osheaf01.bsky.social
@osheaf01.bsky.social
He's talking about correlation.
He's implying or inferring causation, because her presence is correlated with all the "suspicious" events.
That is his meaning, in plain English.
He's implying or inferring causation, because her presence is correlated with all the "suspicious" events.
That is his meaning, in plain English.
June 19, 2025 at 5:42 PM
He's talking about correlation.
He's implying or inferring causation, because her presence is correlated with all the "suspicious" events.
That is his meaning, in plain English.
He's implying or inferring causation, because her presence is correlated with all the "suspicious" events.
That is his meaning, in plain English.
"That wasn't the prosecutor's statement."
BBC report on opening day of trial. ⬇️
Care to read the bit under the image for me? Slowly now, so as not to tax your levels of English comprehension...
BBC report on opening day of trial. ⬇️
Care to read the bit under the image for me? Slowly now, so as not to tax your levels of English comprehension...
June 19, 2025 at 5:31 PM
"That wasn't the prosecutor's statement."
BBC report on opening day of trial. ⬇️
Care to read the bit under the image for me? Slowly now, so as not to tax your levels of English comprehension...
BBC report on opening day of trial. ⬇️
Care to read the bit under the image for me? Slowly now, so as not to tax your levels of English comprehension...
But immunoassays are definitive, right, and anyone claiming otherwise is a "conspiracy theorist"?
I'll repeat the question: is everyone who dares to question your worldview a Conspiracy Theorist? 🤭
I'll repeat the question: is everyone who dares to question your worldview a Conspiracy Theorist? 🤭
June 19, 2025 at 5:27 PM
But immunoassays are definitive, right, and anyone claiming otherwise is a "conspiracy theorist"?
I'll repeat the question: is everyone who dares to question your worldview a Conspiracy Theorist? 🤭
I'll repeat the question: is everyone who dares to question your worldview a Conspiracy Theorist? 🤭
So the babies died, then?
You didn't address the issue that further testing wasn't done (of course!)
You didn't address the issue that further testing wasn't done (of course!)
June 19, 2025 at 5:23 PM
So the babies died, then?
You didn't address the issue that further testing wasn't done (of course!)
You didn't address the issue that further testing wasn't done (of course!)
It's stating that correlation - Letby's presence at "suspicious" events - equals, infers or implies causation.
Correlation is statistical, is it not?
It's saying her presence cannot be by chance - the prosecutor referred to her as the "common denominator."
Correlation is statistical, is it not?
It's saying her presence cannot be by chance - the prosecutor referred to her as the "common denominator."
June 19, 2025 at 5:09 PM
It's stating that correlation - Letby's presence at "suspicious" events - equals, infers or implies causation.
Correlation is statistical, is it not?
It's saying her presence cannot be by chance - the prosecutor referred to her as the "common denominator."
Correlation is statistical, is it not?
It's saying her presence cannot be by chance - the prosecutor referred to her as the "common denominator."
Well, have a question.
Why did they not avail of the services of the Warwick Professor of statistics?
Why did they not avail of the services of the Warwick Professor of statistics?
June 19, 2025 at 5:05 PM
Well, have a question.
Why did they not avail of the services of the Warwick Professor of statistics?
Why did they not avail of the services of the Warwick Professor of statistics?
Well, I asked AI to fact check your assertion that immunoassays were definitive, not indicative, as to exogenous insulin administration...the results didn't surprise me.
I strongly suggest you acquaint youself...
I strongly suggest you acquaint youself...
June 19, 2025 at 5:03 PM
Well, I asked AI to fact check your assertion that immunoassays were definitive, not indicative, as to exogenous insulin administration...the results didn't surprise me.
I strongly suggest you acquaint youself...
I strongly suggest you acquaint youself...
May well have been...ya think?
June 19, 2025 at 5:00 PM
May well have been...ya think?
No, they spent 10 months working out explanations, with expert in same, Dr Evans.
June 19, 2025 at 9:01 AM
No, they spent 10 months working out explanations, with expert in same, Dr Evans.
Really?
But they were called in by the doctors to investigate Letby, based on Brearey and Jayaram's suspicions, as voiced in subsequent interviews. Hence, the internal fight to get her removed, which is what Thirlwall is all about.
No individual mentioned?
But they were called in by the doctors to investigate Letby, based on Brearey and Jayaram's suspicions, as voiced in subsequent interviews. Hence, the internal fight to get her removed, which is what Thirlwall is all about.
No individual mentioned?
June 19, 2025 at 9:00 AM
Really?
But they were called in by the doctors to investigate Letby, based on Brearey and Jayaram's suspicions, as voiced in subsequent interviews. Hence, the internal fight to get her removed, which is what Thirlwall is all about.
No individual mentioned?
But they were called in by the doctors to investigate Letby, based on Brearey and Jayaram's suspicions, as voiced in subsequent interviews. Hence, the internal fight to get her removed, which is what Thirlwall is all about.
No individual mentioned?
Oh dear, ad hominem.
Lost the argument, have we?
Lost the argument, have we?
June 19, 2025 at 8:58 AM
Oh dear, ad hominem.
Lost the argument, have we?
Lost the argument, have we?
I'll go with the Prof of Stats in UCL and my own judgement on that one, thanks.
Guess I must be a "conspiracy theorist" for daring to disagree with you? 🤭
Guess I must be a "conspiracy theorist" for daring to disagree with you? 🤭
June 19, 2025 at 8:57 AM
I'll go with the Prof of Stats in UCL and my own judgement on that one, thanks.
Guess I must be a "conspiracy theorist" for daring to disagree with you? 🤭
Guess I must be a "conspiracy theorist" for daring to disagree with you? 🤭
So, her presence circumstantially proves...what?
She was around when "suspicious" deaths occurred, so she must have been doing something?
This is identical to the Lucia de Berk case, isn't it?
She was around when "suspicious" deaths occurred, so she must have been doing something?
This is identical to the Lucia de Berk case, isn't it?
June 19, 2025 at 8:55 AM
So, her presence circumstantially proves...what?
She was around when "suspicious" deaths occurred, so she must have been doing something?
This is identical to the Lucia de Berk case, isn't it?
She was around when "suspicious" deaths occurred, so she must have been doing something?
This is identical to the Lucia de Berk case, isn't it?
But most murders are unquestionably murders. Therefore, one's presence at the scene, forensically proven, is evidence. Correlation is causation.
Whereas, these cases are not unquestionably murders, and Letby's presence is proof of nothing, as she was where she was contracted to work.
Whereas, these cases are not unquestionably murders, and Letby's presence is proof of nothing, as she was where she was contracted to work.
June 19, 2025 at 8:54 AM
But most murders are unquestionably murders. Therefore, one's presence at the scene, forensically proven, is evidence. Correlation is causation.
Whereas, these cases are not unquestionably murders, and Letby's presence is proof of nothing, as she was where she was contracted to work.
Whereas, these cases are not unquestionably murders, and Letby's presence is proof of nothing, as she was where she was contracted to work.
And I'm a computer scientist with a maths and engineering background, who can see at a glance that that chart, shown to the jury, is a complete crock of shit.
If that's the standard of evidence in an 18 month trial costing millions, you have to wonder what else passes muster.
If that's the standard of evidence in an 18 month trial costing millions, you have to wonder what else passes muster.
June 19, 2025 at 8:51 AM
And I'm a computer scientist with a maths and engineering background, who can see at a glance that that chart, shown to the jury, is a complete crock of shit.
If that's the standard of evidence in an 18 month trial costing millions, you have to wonder what else passes muster.
If that's the standard of evidence in an 18 month trial costing millions, you have to wonder what else passes muster.
Which is where I came in: that chart is a complete crock.
If that passes evidentiary standards, you'd have to wonder how subterranean they are?
If that passes evidentiary standards, you'd have to wonder how subterranean they are?
June 19, 2025 at 8:49 AM
Which is where I came in: that chart is a complete crock.
If that passes evidentiary standards, you'd have to wonder how subterranean they are?
If that passes evidentiary standards, you'd have to wonder how subterranean they are?
Actually, most crimes do have witnesses, or clear forensic evidence and, most of all, it's clear a crime actually occurred.
What this case has in common with Horizon IT is that that's the actual issue.
What this case has in common with Horizon IT is that that's the actual issue.
June 19, 2025 at 8:47 AM
Actually, most crimes do have witnesses, or clear forensic evidence and, most of all, it's clear a crime actually occurred.
What this case has in common with Horizon IT is that that's the actual issue.
What this case has in common with Horizon IT is that that's the actual issue.
Really?
"Sounds like my kind of case."
"Sounds like my kind of case."
June 19, 2025 at 8:46 AM
Really?
"Sounds like my kind of case."
"Sounds like my kind of case."
What is your expertise in statistics?
You say they weren't used, he says he does.
Is *everybody* who disagrees with your view a "conspiracy theorist"? 🤭
You say they weren't used, he says he does.
Is *everybody* who disagrees with your view a "conspiracy theorist"? 🤭
June 19, 2025 at 8:45 AM
What is your expertise in statistics?
You say they weren't used, he says he does.
Is *everybody* who disagrees with your view a "conspiracy theorist"? 🤭
You say they weren't used, he says he does.
Is *everybody* who disagrees with your view a "conspiracy theorist"? 🤭
All these suspicious cases, and she's always there (but no-one actually saw anything), is a statistical argument, claiming correlation is causation.
Have to say I'm amused that this started with you slagging off antivaxers for their own versions of reality 🤭
Have to say I'm amused that this started with you slagging off antivaxers for their own versions of reality 🤭
June 19, 2025 at 8:44 AM
All these suspicious cases, and she's always there (but no-one actually saw anything), is a statistical argument, claiming correlation is causation.
Have to say I'm amused that this started with you slagging off antivaxers for their own versions of reality 🤭
Have to say I'm amused that this started with you slagging off antivaxers for their own versions of reality 🤭
Not suspicious, of course, because we already have our Prime Suspect, from Day 1 of the investigation.
It's only a matter of "working out an explanation" for how she nefariously did it, thereafter.
And who better to do that that Dr Evans...
It's only a matter of "working out an explanation" for how she nefariously did it, thereafter.
And who better to do that that Dr Evans...
June 19, 2025 at 8:41 AM
Not suspicious, of course, because we already have our Prime Suspect, from Day 1 of the investigation.
It's only a matter of "working out an explanation" for how she nefariously did it, thereafter.
And who better to do that that Dr Evans...
It's only a matter of "working out an explanation" for how she nefariously did it, thereafter.
And who better to do that that Dr Evans...
John O'Quigley, Professor of Stats at UCL, publishing his crank theories in that conspiracy theory journal, the Daily Telegraph
June 19, 2025 at 8:40 AM
John O'Quigley, Professor of Stats at UCL, publishing his crank theories in that conspiracy theory journal, the Daily Telegraph
Alibi?
She was at work when she was contracted to be at work.
She was at work when she was contracted to be at work.
June 19, 2025 at 8:35 AM
Alibi?
She was at work when she was contracted to be at work.
She was at work when she was contracted to be at work.