*Few of the scientists who have raised doubts about the evidence since Letby’s second trial and the Court of Appeal ruling have asserted that Letby did not try to murder even a single baby.*
I haven't seen any of the scientists who are questioning Letby's guilt assert Letby tried to murder some but not others - let alone a majority. Who were you thinking of here?
Some people say the convictions were not safe: she should not have been convicted on the evidence.
If so, the next question is whether she did any act intended to harm a baby. As a matter of logic, she could have done so even if there was not sufficient evidence to convict.
My impression is that the most of the doctors and statisticians who think her convictions are unsafe do not go so far as to say that she did not try to harm anyone — in popular parlance, that she is entirely innocent. Many say they do not know whether she committed any crimes or not.
But others say they are sure she did not. Richard Gill, who comments on this page is one of them. I believe the number who have asserted Letby's innocence in the popular sense is few in number. I think Prof Gill agrees with me but he says that's because they don't want to speak out — for reasons I can entirely understand.
In the Post Office IT scandal the Horizon computer sysyem *losses* couldn't reliably be taken to mean there had actually been any theft. In Letby *deliberate harms* to neonates were suggested by the CPS... if the science used was unreliable no deliberate harms need be taken to have occured.
It's impossible to say no theft ever took place when Horizon was used... Horizon very unreliability makes that so.
No scientist (including Prof Gill) could say no deliberate harm was inflicted on neonates at Countess of Chester... what they can say is the measures used to prove deliberate harms were caused are wholly unreliable.
That is what the majority of scientists commenting (across a number of relevant disciplines) I have seen are saying in Letby. Saying they don't know for sure no deliberate harms were done is the same as saying they weren't watching each of the neonates every hour of every day.
Framing is important here... and the constant monitoring of neonates by CCTV should be the least that's now considered going forward.
On a more general note this paper may be of interest. Letby’s innocence (or not) is a matter (objectively) of *proofs*. We are (uniquely?) equipped to *think independently* & challenge *current thinking*… we really should play to our strengths 🤞👇
You say few scientists say Lucy Letby did not kill or harm any babies. I am a scientist who does say this, and I moreover say I’m pretty certain about this. If you are interested I can give you my reasoning. It depends on Bayes’ theorem and appraisal of prior odds and likelihood ratios. We can discuss each item and discuss the methodology if you like. Most scientists will not say what they actually think, for very sound tactical reasons. I have my good reasons to actually say what I think. I am a scientist but with regards to this case I’m a campaigner, and this is again a matter of tactics. Different persons who feel strongly about this case and want to be part of public discussion will naturally have sound tactical reasons for a particular public attitude.
*Few of the scientists who have raised doubts about the evidence since Letby’s second trial and the Court of Appeal ruling have asserted that Letby did not try to murder even a single baby.*
I haven't seen any of the scientists who are questioning Letby's guilt assert Letby tried to murder some but not others - let alone a majority. Who were you thinking of here?
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.
Some people say the convictions were not safe: she should not have been convicted on the evidence.
If so, the next question is whether she did any act intended to harm a baby. As a matter of logic, she could have done so even if there was not sufficient evidence to convict.
My impression is that the most of the doctors and statisticians who think her convictions are unsafe do not go so far as to say that she did not try to harm anyone — in popular parlance, that she is entirely innocent. Many say they do not know whether she committed any crimes or not.
But others say they are sure she did not. Richard Gill, who comments on this page is one of them. I believe the number who have asserted Letby's innocence in the popular sense is few in number. I think Prof Gill agrees with me but he says that's because they don't want to speak out — for reasons I can entirely understand.
In the Post Office IT scandal the Horizon computer sysyem *losses* couldn't reliably be taken to mean there had actually been any theft. In Letby *deliberate harms* to neonates were suggested by the CPS... if the science used was unreliable no deliberate harms need be taken to have occured.
It's impossible to say no theft ever took place when Horizon was used... Horizon very unreliability makes that so.
No scientist (including Prof Gill) could say no deliberate harm was inflicted on neonates at Countess of Chester... what they can say is the measures used to prove deliberate harms were caused are wholly unreliable.
That is what the majority of scientists commenting (across a number of relevant disciplines) I have seen are saying in Letby. Saying they don't know for sure no deliberate harms were done is the same as saying they weren't watching each of the neonates every hour of every day.
Framing is important here... and the constant monitoring of neonates by CCTV should be the least that's now considered going forward.
On a more general note this paper may be of interest. Letby’s innocence (or not) is a matter (objectively) of *proofs*. We are (uniquely?) equipped to *think independently* & challenge *current thinking*… we really should play to our strengths 🤞👇
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Teppo-Felin/publication/378477225_Theory_Is_All_You_Need_AI_Human_Cognition_and_Causal_Reasoning/links/66ceaa80bd201736675c23cb/Theory-Is-All-You-Need-AI-Human-Cognition-and-Causal-Reasoning.pdf?origin=publication_detail&_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uRG93bmxvYWQiLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiJ9fQ
You say few scientists say Lucy Letby did not kill or harm any babies. I am a scientist who does say this, and I moreover say I’m pretty certain about this. If you are interested I can give you my reasoning. It depends on Bayes’ theorem and appraisal of prior odds and likelihood ratios. We can discuss each item and discuss the methodology if you like. Most scientists will not say what they actually think, for very sound tactical reasons. I have my good reasons to actually say what I think. I am a scientist but with regards to this case I’m a campaigner, and this is again a matter of tactics. Different persons who feel strongly about this case and want to be part of public discussion will naturally have sound tactical reasons for a particular public attitude.
Thank you. I think we agree on "few" though I accept that others may be unwilling to come forward.
I know you have written about this on your blog https://gill1109.com but if there are other links you would like to add here that's fine.
Sadly, I am not remotely qualified to discuss statistics with you.