@joedemorgan.bsky.social
stuck to their theory but changed the date
October 17, 2025 at 5:53 PM
stuck to their theory but changed the date
It’s worse than that: the *only* evidence of air was from the x-ray on the 12th, when she’d never met the baby.
The prosecution came up with the air via nasogastric tube theory when they thought she was there on the 12th, then when it became clear she wasn’t, they nonsensically just
The prosecution came up with the air via nasogastric tube theory when they thought she was there on the 12th, then when it became clear she wasn’t, they nonsensically just
October 17, 2025 at 5:53 PM
It’s worse than that: the *only* evidence of air was from the x-ray on the 12th, when she’d never met the baby.
The prosecution came up with the air via nasogastric tube theory when they thought she was there on the 12th, then when it became clear she wasn’t, they nonsensically just
The prosecution came up with the air via nasogastric tube theory when they thought she was there on the 12th, then when it became clear she wasn’t, they nonsensically just
Not sure he ever had any to lose. He was telling a newspaper that paedophilia should be decriminalised a couple of decades ago
October 6, 2025 at 10:56 PM
Not sure he ever had any to lose. He was telling a newspaper that paedophilia should be decriminalised a couple of decades ago
I don’t think they’d mind the bump to their readers’ average IQ
October 1, 2025 at 5:09 PM
I don’t think they’d mind the bump to their readers’ average IQ
You can either keep ranting about an imaginary and very stupid version of someone who doubts the convictions or you can try and engage with a real one.
I guess it looks like you’ve made your choice so I’ll leave this here.
I guess it looks like you’ve made your choice so I’ll leave this here.
September 29, 2025 at 5:10 PM
You can either keep ranting about an imaginary and very stupid version of someone who doubts the convictions or you can try and engage with a real one.
I guess it looks like you’ve made your choice so I’ll leave this here.
I guess it looks like you’ve made your choice so I’ll leave this here.
The defence didn’t put any of their experts on the stand. Their barrister did cross-examine the prosecution’s, but nothing he says is regarded as evidence. So the jury only heard from experts on one side.
I don’t know what they’ll do but the record of the CoA does not justify your faith in them.
I don’t know what they’ll do but the record of the CoA does not justify your faith in them.
September 29, 2025 at 4:46 PM
The defence didn’t put any of their experts on the stand. Their barrister did cross-examine the prosecution’s, but nothing he says is regarded as evidence. So the jury only heard from experts on one side.
I don’t know what they’ll do but the record of the CoA does not justify your faith in them.
I don’t know what they’ll do but the record of the CoA does not justify your faith in them.
*your
*hearing
*hearing
September 29, 2025 at 4:36 PM
*your
*hearing
*hearing
That’s not what I was doing.
I was answering you comment about the jury coming to a view after hear “all the views” of the experts. My point was that they only heard from one side.
It’s really remarkable how quickly people jump to insults on this topic.
I was answering you comment about the jury coming to a view after hear “all the views” of the experts. My point was that they only heard from one side.
It’s really remarkable how quickly people jump to insults on this topic.
September 29, 2025 at 4:35 PM
That’s not what I was doing.
I was answering you comment about the jury coming to a view after hear “all the views” of the experts. My point was that they only heard from one side.
It’s really remarkable how quickly people jump to insults on this topic.
I was answering you comment about the jury coming to a view after hear “all the views” of the experts. My point was that they only heard from one side.
It’s really remarkable how quickly people jump to insults on this topic.
Add to this the general coherence and plausibility of each side’s actual claims, plus a few other factors, and I’m very comfortable siding with the majority
September 29, 2025 at 4:31 PM
Add to this the general coherence and plausibility of each side’s actual claims, plus a few other factors, and I’m very comfortable siding with the majority
The trial experts all worked for the prosecution. Plus they’re now greatly outmatched in both number and stature by experts who say there’s no evidence of deliberate harm.
September 29, 2025 at 4:29 PM
The trial experts all worked for the prosecution. Plus they’re now greatly outmatched in both number and stature by experts who say there’s no evidence of deliberate harm.
Typically when we lack expertise we put weight on the experts’ views. Doing exactly that is what leads me to the view that she’s innocent.
September 29, 2025 at 4:13 PM
Typically when we lack expertise we put weight on the experts’ views. Doing exactly that is what leads me to the view that she’s innocent.
They’re wrong. It just requires believing that a small group of people became convinced of something false.
September 29, 2025 at 4:08 PM
They’re wrong. It just requires believing that a small group of people became convinced of something false.
Phil Hammond had nothing to do with the antivax stuff. He backed the vaccine.
I’d take this ‘bemused medic’ guy with a huge grain of salt. He’s obsessively committed to Letby being guilty. Try searching ‘Letby’ on his profile and see if you can ever scroll to the end of the results.
I’d take this ‘bemused medic’ guy with a huge grain of salt. He’s obsessively committed to Letby being guilty. Try searching ‘Letby’ on his profile and see if you can ever scroll to the end of the results.
September 15, 2025 at 6:16 PM
Phil Hammond had nothing to do with the antivax stuff. He backed the vaccine.
I’d take this ‘bemused medic’ guy with a huge grain of salt. He’s obsessively committed to Letby being guilty. Try searching ‘Letby’ on his profile and see if you can ever scroll to the end of the results.
I’d take this ‘bemused medic’ guy with a huge grain of salt. He’s obsessively committed to Letby being guilty. Try searching ‘Letby’ on his profile and see if you can ever scroll to the end of the results.
The unit was downgraded so stopped taking the sickest babies and consultants’ rounds were greatly increased in the same month that she was removed, so no fair comparison can be made on this.
September 15, 2025 at 3:04 PM
The unit was downgraded so stopped taking the sickest babies and consultants’ rounds were greatly increased in the same month that she was removed, so no fair comparison can be made on this.
When you don’t know the details and lack relevant expertise, isn’t it prudent to put a lot of weight behind the experts?
The big picture here is that, among the the experts who’ve seen the records, the great majority think she’s innocent.
The big picture here is that, among the the experts who’ve seen the records, the great majority think she’s innocent.
August 19, 2025 at 3:42 PM
When you don’t know the details and lack relevant expertise, isn’t it prudent to put a lot of weight behind the experts?
The big picture here is that, among the the experts who’ve seen the records, the great majority think she’s innocent.
The big picture here is that, among the the experts who’ve seen the records, the great majority think she’s innocent.
And the LWH data was not just “flawed”, it contained outright fabrications. This isn’t an exaggeration. Plus, though I doubt I’ll persuade you of this in bsky comment, but the corrected version looks extremely dubious too
August 19, 2025 at 3:09 PM
And the LWH data was not just “flawed”, it contained outright fabrications. This isn’t an exaggeration. Plus, though I doubt I’ll persuade you of this in bsky comment, but the corrected version looks extremely dubious too
A one hour programme can never comprehensively cover a case as multifaceted as this. But in terms of representing the experts’ views, the Panorama was highly biased. Zooming in on the handful of details which those *who all agree there’s no evidence of harm* disagree on is very misleading.
August 19, 2025 at 3:07 PM
A one hour programme can never comprehensively cover a case as multifaceted as this. But in terms of representing the experts’ views, the Panorama was highly biased. Zooming in on the handful of details which those *who all agree there’s no evidence of harm* disagree on is very misleading.
fabrications. I’m still very sceptical of the weaker claims they make in the updated version. They just aren’t competent to handle data and have an incentive to see things one way
August 16, 2025 at 8:21 PM
fabrications. I’m still very sceptical of the weaker claims they make in the updated version. They just aren’t competent to handle data and have an incentive to see things one way
I’d recommend the ITV one. The makers of the Panorama have previously strongly endorsed the prosecution. They have their reputations to protect so do a lot to try and undermine the new doubts.
Their ending, about Liverpool Women’s Hospital, has already been edited because the first version included
Their ending, about Liverpool Women’s Hospital, has already been edited because the first version included
August 16, 2025 at 8:19 PM
I’d recommend the ITV one. The makers of the Panorama have previously strongly endorsed the prosecution. They have their reputations to protect so do a lot to try and undermine the new doubts.
Their ending, about Liverpool Women’s Hospital, has already been edited because the first version included
Their ending, about Liverpool Women’s Hospital, has already been edited because the first version included
But the BBC’s mistake goes beyond not providing enough info; they made a fundamental, very basic maths error which dramatically skewed their result against Letby. It’s serious defamation, frankly
August 14, 2025 at 3:06 PM
But the BBC’s mistake goes beyond not providing enough info; they made a fundamental, very basic maths error which dramatically skewed their result against Letby. It’s serious defamation, frankly
Medical statistics specialist, Professor Jane Hutton has sent this complaint to the BBC. I feel vindicated. Done correctly, the maths gives the extubation rate when Letby was there as exactly normal.
August 14, 2025 at 2:57 PM
Medical statistics specialist, Professor Jane Hutton has sent this complaint to the BBC. I feel vindicated. Done correctly, the maths gives the extubation rate when Letby was there as exactly normal.
Was this intended as a reply to me?
Your bio says you were a bookmaker, so I'm sure you have the mathematical ability to see their mistake if you watch that segment again more carefully.
By their own assumptions they should have arrived at 4x rather than 40x.
Your bio says you were a bookmaker, so I'm sure you have the mathematical ability to see their mistake if you watch that segment again more carefully.
By their own assumptions they should have arrived at 4x rather than 40x.
August 13, 2025 at 4:06 PM
Was this intended as a reply to me?
Your bio says you were a bookmaker, so I'm sure you have the mathematical ability to see their mistake if you watch that segment again more carefully.
By their own assumptions they should have arrived at 4x rather than 40x.
Your bio says you were a bookmaker, so I'm sure you have the mathematical ability to see their mistake if you watch that segment again more carefully.
By their own assumptions they should have arrived at 4x rather than 40x.
Also, if you tend to defer to the judgement of senior judges, what do you make of Lord Sumption's position?
archive.ph/lXTj8
archive.ph/lXTj8
archive.ph
August 13, 2025 at 3:53 PM
Also, if you tend to defer to the judgement of senior judges, what do you make of Lord Sumption's position?
archive.ph/lXTj8
archive.ph/lXTj8
"In terms of the summary reports of the expert panel, the bottom line is that I agree with them that there is no evidence of inflicted injury in the babies."
That's a verbatim quote from Mike Hall.
That's a verbatim quote from Mike Hall.
August 13, 2025 at 3:46 PM
"In terms of the summary reports of the expert panel, the bottom line is that I agree with them that there is no evidence of inflicted injury in the babies."
That's a verbatim quote from Mike Hall.
That's a verbatim quote from Mike Hall.
to mean that he endorsed some of the prosecution’s murder theories. That’s just not the case.
August 13, 2025 at 1:56 PM
to mean that he endorsed some of the prosecution’s murder theories. That’s just not the case.