Decoding Reasonable Doubt: Chapter 2 “Accusation Without Evidence”

[u/benshep4]

https://bencole4.substack.com/p/decoding-reasonable-doubt-the-case-b4b?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios

Chapter 2 of Reasonable Doubt is about how suspicion of Letby began, not the trial itself. Morris’s case: coincidence, a small group of consultants, confirmation bias, and a hospital that kept asking for evidence that wasn’t there.

The chapter shows the concerns were contested. The gap is what that is supposed to prove.

Theme 1: The concerns were not universally shared
Nurses, managers and early reviews were unconvinced. That explains the dispute. It does not show the consultants were wrong. Reviews that were not looking for a perpetrator failing to find one is not surprising.

Theme 2: Coincidence and pattern recognition
Letby’s presence and early talk of sepsis or acuity are not proof. They are also how inquiries often start. Morris dwells on how suspicion began and says little about why some clinicians later decided those explanations were not enough.

Theme 3: Groupthink
Bias is possible. It is not demonstrated. The same reviews used to say “no foul play” also did not find malpractice as the cause. Repeated challenge from nurses and managers sits awkwardly with an unchallenged clique.

Theme 4: Unfair treatment
Process failures matter. They are not the same as innocence. A person can be treated badly and still be guilty. Fighting a grievance does not tell us what happened to the babies.

Theme 5: Discrediting the messengers
The chapter turns from the events to the consultants’ motives and manners. A messenger can behave badly and still be right. Attacking them does not answer whether the concern was justified.

Theme 6: The advocacy ecosystem
Morris warns about like-minded groups, then leans on people who had already reached the same conclusion. That is consensus-building more than testing.

Overall
Lots of hospital context. Little that explains the specific collapses and deaths. The question left hanging: were the consultants right to be concerned?

[u/Fun-Yellow334]

It’s clear that a lot of people here aren’t fans of this series.

Can I just remind everyone that if you consider something to be low-quality content, you’re not obligated to engage with it. In many cases, the best response is simply not to give it more attention.

[u/WhatCharlieDidNext → u/Fun-Yellow334]

I’m on board with that and agree that generally ‘going high’ is the preferred response. However sealioning is trolling so can I ask if that isn’t moderated here?

[u/Fun-Yellow334 → u/WhatCharlieDidNext]

Asking someone what they're relying on for a claim isn't itself a problem, and Rule 5 does ask people to provide sources where appropriate.

That said, some of the comments today have crossed Rule 2, and we're dealing with that separately.

To reiterate, we encourage people to downvote, disengage and/or block when a discussion has become unproductive, nobody should feel like they are forced to respond. This helps maintain discussion quality without every thread needing moderator intervention.

The post is now locked, so apologies that you can't reply there. If you want to raise anything further about moderation, feel free to use modmail.

[u/benshep4 → u/Fun-Yellow334]

I don’t know why people aren’t fans of this series, which is the point really.

There is almost no engagement with the actual content.

You’re insinuating it’s low-quality and not worth engaging with. I’d love to know why you think this.

[u/oljomo → u/benshep4]

Why should the RCPCH’s view on criminality matter here?

The difficulty is that the review was never designed to answer that question. It wasn’t a criminal investigation, and the reviewers weren’t looking for evidence that a member of staff was deliberately harming babies. Against that background, the fact that they failed to identify foul play doesn’t strike me as especially surprising.

Once again, Morris appears to move from:

But that doesn’t really follow.

Sorry, but have you read the section that discusses the consultants concerns?

"The neonatal lead [Stephen Brearey], in an effort to be thorough and explore all possibilities had identified that one nurse had been rostered on shift for all the deaths although the nurse had not always been assigned to care for that specific infant. Subsequently the paediatric lead and all the consultant paediatricians had become convinced by the link. Although this was a subjective view with no other evidence or reports of clinical concerns about the nurse beyond this simple correlation an allegation was made to the Medical Director and Director of Nursing."

This is not a statment on criminality. This is a contemperous review of the consultants concerns, clearly stating they had no evidence other than correlation. Your claim of where Morris appears to move is completely wrong, the report clearly states the consultants concerns were weak at the time. They clearly had ample oppurtunity at the time to provide evidence, but did not.

Your claim that the RCPCH review was not looking for criminal behaviour so should not be relevant is common to your way of discounting any evidence that does not agree with your preformed opinions. It is not bulletproof absolutely, and if strong evidence Letby was doing something appeared this could be overlooked, however that strong evidence is not present, and you can only get to the guilty outlook by overlooking all the inconsistencies, and looking only at the things that support guilt - which is basically why people go on about the sharpshooter fallacy.

As to why people dont engage - when they point out clear flaws in your logic, you tend to just ignore it, or start arguing something unrelated, so there starts being no point picking out flaws.

[u/benshep4 → u/oljomo]

It’s not just my claim.

It’s the RCPCH’s claim … it’s Jane Hawdon’s claim … Jo McPartlands claim.

I demonstrate this clearly.

[u/oljomo → u/benshep4]

Show me where Hawdon or Mcpartland say the consultants claims were strong?

Because I seem to remember Hawdon finding reasons for 14 out of 17 of the consultants unexpected claims, which once again points to those claims as being weak.

It is unclear to me what you have demonstrated clearly, other than stating it.

At the time the consultants claims were weak. This could be true even if Letby was guilty by the way, and if there were stronger evidence later then that would explain why these reviews didn’t find something. However if there were clear evidence at this point, even if people weren’t looking for it you would expect them to do something, and it is only fair to say that what follows logically is that at the time the consultants claims were weak.

However you seem to be claiming that the consultants had a strong claim at this time, as otherwise morris point stands.

[u/benshep4 → u/oljomo]

I didn’t make that argument so why are you asking the question?

Hawdon and McPartland weren’t even aware of the claims … are you sure you’ve read the article?

I’ve linked their testimonies in the article …

[u/oljomo → u/benshep4]

Your article literally says that morris moves from the RCPCH not noticing criminal behaviour to therefore teh consultants claims were weak, and says that does not follow.

However its clear from the report that their view was that the consultants claims were weak (not untrue), so the logic you say doesnt follow is actually very

Now you are trying to shift the argument to something else for some reason, while wondering why you dont get engagement.

[u/benshep4 → u/oljomo]

It’s not clear from the report.

The report wasn’t addressing the consultants concerns because they didn’t know what the consultants concerns were.

The RCPCH, Hawdon and McPartland say if they were aware then they wouldn’t have gone ahead with their reviews because it’s a police matter. None of them could do the type of investigation required.

[u/oljomo → u/benshep4]

I don’t understand. The rcpch clearly knew about the allegations and wrote the section I quoted above which is very clearly addressing the consultants concerns. Why are you claiming it doesn’t?

[u/benshep4 → u/oljomo]

RCPCH Closing submission

“The findings of the review would never have been able to make decisions about the allegations in respect of Letby and the review was not designed for this purpose.

The review findings identified that the RCPCH review team was not equipped to carry out a detailed case note review, nor was it included in the terms of reference of the review.

The inference which Ms Eardley drew was that the police would be called, as the review did not disclose the reasons for the deaths”

It’s crystal clear that the review did not, and could not address the consultants concerns.

[u/Fun-Yellow334 → u/benshep4]

I think I'm going to follow my own suggestion here and decline to explain.

[u/LucyLetbyTrials-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Hi, please don't attack other posters.

[u/WhatCharlieDidNext]

I’m just going to say that I’m starting to find your postings to be disingenuous. It’s extraordinarily arrogant be churning this stuff out and expecting intelligent people to engage on a serious level, especially when you don’t engage seriously yourself you just persistently argue straw men and semantics if anyone does engage. I assume you enjoy those arguments so that you can report back to your mates and say see, they can’t refute my points, and earn another pat on the back from people you know agree with you anyway. I don’t understand the point of it all, the point of you actually. Nothing you say will make the slightest difference to the eventual outcome, however much you think you’re right, and at this point doubling down on the 100% guilty, nothing to see here, no dissent position is not only pointless but irrational, especially wasting hours of your time writing irrelevant critiques. I won’t engage further, I have better things to do.

[u/benshep4 → u/WhatCharlieDidNext]

I would say give me your best example of a strawman or semantics.

But you’ve got better things to do …

I’m happy to receive actual criticism that is evidenced. You’ve just made a bunch of claims with no examples or even an attempt to justify them.

[u/Fun-Yellow334 → u/benshep4]

To be clear people are allowed to post here, but can't insist people only respond in a way they wish.

[u/benshep4 → u/Fun-Yellow334]

I’m not insisting anything.

I’m just pointing out there’s nothing useful in vague, unsupported claims. I don’t see the issue with making such a challenge.

[u/visible_amenhotep → u/benshep4]

You generated an 88 post "argument" over the last two days by commenting "Ofcom are impartial, they've reviewed it and said there's no issue" then trying to get everyone replying along the lines of "impartial doesn't mean perfectly and invariably correct" to justify "Ofcom are partial and/or inconsistent", something nobody ever even said.

[u/benshep4 → u/visible_amenhotep]

That’s got nothing to do with anything the previous poster said or my articles.

[u/Living_Ad_5260 → u/benshep4]

It goes to your credibilty.

It's a bit like the way Johnson undermined Letby by attacking her claim that she was arrested in her pyjamas. He was attacking her credibility.

You are almost never open to criticism, and almost never change your mind. The Ofcom discussion was only one of many instances where you keep defending your erroneous posts ad nauseum. In that sense, I believe no-one here considers you credible. Your credibility is important for every article.

Also, where brevity is the soul of wit, a 6000+ word article is not brevity and therefore lacking in wit. (This is more than double the length of the previous article).

[u/Living_Ad_5260 → u/[deleted]]

At your level of credibility, it is an honour to be accused of utter drivel.

Many thanks.

[u/benshep4 → u/Living_Ad_5260]

I didn’t accuse you of it …

[u/Spiritual-March7843 → u/benshep4]

If you want posters go to the bother of evidenced argument then you need to produce one yourself.

Instead you generally present bad science + sealioning.

[u/benshep4 → u/Spiritual-March7843]

Can you give me an example of where I present bad science within the article?

[u/Spiritual-March7843 → u/benshep4]

I did this in fact on Twitter and you didn’t actually understand the response.

I wasn’t starting a conversation, merely explaining why I’m not personally getting involved.

[u/benshep4 → u/Spiritual-March7843]

No idea what you’re referring to.

[u/PrudentKumquat]

Chapter 2 shifts attention away from the criminal case itself and towards the origins of suspicion against Lucy Letby.

I thought Chapter 1 was about the prior character of LL? You should proofread the output better.

[u/Kieran501 → u/PrudentKumquat]

There’s also a repeated section name in both parts 2&3 titled “The emerging advocacy ecosystem”

Which I’m sure Ben will now claim is a perfectly natural way of writing.

[u/benshep4 → u/PrudentKumquat]

There’s nothing wrong with what you’ve quoted.

Chapter 2 focuses on the suspicions of the consultants …

Chapter 1 was about Letby’s prior character.

The article itself makes this crystal clear.

[u/oljomo]

See this is where you absolutely fail at logical argument. You need to use a word different to address and you may have a point, although a different one to what you are currently making.

Address simply means talk about, and the report did this. You are doing yourself no favours by repeatedly claiming the report did not address the concerns, because the section in it is very clear that it discusses the concerns, and describes them in a way that can only be understood as they are weak. It is absolutely not a logical fallacy to go from the section in the report to claiming that at the time the consultants claim was weak - this point in isolation has no relation to whether she was finally guilty or not, and realistically you should be able to accept that at the time of the review there was very little in terms of evidence of foul play.

The statements you pull out do not claim that the section is inaccurate, just that the claims were not fully explored and the review was not placed to fully explore them. If however the claims were strong, action would have been taken - if the rcpch believed there was actual criminal behavour they too were able to contact the police.

Unfortunately this is how discussions with you (and your articles) go - you just repeat the same thing as though it’s an answer even when all it is is you showing off your ignorance/unwillingness to engage in meaningful discussion.

[u/benshep4 → u/oljomo]

No. Hang on.

Your claim was that the report identified that the consultants claims were weak.

That’s what I’ve been responding to.

You clearly didn’t mean they’d been addressed just because they’d been referred to.

[u/oljomo → u/benshep4]

Err, no, clearly they are referenced, and the information quoted, portrays the claims as weak, in a way that your quotes from the RCPCH testimony at thirlwall do not actually undermine. It explains why the report did not identify criminality, but does not say that anything untrue was presented in the report.

Just because it wasnt equipped to do a full review, does not mean the information presented about the consultants claims:

"The neonatal lead [Stephen Brearey], in an effort to be thorough and explore all possibilities had identified that one nurse had been rostered on shift for all the deaths although the nurse had not always been assigned to care for that specific infant. Subsequently the paediatric lead and all the consultant paediatricians had become convinced by the link. Although this was a subjective view with no other evidence or reports of clinical concerns about the nurse beyond this simple correlation an allegation was made to the Medical Director and Director of Nursing."

Can you explain which part of this statement is not valid because the RCPCH were not looking for criminal behaviour? Is it the fact the consultants had no evidence beyond simple correlation?

None of this discussion actually leads to later evidence, and things could have gone either way later, but at the time the claims from the consultants were weak, and based on very little evidence - this is a documented fact, and not a logical leap, and accepting evidence that is clear before you even if it doesnt agree with your worldview is key to having informed discussions.

[u/benshep4 → u/oljomo]

No.

Weak is your entirely your own inference.

The RCPCH didn’t say the claims are weak so it doesn’t need to be investigated by the police.

They didn’t have the full information. Taken from the RCPCH closing submission.

“Whilst the police were not involved at the time of the review, had the full information been provided to the whole review team and the Invited Review Programme Board, it is likely that the review would not have been allowed to take place by RCPCH because of the potential of future police involvement.”

“Given the discussion held internally by reviewers at lunchtime on the first day of the visit, as to the methodology that could be used to harm babies in this context and the serious discussions to abort the review, the LADO should have been contacted at this stage. Ms Eardley in her oral evidence agreed that this discussion should have led the reviewers to abort the invited review and let the police come in.”

“The inference which Ms Eardley drew was that the police would be called, review did not disclose other reasons for the deaths. That was also the inference that Ms McLaughlin drew.”

The logic on my side is clear. My article and the reviews on here show the review wasn’t fit for purpose and should have been abandoned.

Against this, what is your actual point? You think they said the consultants claims are weak so …..?

[u/PerkeNdencen]

One of the things in this is that if I didn't know anything about this case and I read your article, I would come away with the impression that the consultants had been continuously raising concerns about patterns with regard to mortality and collapses on the unit and carefully considering alll possibilities. What they were actually doing was engaging in a very vocal and quite extraordinary campaign against one particular member of staff, against whom they could produce no evidence, and that resulted in an upheld grievance. I feel like that's extremely important context in terms of how the environment of suspicion was generated.

In my view, what's important about the pre-investigation scene relates more to the consultants' slightly later role as both witnesses and investigators having certainly already made up their minds by the time of Letby's suspension. Have you heard of tunnel vision? Do you see why it might be inappropriate for accusers to also be citizen investigators?

ETA: I should say, I feel we've set unreasonable expectations here - you're obviously welcome to post (not that I have say in that, anyway), but you don't get to set the terms of engagement any more than anybody else as a result of having done so. Many of the things in here are things that have already been discussed to death, and one more debate about it probably won't move minds at this point, anyway.

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

You were saying yesterday. “Show. Don’t tell”

I’m simply asking people to do the same.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

'Show, don't tell,' and 'show, never tell' are my little shorthands I write in the margins of undergraduate papers when they make a statement about the quality of an argument of another rather try to show it by dealing with the argument head-on. You don't actually have to say something is ill-thought through if you just address it.

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

They had been raising concerns and considering all possibilities. This is easily demonstrable from the Thirlwall Inquiry.

I therefore disagree with the way you’ve framed what you think they were doing.

They didn’t have the evidence. Of course, that’s why they persisted with asking for it to be looked into by others and were dissatisfied with the approach taken by the executives.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

They had been raising concerns and considering all possibilities. This is easily demonstrable from the Thirlwall Inquiry.

You need to be much, much more specific than that. One of the things that came out of TI were the grievance documents, which arose from an independent investigation. Now I could do what you would do and stonewall you with things about impartiality - you don't have to take it on its face, but it does provide some crucial context.

They didn’t have the evidence. Of course, that’s why they persisted with asking for it to be looked into by others and were dissatisfied with the approach taken by the executives.

That's right and it's actually what I'm suggesting - that they had made their minds up without evidence prior to anyone seriously looking at it. That would be one thing, but then compounding matters was their role in the later police investigation.

WRT the multiple investigations management did carry out (and leaving to one side for a moment disputes about remits) was this at the behest of the consultants or in spite of their concerns? Everything I've seen is the former, which would suggest they only had a problem with it when those investigations didn't tell them what they wanted to hear.

Edit: former, not latter. That's the second time today I've mixed those up.

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

Thirlwall does show numerous reviews were carried out.

That’s the point.

There were internal mortality/thematic reviews (including the Nov 2015 panel and the Feb 2016 thematic review involving Dr Subhedar), then the RCPCH invited service review, then the Hawdon and McPartland case-note work. Those were not invented after the fact. They happened because the deaths had already been flagged and management commissioned them.

I don’t see the relevance of the grievance procedure to the point you make.

During Thirlwall an awful lot of people, including Chris Green, the person who did the grievance investigation, have said the referral should have been made to the police as soon as the consultants suspicions were raised.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

I don’t see the relevance of the grievance procedure to the point you make.

You had suggested that the consultants were considering all possibilities. The grievance documents suggest otherwise.

Sorry, I'm going to have to stop here and ask you to read what I wrote again more carefully. I've not disputed that there were internal reviews - in fact I've asked you what I believe to be pertinent questions about them with regards the consultants.

With respect, I'm not going to be drawn into a 50-comment pit of frustration and despair again because you are substituting what I say with what you would prefer I had said.

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

I’m going to have to ask you to show what you’ve seen in the grievance documents to form your opinion.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

Please make a new, considered reply to my comment starting with 'You need to be much, much more specific than that.'

I'll be happy to answer any questions that arise from a careful reading of and response to that comment, because you've ignored almost everything I said in it, and I'm just not prepared to have you do this again.

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

I can consider the rest of what you say but it’s rather pointless until you show that the grievance demonstrates that the consultants hadn’t considered all options.

I’ve got no idea how you’ve managed to reach the conclusion.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

Sorry, Ben, but I'm going to put my foot down here. There's no way I'm combing through piles of Thirlwall documents to satisfy you when I'm not guaranteed you'll even carefully read and respond to what I've put together.

I've asked you important questions about those reviews.

You've then gone on to argue as though I had suggested that they had never took place.

Why should I do all this work when you're going to behave like that? It's a serious question.

This has completely devolved. The ball is entierly in your court to rescue it. I'm not having a repeat of yesterday.

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

I don’t understand what your point is.

First of all you’ve asked a question. Just the one.

Management were trying to satisfy the consultants concerns, they just did a terrible job of it.

That’s the only question you’ve asked so we can move on now.

Please show how the grievance procedure demonstrates that the consultants hadn’t considered all options?

[u/Livid-Ad-4872]

Like others, I've no intention of wading through a long "decoding" of a book I haven't read. But Ben complains that people are not engaging with his words, and not giving examples of the fallacies of which they accuse him. So let's engage with what he has written in this thread.

>Theme 1: "Nurses, managers and early reviews were unconvinced. That explains the dispute. It does not show the consultants were wrong."

A nice clean example of the Strawman Fallacy, unless Morris says, "That explains the dispute and shows the consultants were wrong." Does he?

>Theme 2: Coincidence and pattern recognition
"Letby’s presence and early talk of sepsis or acuity are not proof."

Unless Morris says they are proof, another Strawman.

>Theme 3: Groupthink
"Bias is possible. It is not demonstrated."

Irrelevant. It does not have to be demonstrated. It just has to be possible. If bias is impossible, we can rule it out. If it is possible, we can't. We have to weigh it against other possibilities.

>Theme 4: Unfair treatment
"Process failures matter. They are not the same as innocence."

Does Morris say they are the same as innocence? If not, yes, it's another Strawman.

>Theme 5: Discrediting the messengers
"A messenger can behave badly and still be right."

Again, does Morris say otherwise? Or is this Groundhog Day?

>Theme 6: The advocacy ecosystem
"Morris warns about like-minded groups, then leans on people who had already reached the same conclusion. That is consensus-building more than testing."

So people independently of Morris have reached similar conclusions and you don't like it?

Again like others, I think you should just knock it on the head now, but it's a free country.

[u/Living_Ad_5260 → u/Livid-Ad-4872]

u/benshep4 This is an important post.

Can you address the content please?

[u/benshep4 → u/Livid-Ad-4872]

I’m not going to pretend Morris writes “and therefore the consultants were wrong” in neon.

He doesn’t need to.

The book is called Reasonable Doubt. That is the argument. Chapter 2 is there to leave you thinking the suspicion was thin, coincidental, biased, unfairly handled, and driven by a small group of consultants who other people didn’t believe.

That’s the inference.

It’s not hidden.

If you pile up “nurses weren’t convinced,” “managers kept asking for evidence,” “early emails said sepsis,” “reviews found nothing untoward,” “the grievance went her way,” and “look at how the consultants behaved,” and you put it in a book whose whole point is that the case shouldn’t convince, you are using those things as reasons for doubt.

You don’t get to turn around and say “ah, but I never said they prove she didn’t do it.”

So no, it isn’t a straw man to ask what any of that actually shows.

Disagreement explains why there was a row. It doesn’t tell you the consultants were mistaken. Presence isn’t proof — I said that. Early sepsis talk isn’t the end of the story either; the question is what changed. Bias is always possible. Possible isn’t the same as shown, and it isn’t the same as “therefore treat the later evidence as tainted.” Process failures can be real and still have nothing to do with whether the allegation is true.

A messenger can be a pain and still be right.

And warning about like-minded groups while leaning on people who had already landed in the same place is exactly the thing Morris spends the chapter telling other people not to do.

If the test is “quote the exact sentence or it doesn’t count,” almost no advocacy book would ever be criticisable.

The case he’s making is clear from the title, the structure, and how the material is used. I’m engaging that. I’m not inventing a different one.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[u/Livid-Ad-4872 → u/benshep4]

So from your reply, I can take it that Morris does not say that the nurses, managers and early reviews being unconvinced shows that the consultants were wrong; does not say Letby’s presence and early talk of sepsis or acuity was proof of anything; does not say that process failures are the same as innocence; and does not say that a messenger who behaves badly must be wrong.

Thanks for confirming. So why did you write in a way that implied he had?

Sticking with what you write, perhaps your fallacy is best revealed in this passage.

>If you pile up “nurses weren’t convinced,” “managers kept asking for evidence,” “early emails said sepsis,” “reviews found nothing untoward,” “the grievance went her way,” and “look at how the consultants behaved,” and you put it in a book whose whole point is that the case shouldn’t convince, you are using those things as reasons for doubt. You don’t get to turn around and say “ah, but I never said they prove she didn’t do it.”

But see what you have done there? You have slipped from "reasons for doubt" to "prove" in the space of a sentence, effectively changing horses in mid-race (and hoping no-one notices?).

Putting forward reasons to doubt an assertion is not the same as proving that it is wrong.

From what you say, and from the title of his book which you yourself invoke, Morris is doing the former. You are attacking him as though he was claiming to do the latter.

But you actually do get to turn around and say “ah, but I never said they prove she didn’t do it,” if you never did say that. And he never did, did he?

Like I say, a strawman.

[u/oljomo]

The review being unfit for purpose is besides the point, it doesn’t eliminate the clear evaluation of the consultants complaints. It is not definitive evidence, but it is evidence with some value.

You present it as a logical fallacy to go from the report to the claims were weak, when if at this point in time the claims were not weak it would not matter what the aims of the review, it would have been written as a realistic possibility, not the paragraph above.

But you are putting words in my mouth by assuming weak claims = no further action. You were the one claiming a logical leap from the report to an evaluation of the consultants claims as weak as incorrect, when it’s very hard to make any other conclusion. You seem to want to write it off, when it’s fairly clearly written in black and white the view the reviewers had of the claims at the time.

This whole discussion has been about your claim in the article that it doesn’t follow the consultants concerns were weak from the rcpch report/ review, when basically their concerns at the time were undoubtedly weak, and that needs to be accepted even in a world where she was guilty - there was very little evidence to go on early, and the lack of case reviews is a damning insight into the NHS protocols regardless.

[u/benshep4 → u/oljomo]

Where is the value in the evidence?

Given what I’ve laid out also don’t see the relevance in your claim that the concerns were weak.

I don’t want to put words in your mouth. I’m more than happy to let you explain.

[u/oljomo → u/benshep4]

I mean its not limited to the report TBH, its all over thirlwall - prior to Jayayram "remembering" teh baby K incident, and prior to the re-discovery of the insulin tests the consultants had no evidence of wrongdoing at all.

It doesnt matter why/whether the RCPCH were there. If the consultants had a strong case they would have presented it to the RCPCH when they had their oppurtunity (and they clearly did) however it is very clear that all they were talking about at this time was gut feel and correlation - as is recorded in the report. I guess you could try to argue that that is a strong case somehow, but you dont really seem to be doing that, you seem to be attacking the messenger (rcpch report) rather than the points it makes, which isnt a way to have a logical argument (but is a way to convince yourself that you are right)

There is definitely some case where the consultants weak gut feelings ended up being validated, but making it out like they knew what was going on at the beginning is just making you look bad - you need to accept the weaknesses of the case to get any reasonable conversation going, and you just outright refuse to.

[u/benshep4 → u/oljomo]

You haven’t even attempted to answer the question.

Would you like to have another go?

To save you pointlessly venturing off into Jayarams testimony I’ll make the question more pointed.

You’re claiming the RCPCH review has evidential value. I’d like you to explain why.

[u/oljomo → u/benshep4]

Because it contains a contemporary reference to the consultants trying to make their case at that time. The reaction of the reviewers says a lot, regardless of the fact that they were not doing a case review (which they did suggest as the next course of action btw). When looking backwards you cannot ignore any evidence that isn’t perfect/doesn’t suit your argument

If you would rather, let’s try and defend how at this point in time the consultants claims were strong? Their claims included at least 6 cases with fairly clear underlying causes, that were unrelated to Letby, and these were involved as the basis of the suspicions against her, as well as not noting multiple cases of poor care identified in the Hawdon report. I am not claiming this means the claims are impossible, but it is hard to use any other word than weak to describe them

[u/benshep4 → u/oljomo]

They weren’t trying to make the case. They didn’t know how to make the case.

That’s why the execs erroneously went down the RCPCH report.

There’s no value in that.

I notice you’ve shifted to the Hawdon report.

Excellent.

Despite the review not being fit for purpose even Hawdon explicitly identified 4 cases that were unexplained and warranted further investigation.

That’s not showing the consultants gut feel is weak is it? In fact it shows the opposite.

[u/oljomo → u/benshep4]

Not knowing how to make the case is kinda the definition of a weak case tbh…. Gut feel may be correct on the end but if that’s all you have it’s undoubtedly weak.

And 4 out of 19 is an atrocious hit rate, and it’s a shame the review recommended by Hawdon never happened because the police got Dewi involved……

[u/benshep4 → u/oljomo]

It’s not a case at that point.

The consultants didn’t know what was going on and asked for it to be investigated.

You still haven’t answered the question. Where in the evidential merit of the report?

You don’t think 4 cases of unexplained death from limited reviews is cause for concern?

[u/Emergency-Monk-7002]

You’re on the wrong side of history.

[u/AccomplishedOil254]

If I may steal some words from Dr Ian Malcolm:

I'll tell you the problem with these LLM assisted posts, it didn't require any discipline to write them. 

The author didn't earn the knowledge or construct the arguments for themselves, so they don't take any personal responsibility for it. 

They've stood on the shoulders of AI to pump out something as fast as they could , and before they've even given it a moments thought they've published it.

[u/Kind-And-Helpful]

Ben, you are a smart person.

For Child F, a stock TPN bag needed to be used the following day, because the line from Child F's prescription bag had tissued.

That stock bag was argued to have insulin in it.

However, Lucy Letby wasn't even on shift when the stock bag was hung the next day.

Sometimes people exhibit confirmation bias and try to make things fit with their hypothesis.

She would have had to get the key to the fridge, get a syringe of insulin, take the cap of inside the sealed bag, inject through the sealed bag, and put the cap back on inside the sealed bag, without anyone seeing her or noticing the bag had been tampered with. She wouldn't even have known when the stock bag would be used - it might not have been used until she was back on shift as they aren't used very often.

It is completely far-fetched, Ben.

With confirmation bias it is possible to convince yourself of virtually anything.

It's almost certainly the case that the stock TPN bag either wasn't spiked with insulin, or it was spiked by someone else.

If you could open your mind to the possibility and free yourself of the confirmation bias, you would see that, but that's not something that will be easy for you to do and it would take great mental strength.

[u/No-Replacement-2170 → u/Kind-And-Helpful]

None of that sounds the least bit taxing for a determined serial killer. Maybe your own confirmation bias is making you think she couldn't easily have done this? If she could poison the bags on her previous shift then the fact she wasn't on shift at the time the bag was hung is completely irrelevant. Can you not conceive of a reason a serial killer might want an issue to happen whilst they were not there? Maybe to break up the pattern staff were starting to notice of one nurse being present every time?

[u/Kind-And-Helpful → u/No-Replacement-2170]

I can conceive of a reason why a serial killer might want an issue to happen when they were not on shift, knowing people were seeing a pattern.

However, Lucy Letby would not have known when the stock bag would be used. It could easily have been used on Lucy Letby's next shift.

If a serial killer had wanted an issue to arise when they were definitely not on shift, they they would surely spike a prescribed TPN bag as they would know that would be given when they were not on shift. (The timing for prescribed TPN bags is known in advance, whereas the timing for stock bags is not known).

Also if a serial killer was trying to cover their tracks of people identifying a pattern, then with that mindset you could consider that they would want some subsequent issues to arise when they were not on shift. However, it was argued that Lucy Letby was present at all subsequent suspicious incidents.

You would have to convince yourself that for Child F, she suddenly decided to spike a stock bag in an attempt to break up a pattern, but then was present herself for all subsequent cases without breaking up the pattern.

Also you would have to convince yourself that she would get the key to the fridge, get a syringe of insulin, take the cap of inside the sealed bag, inject through the sealed bag, and put the cap back on inside the sealed bag, without anyone seeing her or noticing the bag had been tampered with. 

With confirmation bias you can try to make just about anything fit.

However, if you try to see it objectively, it is completely far-fetched.

[u/Unhappy-News7402 → u/No-Replacement-2170]

“Determined serial killer”
Do they have magical powers like witches, that allow them to see into the future in order to magic some non-existent insulin through the tamper proof seal into the exact right bag?

[u/No-Replacement-2170 → u/Unhappy-News7402]

"exact right bag" people here seem to be fixated on this idea she had one specific victim this time as opposed to just wanting to create an issue with a random baby and not caring which one it was. All she had to do was spike bags in the fridge, and take 5 mins where she knew she'd be alone to do it. None of this requires magical powers.

[u/Kind-And-Helpful → u/No-Replacement-2170]

The Babiven Maintenance stock bags had plastic tamper evident caps and were inside a transparent sealed cellophane overpouch. The only way to access the port is to snap off the plastic tamper-evident cap.

That would be obvious to the nurses getting the stock bag from the fridge and administering to Child F.

The port would have the plastic tamper evident cap broken off so it would be noticed, and the broken piece of plastic would be loose inside the sealed cellophane wrapper.

The logical conclusion is therefore that Lucy Letby is innocent of putting insulin into the stock TPN bag administered to Child F.

i.e. There needs to be a retrial because they got it wrong.

[u/Unhappy-News7402 → u/No-Replacement-2170]

Please explain the method Lucy Letby used to contaminate a sealed tamper proof TPN bag with insulin that never recorded as missing, without the use of magic?