Oof, both those seem utterly terrible and the result of fundamentally broken evidence (an x-ray from the day before Letby had access to the baby in the case of C, and mixing up “IN” and “OUT” door swipe data completely altering the timeline of N, when the timeline is a key element of the prosecution case).
Oof, both those seem utterly terrible and the result of fundamentally broken evidence (an x-ray from the day before Letby had access to the baby in the case of C, and mixing up “IN” and “OUT” door swipe data completely altering the timeline of N, when the timeline is a key element of the prosecution case).
The most disturbing thing though is the description of Evans’ role, which, if true, kinda damns the whole thing. First, all of the “experts” are downstream of him, not providing independent analysis but basically just agreeing that his theories are plausible. Second, he really seems to be trolling through the data to find adverse events that occurred while Letby was on shift, ignoring any that happened when she wasn’t, then coming up with whatever theory sticks that could make Letby responsible.
Seriously, the evidence for Baby N, which resulted in a conviction, seems to be: Evans decided that 30 minutes of crying and an oxygen desaturation could *only* be caused by an intentional act of harm, and because Letby was working that night, it *must* have been her, even though there is no direct evidence she interacted with that baby.
I’d really like one of the podcast-listening experts in this thread to tell me what I am missing.
My impression is the same at this point. There's a world of difference between having other medical experts review the evidence in a blinded manner (as Evans claims he initially was) and having other medical experts affirm that Evans' theories are within the realm of possibility.
And, even taking as true that Evans initially reviewed the evidence blinded to whether Letby was present (a claim I'm not sure I believe), that blinding didn't last long, did it? A lot of the circumstantial evidence was constructed after is was known whether Letby was present.
Oof, both those seem utterly terrible and the result of fundamentally broken evidence (an x-ray from the day before Letby had access to the baby in the case of C, and mixing up “IN” and “OUT” door swipe data completely altering the timeline of N, when the timeline is a key element of the prosecution case).
The most disturbing thing though is the description of Evans’ role, which, if true, kinda damns the whole thing. First, all of the “experts” are downstream of him, not providing independent analysis but basically just agreeing that his theories are plausible. Second, he really seems to be trolling through the data to find adverse events that occurred while Letby was on shift, ignoring any that happened when she wasn’t, then coming up with whatever theory sticks that could make Letby responsible.
Seriously, the evidence for Baby N, which resulted in a conviction, seems to be: Evans decided that 30 minutes of crying and an oxygen desaturation could *only* be caused by an intentional act of harm, and because Letby was working that night, it *must* have been her, even though there is no direct evidence she interacted with that baby.
I’d really like one of the podcast-listening experts in this thread to tell me what I am missing.
My impression is the same at this point. There's a world of difference between having other medical experts review the evidence in a blinded manner (as Evans claims he initially was) and having other medical experts affirm that Evans' theories are within the realm of possibility.
And, even taking as true that Evans initially reviewed the evidence blinded to whether Letby was present (a claim I'm not sure I believe), that blinding didn't last long, did it? A lot of the circumstantial evidence was constructed after is was known whether Letby was present.