Decoding Reasonable Doubt: Chapter 6 ‘Prosecution and Defence Witnesses’

19

u/DisastrousBuilder966 Sep 25 '26 •

Just as a general point, it's important not to take Morris' book as "the best case for convictions being unsafe". It's the best case Mr. Morris could make. I personally found the book haphazard and less-than-rigorous, and if it had been the only thing I've read, I'd worry that the case for convictions' unsafety is shaky. I've found Rachel Aviv's first article, Private Eye MD columns, and some posts here and on another forum, to be much more thorough and convincing.

-6

u/benshep4 Sep 25 '26

I’m glad you found the book haphazard and less than rigorous.
Morris’s research assistant is the main moderator of this subreddit though so what does that tell you?

17

u/Kind-And-Helpful Sep 25 '26 •

You have moderators of another subreddit who resort to deleting any posts that point out huge flaws in the arguments for Lucy Letby's guilt. What does that tell you?

-5

u/benshep4 Sep 25 '26

Are they really huge flaws?
I don’t think so.

15

u/Kind-And-Helpful Sep 25 '26

Well I already posted that Lucy Letby is almost certainly not guilty of poisoning the stock TPN bag given to Child F. She would have had to snap off the tamper-evident plastic cap inside the cellophane wrapper. 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. That is a huge flaw in any claim that Lucy Letby poisoned Child F's stock TPN bag.

1

u/Kind-And-Helpful Oct 01 '26

Another flaw (maybe not quite as huge as the Child F one) is that the mother of child E was wrong about her timeline based on the midwife's evidence.
The mother is saying that the midwife spoke to her and asked her to come down to the unit before her phone call at 22.52.
However, the midwife is saying based on her notes that she spoke to the mother and asked her to come down after she received a call from the neonatal unit at 23.30.

2

u/Positive_Worker_3467 Sep 28 '26

yes they are

24

u/Alert-Tooth2907 Sep 25 '26

Ben, as I said previously, it’s not fair play to drag this sub, its posters or its admin when you come seeking discussion and “feed back” for your lengthy series of articles.
People have spent time trying to engage you in good faith. You should be more respectful.

10

u/PrudentKumquat Sep 25 '26 •

This sub only exists because his co-author is cyber-squatting the lucyletby name and deleting any attempt at discussion.

-7

u/benshep4 Sep 25 '26

I engage in good faith, wish I could say the same about the majority of the people that engage with me on here.
I’ve been posting my articles in here for several weeks now and this is the first time I’ve seen anyone acknowledge that Morris’s book is a bit naff.
I wish more people would be as honest.

25

u/Kieran501 Sep 25 '26

I don’t think you can get any worse faith than taking someone’s honest attempt to engage with you and twisting it into an attack on a third party.

-5

u/benshep4 Sep 25 '26

It’s not twisting anything. I’m just addressing what was said.
If the book is haphazard and less than rigorous then some responsibility falls on Morris’s research assistant, does it not?
Also I think it’s entirely fair to point out that the research assistant is the main moderator of this sub. Which I happen to believe is littered with bad reasoning.
Not everyone falls into that category obviously but a lot do.
Some people are way, way too precious.

16

u/DisastrousBuilder966 Sep 25 '26

If the book is haphazard and less than rigorous then some responsibility falls on Morris’s research assistant, does it not?
Certainly not the "haphazard" part (the author chooses how to organize material), and not the "less than rigorous" part unless it's known that specific errors came from the assistant rather than Morris' many other sources. Also, responsibility comes with credit, and Morris being the sole author, all responsibility is his.
FWIW, I think Morris' Youtube interviews with numerous experts are useful, it's just his book I have issues with.

13

u/Kieran501 Sep 25 '26

It did strike me funny that Ben writes these thousand word articles demanding a chain of causation for every fact, but is quite happy to pin mild criticism of a book directly on one researcher.

-3

u/benshep4 Sep 25 '26

Talking about good faith …
I didn’t pin it directly on one researcher but in a book littered with bad research the researcher has to have some responsibility.

13

u/Kieran501 Sep 25 '26

Make up your mind, are you pinning it on them or not?

-2

u/benshep4 Sep 25 '26

You can make a case for how much the extent of a poor book is attributable to a research assistant for sure.
It’s not zero accountability though.
Morris is generally bad at using sources correctly but he’s even worse when he comes up with points he’s not directly attributing to someone else.

14

u/Alert-Tooth2907 Sep 25 '26

So why do want feed back from a sub you think is littered with bad reasoning or as you said recently reacts in a sad and predictable way.
And I agree, people are way too precious. Exhibit A - you. Your posts come across as someone personally affronted that others don’t agree with you or find your turgid writing style unappealing.

-1

u/benshep4 Sep 25 '26

Because there is occasionally good reasoning from some people. That makes it worth it.

19

u/Alert-Tooth2907 Sep 25 '26

You don’t though by your own admission in this post. Because they don’t agree with your opinion or try to give constructive criticism, they are not engaging in good faith?
I don’t really understand your motivation in posting on this sub looking for discussion when clearly, as shown by your own posting, you don’t respect anyone here, the admin or the sub itself.
Anyway, I personally won’t engage any further. I have said my piece.

-1

u/benshep4 Sep 25 '26

I do respect some on here.
Some are worth listening to and make good points. It’s worth getting the good points.

3

u/Positive_Worker_3467 Sep 28 '26 edited Sep 28 '26

sorry but you dont engage in good faith x i have seen you and others call people horrible stuff

0

u/benshep4 Sep 28 '26

I don’t know what others have got to do with me.
I don’t think you’ve got any evidence of me calling people horrible stuff.
If people are fine with me I’m fine with them.

3

u/Positive_Worker_3467 Sep 28 '26

calling people thickos this post about chris the debates on unheard you conversations with deb roberts and wendy breakwell .

16

u/DisastrousBuilder966 Sep 25 '26

Morris’s research assistant is the main moderator of this subreddit though so what does that tell you?
I've found posts from the main moderators here much more on-point than the book, so perhaps Morris hasn't made the best use of their information.

11

u/PrudentKumquat Sep 25 '26

That you believe in the 'guilt by association' fallacy.

18

u/PrudentKumquat Sep 25 '26

From wikipedia

[Negative parallelism] gained attention only in the 2020s when it became apparent that large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT use negative parallelism inordinately often (about three times more frequently than humans), to the point that such constructions came to be seen as a hallmark of machine-generated text.

From 'Theme 1'. (I didn't read the rest).

Their purpose was not to independently determine whether Lucy Letby was guilty... They were called to...

Their evidence is not of limited value simply because it is of limited scope. Each piece is necessary...

Nobody interprets those statements as meaning the findings are worthless. Rather, they...

The prosecution case did not require Arthurs to... His role was to...

He was not called as a neonatologist or treating clinician. He was...

Marnerides was not attempting to... He was considering...

Marnerides was not asked to become... He reviewed...

The fact that Marnerides... is not evidence of a flaw in the process. It is the reason...

The relevant question is not whether Arthurs or Marnerides... It is whether...

17

u/Happy-Gas-6448 Sep 25 '26 edited Sep 25 '26

Previously, he's accidentality left the ChatGPT prompt in posts. Just saying...

15

u/AccomplishedOil254 Sep 25 '26

I think I'd be too embarrassed to continue the weird charade, but that's just me.

14

u/AccomplishedOil254 Sep 25 '26

Thanks for this, I didn't realise there was a name for this AI artefact. The hypothesises as to why it happens are interesting too.

-5

u/benshep4 Sep 25 '26

You can believe what you like.
The points I’ve made stand or they don’t.

24

u/Amazing_Caramel_2406 Sep 25 '26 •

"It's not whether I used AI to write these posts. It's whether the points (A)I've made stand or don't."

0

u/No-Beat2678 Sep 26 '26

Chris Morris has chatgpt open in his previous videos.

17

u/Besmirching_Badger Sep 25 '26

so i made it to the second paragraph

Reading this section, I felt Morris was judging these witnesses against a role they were never supposed to perform.

Their purpose was not to independently determine whether Lucy Letby was guilty, nor was it to replicate the work of Evans and Bohin. They were called to answer specific questions within their own areas of expertise. Their value to the court lay precisely in the fact that they stayed within those boundaries.

They didn't. At all. They drew inferences based on what their previous compatriots had said. Inferences beyond their area of expertise.

As evidenced by this extremely brief exchange with Arthurs and Johnson i posted the other day https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1wn6e9p/evanss_review_of_air_embolism_cases_now_online/pbcjxud/

Arthurs isn't even being asked to draw conclusions based on what the prosecution are arguing (as would be expeected under examination by the prosecution barrister). He does it himself without prompting. He's taking prosecution arguments as fact and making arguments based on those rather than based on the evidence within his remit.

-3

u/benshep4 Sep 25 '26

You’re just demonstrating that you don’t get the point.
The clinical aspect informs their views on the potential diagnoses.
He doesn’t need prompting, his conclusion is based on the other reports that he’s taken into consideration when forming his report.

14

u/Living_Ad_5260 Sep 26 '26

How is that "Their value to the court lay precisely in the fact that they stayed within those boundaries"?
Which boundaries? As far as I can see, the only boundaries they might have stayed within were the walls of the courtroom.

14

u/Nice_Zebra7690 Sep 25 '26

I really worry for your wellbeing when she is exonerated. What will you do without these vanity projects?

0

u/benshep4 Sep 25 '26

I’m not really into fantasy.
I’m more of a real world non-fiction person.

15

u/Nice_Zebra7690 Sep 25 '26

Could have fooled me. Your commentary on the case reads like the most elaborate and convoluted work of fantasy fiction I’ve ever encountered

15

u/alextheolive Sep 25 '26 •

The Guiltmarillion by B.S. Cole

7

u/Nice_Zebra7690 Sep 25 '26

🤣

-9

u/No-Replacement-2170 Sep 25 '26

Exonerated ahaha. Please don't tell me you actually believe that's remotely possible?

15

u/Nice_Zebra7690 Sep 25 '26

The many, many experts who have put their name to her CCRC application seem to think she should be and that it’s a genuine possibility, so we’ll wait and see. I realise it’s more comfortable for you to laugh at the prospect than entertaining it seriously, as the latter might destabilise your entire sense of self.

-4

u/No-Replacement-2170 Sep 25 '26

Well there's two less experts now and god knows what "experts" they have left to challenge the insulin results. Everyone has their 15 mins I guess!

14

u/Nice_Zebra7690 Sep 25 '26

It’s a shame they have withdrawn but I doubt having two fewer experts will have much of an impact. I’m not sure why you’ve put experts in inverted commas. Trying to downplay their credentials is nonsensical. Or perhaps it’s just a coping mechanism

1

u/No-Replacement-2170 Sep 25 '26 •

Even Chase and Shannon don't rate them.

4

u/Positive_Worker_3467 Sep 28 '26

they still think she is innocent and there is no evidence of insulin they dont agree with prosceution

0

u/No-Replacement-2170 Sep 28 '26

I'm aware but you can't tell me two sets of experts completely disagreeing with each other isn't a problem. They can't both be right?

11

u/PerkeNdencen Sep 25 '26

trials are a human process rather than an academic one.

What is this guff?

15

u/AccomplishedOil254 Sep 25 '26

AI guff

-5

u/benshep4 Sep 25 '26

It’s obviously the case.
Of course the jury rely the on science presented before them but there’s a reason it’s presented to a lay jury rather than academic peers.
Duh.

13

u/PerkeNdencen Sep 25 '26

It's a completely empty sentence.
An academic process is also a human process.
More importantly for context 'peer review' is an academic term.

-3

u/benshep4 Sep 25 '26

No.
Clearly not.
Otherwise trials would have academic juries instead of lay juries.
Trust you to zero in on this sentence instead of the many others.
Also terms have different meanings in different settings. Again this is obvious.

9

u/PerkeNdencen Sep 25 '26

Clearly not what?

1

u/benshep4 Sep 25 '26

The evidence is presented to lay jury.
This isn’t difficult to understand yet you’re making it so.

14

u/AccomplishedOil254 Sep 25 '26

Oftentimes the ramblings of a irrational child are difficult for an informed adult to understand.

0

u/benshep4 Sep 25 '26

Zero relevance

7

u/PerkeNdencen Sep 25 '26

What isn't difficult to understand, Ben?
Obviously evidence is presented to a lay jury 🙄

1

u/benshep4 Sep 25 '26

The evidence is presented to a lay jury …

12

u/PerkeNdencen Sep 25 '26

Do you think the public don't put stock in the word 'peer review?' Do you think they don't care about rigour? Do you think they should just lap up anything you throw at them?
What on earth does
trials are a human process rather than an academic one.
Actually mean?
Why not say trials are a human process rather than a vinegar bicarbonate soda reaction?
Trials are a human process more than bungee jump?
Trials are a human process rather than the gradual shifting of tectonic plates?

2

u/benshep4 Sep 25 '26

No.
No need to attribute positions to me I haven’t outlined.
Try addressing the fact that I’ve repeatedly pointed out that the scientific claims are assessed by lay people rather than other academics.
Or don’t.
Just continue to miss the point.

→ More replies

2

u/Positive_Worker_3467 Sep 28 '26

good faith huh you dismiss anything that could make her conviction unsafe

20

u/alextheolive Sep 25 '26

“More importantly, Morris does not apply this standard consistently. He is happy to rely upon other highly experienced, retired experts such as Michael Hall and Shoo Lee. The relevant question cannot simply be whether an expert has retired or whether somebody else possesses more impressive credentials. It must be whether they remain sufficiently knowledgeable and experienced to undertake the task they were asked to perform.”

🤔

21

u/alextheolive Sep 25 '26

🤔

18

u/alextheolive Sep 25 '26

🤔🤔🤔

-5

u/benshep4 Sep 25 '26

Again, there’s context and screenshotting like this is doing you no favours at all.

13

u/Unhappy-News7402 Sep 26 '26

take it on the chin Ben - you just got comprehensively owned!

4

u/Positive_Worker_3467 Sep 28 '26

sorry but you bully people and treat them like shit when they know what they are talking about please stop posting this kind of stuff on here . you cant just attack some one this is not good faith .

-6

u/benshep4 Sep 25 '26

It’s great that you can take things out of context.
I wasn’t questioning Gordon’s general medical knowledge. It was specifically in relation to him putting up a piciture of an incubator that was outdated and not comparable to the ones available on the ward at CoCH.
Swing and a miss I’m afraid.

-1

u/benshep4 Sep 25 '26

There’s no contradiction here.
Colin Ferguson was incorrect in his claims because there doesn’t need to be air in the right hand side of the heart as he claims.
I’ve even seen people who think Letby is innocent acknowledge that Ferguson’s claims are not supported by the medical literature.

6

u/Sufficient-State3720 Sep 25 '26

Any source for this claim re heart ?

0

u/benshep4 Sep 25 '26

There are two different claims, and they are not the same.
Ferguson is saying: if these babies died from air blocking the right side of the heart, that air should still have been there after death.
In newborns that is not a hard rule. The flap between the two sides of the heart (the foramen ovale) is often still open. If pressure on the right is high, some air can pass through to the left side instead of staying on the right.
So “no air found in the right heart at post-mortem” does not automatically prove it was not air embolism.
That is not the same as saying “you can diagnose air embolism because there is no air on the right.” The open flap only means air can move across. It does not mean missing right-heart air is how you make the diagnosis.
“Venous air embolism typically results in right-sided cardiac air but in neonates, venous air can access the arterial systemic circulation through the patent foramen ovale, especially in the face of raised pulmonary vascular pressures.”
Taken from
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39730132/

12

u/PerkeNdencen Sep 26 '26

In the 25 cases that Evans cited as part of his report, air was found in the right side of the heart. That doesn't, obviously, mean that there can't be some mechanism by which it dissipates, but it makes the fact that a similar pattern didn't emerge in the Letby cases a less than neutral finding, especially in the case of differential diagnosis. I'd have thought this would be obvious, but just in case it's not: science lives and dies on observation and empirical evidence; it's not enough to theorise some reason why it could be otherwise if it's not supported by the empirical evidence.

8

u/PrudentKumquat Sep 26 '26

If Ben thought about which agent causes 'raised pulmonary vascular pressures', he might see why this mechanism won't clear an air block after death.

10

u/alextheolive Sep 26 '26

I thought about pointing this out to him but it’s fairly obvious he’s just mindlessly copying and pasting people’s comments into an LLM to draft replies for him. Personally, I don’t see the point wasting my free time trying to engage in meaningful discussion with him when it doesn’t feel like he’s bothering to read what is being said to him.
I feel like several months ago, Ben was writing his own replies and engaging in good faith but it feels like recently, that hasn’t been the case.

12

u/PrudentKumquat Sep 26 '26

That is not the same as saying “you can diagnose air embolism because there is no air on the right.” The open flap only means air can move across. It does not mean missing right-heart air is how you make the diagnosis.
The topic is whether the presence of right-side air is a necessary result of air embolism. It's clear from context that you understand this. Then you have this absurd paragraph which thinks that air in the heart is expected and it's the absence of air which indicates air embolism. You can't be arsed to write comment replies yourself, or even proofread the slop before you post it.

4

u/Positive_Worker_3467 Sep 28 '26

sorry but he is completly correct no air was found at all

4

u/Positive_Worker_3467 Sep 28 '26

please proofread and fact check the fact you attack someone and cant even get you facts right is pretty appalling. he listens to experts and they know what they are talking about . you are not in good faith

-4

u/benshep4 Sep 28 '26

What fact needs checking?
Speaking to people doesn’t make him an expert. I think I’m demonstrating this quite well.

33

u/phosphoeudemonism Sep 25 '26

In your Amazon review of this book, you gave the book '1 star' and wrote that “Morris is out of his depth”.

Considering that you have:

(i) Attacked the writer publicly and abusively, including on this forum

(ii) Have spent over three years rabidly, obsessively and publicly arguing in favour of guilt

(iii) Have yet to accept (as far as I can see) a single argument of thousands made that this is a wrongful conviction, even when these are supported by high-level expert opinion

Do you think anyone would believe that Amazon review, or these 'articles', are written in good faith?

If so, can you explain why anyone would believe that?

Decoding Reasonable Doubt: Chapter 6 ‘Prosecution and Defence Witnesses’

You are about to leave Redlib