That's fucking wild because she was publicly condemned as satan

The conviction does sound kinda sketchy. The neonatal unit consistently understaffed often with people with low qualifications. On a daily basis that is allowed to be "okay" and contribute to mortality but Lucy seemed a convenient scapegoat for NHS troubles.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Doesn’t it seem like a classic example of correlation not causation?

I think there are staffing ratios and staffing levels that can be analyzed to look at whether there are sufficient number of hours of qualified care per patient. I don’t understand how those numbers are calculated and analyzed but experts clearly do. I would hope her defense investigated this.

It would be interesting to know whether the number of staffing , staffing levels, and number of deaths continued after Lucy stopped working.

Far less severe alleged crime involved, but in a similar vein of public incrimination on inappropriately interpreted evidence, there's this woman who was accused, arrested, and publicly excoriated for creating "deepfake" videos targeting minors.

She's completely innocent. That one is bizarre because while with the nurse there is apparently at least some correlation of timing and location, just not anywhere near as conclusive as presented (from my initial reading). In this case the videos simply were not deepfakes at all.

Well that's pretty damning if true

It’s potentially worse than that. In a previous job, I performed investigations into manufacturing issues at a Pharmaceutical company. Prior to doing any sort of widespread look back at documents, we would have to define our scope and criteria for analysis. Their smoking gun is the correlation with deaths and adverse events. However, they never included additional adverse events after they had their pretty chart. So the chart is meaningless.

Also I know from past experiences that sometimes your best employees are involved in more human related events as 1) they do more work and 2) are often given the harder tasks.

When good employees are given harder tasks (more vulnerable patients) and there are other, unrelated shortcomings in care (insufficient beds at specialist hospitals or unavailable doctors— both true here), it appears unfair and dishonest to pin blame on the one nurse who is dealing with these multiple factors that increase the risk of bad outcomes.

What’s even worse is that the blame assigned to the nurse was malevolence. She may have been negligent. Others may have been negligent. To pin a pattern of systemic failings that have the appearance of mere negligence and which may have (?) jointly contributed to deaths at the hospital onto ONE person requires proof of her malevolence. There was no proof of malevolence.

As a defense attorney, I see plaintiffs with bad outcomes, which may have been caused by the negligence of one or more people. The plaintiffs claim that the bad outcome is the result of an alleged pattern of behavior, and the “pattern” of alleged behavior creates evidence of malevolence.

This is problematic thinking— I think like this sometimes. I have imagined myself driving in a car past earth and looking at earth & considering whether I want to stop and hang out. I see patterns of behavior that suggest men don’t like women (the abuse, the discrimination, etc). I think, “I’ll keep driving. Those men don’t like women (malevolence).”

Patterns exist. The word “pattern” is a factual conclusion. In order to identify a pattern, one must gather all the facts about multiple individual occurrences. Based upon the facts and circumstances of the individual occurrences, a potential pattern can be identified. A person cannot identify a pattern without an accurate understanding of the individual events. A person cannot find proof of malevolence based upon a presumed pattern without the accurate understanding of the underlying events. If there are evidentiary or logical failures in the analysis or understanding of the individual events, they cannot be used to establish the alleged pattern. To do so would be to build on something that lacks foundation. In this case, it sounds like the individual events created a supposed pattern of malevolence. But the “pattern” is a factual conclusion that appears to lack foundation.

The courts in UK have blocked the article, wow so much for freedom of speech.
..https://www.thenational.scot/...y-letby-in-defiance/

Your article says the nurse has submitted a bid to challenge her convictions at the Court of Appeal. This will be an interesting case for those outside the UK to follow. lol

And all the anonymity ....if I was the CPS prosecutor I'd be preparing to do traffic court in the Shetland Islands

I do not know how safe (or not) that conviction is, or how accurate all the reporting is, the website / new yorker but even if they're correct I fear having more people judge it that do not understand the statistics will not result in a different outcome.

It does possibly identify a gap in competency of understanding stats across medicine, management, legal and judiciary which someone might want to look at.

You don't need to understand statistics to understand this looks like a snow job and CPS can't back down without losing face

MP David Davis brought the article up in The House of Commons.
... https://unherd.com/...rdict-in-parliament/