it wasn't even a cot death as such) and the events of the Trupti Patel trial, it became clear that parents who had suffered multiple SIDS bereavements should not even be suspected of murder in the absence of any substantive evidence. The system corrected itself and the two other women were declared to be innocent.

I thought that's how you agreed it works, Vixen. That if someone suffers a wrongful conviction then the appeals process will correct it. Here we have the appeals process doing just that, and yet you don't accept it.



There was never any evidence of murder in any of the four cases - Clark, Cannings, Anthony or Patel. Charging them with murder was a gross error that the courts were led into by Roy Meadows' arrogance and misunderstanding of statistics. It's grossly dishonest to imply that because these women were the victims of misguided charges (and then acquitted, Mrs Patel at the court of first instance) that they may still be considered to be guilty because "we can't know". On that basis anyone who has ever suffered a bereavement for which they don't have a cast-iron alibi may be implied to be a murderer.

The defence in the Sally Clark case argued for SIDS because they didn't know about the microbiological and cytological evidence of meningitis. Once they knew about that, of course the hitherto unexplained was explained and they moved on to that ground. Of course they weren't arguing for post-partum psychosis because Mrs Clark did not have that (although it's said she did have a degree of post-natal depression), and get this. That would have been a plea in mitigation. It would have involved admitting that Mrs Clark had actually killed her babies. Which the defence did not admit, on the very reasonable ground that she didn't kill them.

And once again, while I believe there is a thread somewhere about these cases, they have virtually nothing to do with the Lucy Letby case.

We have disagreed about this before. You have your fixed ideology which is not supported by the facts. I don't expect you change your mind, but for other readers I will correct the facts. In the Sally Clark case the issue was not Meadows interpretation of statistics, the court of appeal were clear on this. Meadows did not spontaneously come up with the statistics but was asked in court to estimate the risk, the barrister was wrong to ask this Meadows put on the spot did his best to answer. The appeal court reversed the conviction on the basis of errors in the post mortem. To further correct you there was no evidence of meningitis, I don't know where you got this from? The issue was evidence of bacterial infection, possible sepsis. The fact that the court failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Clark was innocent, doesn't mean she was. I accept the court findings, but there is significant evidence even if not sufficient to convict pointing to her having killed her children.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, I don't expect you to change your mind either, so we're even.

 

[Vixen]

Thirlwall findings out this afternoon

https://twitter.com/x/status/2099770280402952275

 

[Pixel42]

Lucy Letby inquiry finds Countess of Chester Hospital could have prevented some baby deaths

Lady Justice Thirlwall's inquiry finds there was a "complete failure to protect babies" at the Countess of Chester Hospital, with safeguarding practices not followed.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Rolfe]

The problem is that she was told she had to begin from the premise that Letby actually did what she was convicted of doing.