"Perhaps it is now the health service and the justice system that should
be on trial." reads the front page headline of the Daily Telegraph, introducing this story:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/04/cracks-lucy-letby-evidence-murder-neonatal-experts/
(Archive version: no paywall) https://archive.ph/GS9r0
A few days ago I was listening to Archive on 4, Bombers, a look back at Chris Mullins' investigation of the miscarriages of justice regarding
the Guilford and Birmingham pub bombings (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0023pc7) where the programme
questions whether similar interests shaped the scandal around the Post
office Horizon trials. I wonder whether a future retrospective of the
Post Office Horizon scandal will reference the trials of Lucy Letby as
part of the the same?
Nick
On 05/02/2025 13:35, nick wrote:
"Perhaps it is now the health service and the justice system that should
be on trial." reads the front page headline of the Daily Telegraph,
introducing this story:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/04/cracks-lucy-letby-evidence-murder-neonatal-experts/
(Archive version: no paywall) https://archive.ph/GS9r0
A few days ago I was listening to Archive on 4, Bombers, a look back at
Chris Mullins' investigation of the miscarriages of justice regarding
the Guilford and Birmingham pub bombings
(https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0023pc7) where the programme
questions whether similar interests shaped the scandal around the Post
office Horizon trials. I wonder whether a future retrospective of the
Post Office Horizon scandal will reference the trials of Lucy Letby as
part of the the same?
Nick
Well I'm not a lawyer and I'm not anti-lawyer, indeed I've known quite a few lawyers
over the years and they were mostly admirable folk. But I have to say that I've been
extremely disappointed by the defence teams in all of these trials.
In the Letby cases, there are issues now being raised in which medical experts seem to
say that few or perhaps none of the deaths show signs of murder. It is surprising that
none of these experts were consulted earlier. The statistical evidence also seems, to
a lay observer, a bit dodgy, and it is also surprising that no statistician gave
evidence for the defence. It might not have made a difference, and I still have no
idea whether Letby was guilty or not, but it seems to me that the trial process was
rather unsatisfactory.
"Clive Page" <usenet@page2.eu> wrote in message news:m0jko4Fo7e8U1@mid.individual.net...
On 05/02/2025 13:35, nick wrote:
"Perhaps it is now the health service and the justice system that should >>> be on trial." reads the front page headline of the Daily Telegraph,
introducing this story:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/04/cracks-lucy-letby-evidence-murder-neonatal-experts/
(Archive version: no paywall) https://archive.ph/GS9r0
A few days ago I was listening to Archive on 4, Bombers, a look back at
Chris Mullins' investigation of the miscarriages of justice regarding
the Guilford and Birmingham pub bombings
(https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0023pc7) where the programme
questions whether similar interests shaped the scandal around the Post
office Horizon trials. I wonder whether a future retrospective of the
Post Office Horizon scandal will reference the trials of Lucy Letby as
part of the the same?
Nick
Well I'm not a lawyer and I'm not anti-lawyer, indeed I've known quite a few lawyers
over the years and they were mostly admirable folk. But I have to say that I've been
extremely disappointed by the defence teams in all of these trials.
In the Letby cases, there are issues now being raised in which medical experts seem to
say that few or perhaps none of the deaths show signs of murder. It is surprising that
none of these experts were consulted earlier. The statistical evidence also seems, to
a lay observer, a bit dodgy, and it is also surprising that no statistician gave
evidence for the defence. It might not have made a difference, and I still have no
idea whether Letby was guilty or not, but it seems to me that the trial process was
rather unsatisfactory.
The reason for that apparently, the absence of any robust defence,
according to interviews with Letby's parents at least - was because all
of them, Letby in particular, believed
* she had no real case to answer * **
Which, when looking over the actual "evidence" presented to the Court
is not actually that far from the truth. The case against her was
only ever circumstantial, and even that has been chipped way; alongside
pure conjecture based on questionable theories from one supposed
expert "witness"; who himself had decided which cases should be
brought before the Court
This is why Letby herself decided to give evidence on her own behalf; something she wasn't obliged to do.
Not realising, that with their already having listemed to the farrago
of supposition and half truths presented by the prosecution, when it
came to her turn in the witness box, she would have little or any
chance of convincing the jury of her innocence, no matter what
she said. Over, as it turned out 60 hours of relentless cross
examination.
The fact that following her conviction, the Criminal Justice System
including the Police, who brought her to "justice", have been falling
over themselves to copper-bottom her guilt should comes as no real
surprise to anyone. As their first loyalty will always be to
the institution, themselves, rather than to any unfortunates who
forgot to play by their rules. If only so as to protect the Greater
Good.
bb
** Saying which Letby initially only made use of the duty solicitor
provided; who then will have engaged and instructed counsel.
Given her offences, Legal Aid would have funded a QC/KC etc. which
is no real indication of expertise in any particular field.
Such as defending those accused of murdering infants, for
instance.
On 06/02/2025 12:23, billy bookcase wrote:
"Clive Page" <usenet@page2.eu> wrote in message
news:m0jko4Fo7e8U1@mid.individual.net...
On 05/02/2025 13:35, nick wrote:
"Perhaps it is now the health service and the justice system that should >>>> be on trial." reads the front page headline of the Daily Telegraph,
introducing this story:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/04/cracks-lucy-letby-evidence-murder-neonatal-experts/
(Archive version: no paywall) https://archive.ph/GS9r0
A few days ago I was listening to Archive on 4, Bombers, a look back at >>>> Chris Mullins' investigation of the miscarriages of justice regarding
the Guilford and Birmingham pub bombings
(https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0023pc7) where the programme
questions whether similar interests shaped the scandal around the Post >>>> office Horizon trials. I wonder whether a future retrospective of the
Post Office Horizon scandal will reference the trials of Lucy Letby as >>>> part of the the same?
Nick
Well I'm not a lawyer and I'm not anti-lawyer, indeed I've known quite a few lawyers
over the years and they were mostly admirable folk. But I have to say that I've been
extremely disappointed by the defence teams in all of these trials.
In the Letby cases, there are issues now being raised in which medical experts seem
to
say that few or perhaps none of the deaths show signs of murder. It is surprising
that
none of these experts were consulted earlier. The statistical evidence also seems,
to
a lay observer, a bit dodgy, and it is also surprising that no statistician gave
evidence for the defence. It might not have made a difference, and I still have no
idea whether Letby was guilty or not, but it seems to me that the trial process was
rather unsatisfactory.
The reason for that apparently, the absence of any robust defence,
according to interviews with Letby's parents at least - was because all
of them, Letby in particular, believed
* she had no real case to answer * **
A gamble by the defence lawyers that failed dismally.
We may never know whether the lawyers who acted for Letby and acted for the sub-postmasters had any genuine belief in the innocence of their clients. Maybe that's
not even relevant when they decide on their strategy. But choosing the most impressive
expert witnesses is often extremely difficult - lawyers aren't really better informed
than laymen. They know a few experts who seem useful for specific cases. They put a lot
of reliance on the "duty of care" of experts in court which is to be objective,
non-partisan, point out any contrary viewpoints known to them and explain why they
believe the contrary viewpoints are not valid. If a well respected expert gives
evidence for the prosecution there won't be an assumption that he/she is a hired gun
who supports whichever side pays him/her.
Plainly Letby had to persuade the jury that there were explanations other than
deliberate attacks on the babies. She was not qualified to do that detective work. And
I don't believe that money had anything to do with it. Whether the defendant is rich or
poor, they will get much the same representation from the criminal bar.
And what will Lady Justice Thirlwall do? Complete her inquiry on the basis that Letby
is undoubtedly guilty? Or pause or abandon the inquiry? The former is more likely.
Which, when looking over the actual "evidence" presented to the Court
is not actually that far from the truth. The case against her was
only ever circumstantial, and even that has been chipped way; alongside
pure conjecture based on questionable theories from one supposed
expert "witness"; who himself had decided which cases should be
brought before the Court
This is why Letby herself decided to give evidence on her own behalf;
something she wasn't obliged to do.
Not realising, that with their already having listemed to the farrago
of supposition and half truths presented by the prosecution, when it
came to her turn in the witness box, she would have little or any
chance of convincing the jury of her innocence, no matter what
she said. Over, as it turned out 60 hours of relentless cross
examination.
The fact that following her conviction, the Criminal Justice System
including the Police, who brought her to "justice", have been falling
over themselves to copper-bottom her guilt should comes as no real
surprise to anyone. As their first loyalty will always be to
the institution, themselves, rather than to any unfortunates who
forgot to play by their rules. If only so as to protect the Greater
Good.
bb
** Saying which Letby initially only made use of the duty solicitor
provided; who then will have engaged and instructed counsel.
Given her offences, Legal Aid would have funded a QC/KC etc. which
is no real indication of expertise in any particular field.
Such as defending those accused of murdering infants, for
instance.
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
On 05/02/2025 13:35, nick wrote:
"Perhaps it is now the health service and the justice system that should >>> be on trial." reads the front page headline of the Daily Telegraph,
introducing this story:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/04/cracks-lucy-letby-evidence-murder-neonatal-experts/
(Archive version: no paywall) https://archive.ph/GS9r0
A few days ago I was listening to Archive on 4, Bombers, a look back at >>> Chris Mullins' investigation of the miscarriages of justice regarding
the Guilford and Birmingham pub bombings
(https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0023pc7) where the programme
questions whether similar interests shaped the scandal around the Post
office Horizon trials. I wonder whether a future retrospective of the
Post Office Horizon scandal will reference the trials of Lucy Letby as
part of the the same?
Nick
Well I'm not a lawyer and I'm not anti-lawyer, indeed I've known quite a
few lawyers over the years and they were mostly admirable folk. But I
have to say that I've been extremely disappointed by the defence teams
in all of these trials.
In the Letby cases, there are issues now being raised in which medical
experts seem to say that few or perhaps none of the deaths show signs of
murder. It is surprising that none of these experts were consulted
earlier. The statistical evidence also seems, to a lay observer, a bit
dodgy, and it is also surprising that no statistician gave evidence for
the defence. It might not have made a difference, and I still have no
idea whether Letby was guilty or not, but it seems to me that the trial
process was rather unsatisfactory.
In the Horizon scandal one can be sure that everyone who has ever
programmed a computer will have been saying emphatically that one should
never trust the output of a computer system, especially a complex one
like this, as these systems are programmed by humans and humans make
mistakes. It is astonishing that none of what must have been dozens or
even hundreds of lawyers in the defence teams made any serious attempt
to access the bug reports of the Horizon system. As soon as they were
revealed, the scandal broke.
At the risk of going off topic, can anybody offer an explanation of why the Horizon system ‘picked’ on certain sub postmasters (or some of them significantly more than others).
You would have thought bugs would affect all branches similarly unless
there was something in the transaction types, names or other attributes
that it was processing.
I’m not suggesting at all that they are guilty, but having designed and built complex computer systems, the manifestation of this seems extraordinary.
As an additional observation, whilst all computer engineers believe that
bugs are everywhere, many have extraordinary levels of confidence in their (bit of) software.
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
On 05/02/2025 13:35, nick wrote:
In the Horizon scandal one can be sure that everyone who has ever
programmed a computer will have been saying emphatically that one should
never trust the output of a computer system, especially a complex one
like this, as these systems are programmed by humans and humans make
mistakes. It is astonishing that none of what must have been dozens or
even hundreds of lawyers in the defence teams made any serious attempt
to access the bug reports of the Horizon system. As soon as they were
revealed, the scandal broke.
At the risk of going off topic, can anybody offer an explanation of why the Horizon system ‘picked’ on certain sub postmasters (or some of them significantly more than others).
You would have thought bugs would affect all branches similarly unless
there was something in the transaction types, names or other attributes
that it was processing.
I’m not suggesting at all that they are guilty, but having designed and built complex computer systems, the manifestation of this seems extraordinary.
On 16/03/2025 11:20, Dave wrote:
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
On 05/02/2025 13:35, nick wrote:
"Perhaps it is now the health service and the justice system that should >>>> be on trial." reads the front page headline of the Daily Telegraph,
introducing this story:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/04/cracks-lucy-letby-evidence-murder-neonatal-experts/
(Archive version: no paywall) https://archive.ph/GS9r0
A few days ago I was listening to Archive on 4, Bombers, a look back at >>>> Chris Mullins' investigation of the miscarriages of justice regarding
the Guilford and Birmingham pub bombings
(https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0023pc7) where the programme
questions whether similar interests shaped the scandal around the Post >>>> office Horizon trials. I wonder whether a future retrospective of the
Post Office Horizon scandal will reference the trials of Lucy Letby as >>>> part of the the same?
Nick
Well I'm not a lawyer and I'm not anti-lawyer, indeed I've known quite a >>> few lawyers over the years and they were mostly admirable folk. But I
have to say that I've been extremely disappointed by the defence teams
in all of these trials.
In the Letby cases, there are issues now being raised in which medical
experts seem to say that few or perhaps none of the deaths show signs of >>> murder. It is surprising that none of these experts were consulted
earlier. The statistical evidence also seems, to a lay observer, a bit
dodgy, and it is also surprising that no statistician gave evidence for
the defence. It might not have made a difference, and I still have no
idea whether Letby was guilty or not, but it seems to me that the trial
process was rather unsatisfactory.
In the Horizon scandal one can be sure that everyone who has ever
programmed a computer will have been saying emphatically that one should >>> never trust the output of a computer system, especially a complex one
like this, as these systems are programmed by humans and humans make
mistakes. It is astonishing that none of what must have been dozens or
even hundreds of lawyers in the defence teams made any serious attempt
to access the bug reports of the Horizon system. As soon as they were
revealed, the scandal broke.
At the risk of going off topic, can anybody offer an explanation of why the >> Horizon system ‘picked’ on certain sub postmasters (or some of them
significantly more than others).
But did it pick on some more than others? I suppose there must be
detailed reports that would explain this, maybe even on the Inquiry website.
What we do know is that the Post Office assured the sub postmasters that nobody could go into their system and interfere with the data that they
had inputted, which was a lie because actually the Fujitsu people troubleshooting the software did, sometimes, go in and fiddle with the figures to make them look right. But this would not, presumably, be
targeted at specific individuals.
It is quite likely that some sub postmasters faced with a discrepancy
and unsure of their skills with the software simply accepted that a few hundred pounds or a thousand pounds here or there must be owed by them,
and they made up the shortfall and felt rather ashamed at having somehow
got it wrong.
You would have thought bugs would affect all branches similarly unless
there was something in the transaction types, names or other attributes
that it was processing.
I’m not suggesting at all that they are guilty, but having designed and
built complex computer systems, the manifestation of this seems
extraordinary.
As an additional observation, whilst all computer engineers believe that
bugs are everywhere, many have extraordinary levels of confidence in their >> (bit of) software.
But do they really? Or do they see that the system is flawed and needs expensive re-designing but their employer or client prefers that they
just do what they can to troubleshoot and keep the system going?
On 16/03/2025 11:20, Dave wrote:
At the risk of going off topic, can anybody offer an explanation of
why the
Horizon system ‘picked’ on certain sub postmasters (or some of them
significantly more than others).
But did it pick on some more than others? I suppose there must be
detailed reports that would explain this, maybe even on the Inquiry
website.
What we do know is that the Post Office assured the sub postmasters that nobody could go into their system and interfere with the data that they
had inputted, which was a lie because actually the Fujitsu people troubleshooting the software did, sometimes, go in and fiddle with the figures to make them look right. But this would not, presumably, be
targeted at specific individuals.
It is quite likely that some sub postmasters faced with a discrepancy
and unsure of their skills with the software simply accepted that a few hundred pounds or a thousand pounds here or there must be owed by them,
and they made up the shortfall and felt rather ashamed at having somehow
got it wrong.
You would have thought bugs would affect all branches similarly unless
there was something in the transaction types, names or other attributes
that it was processing.
I’m not suggesting at all that they are guilty, but having designed and
built complex computer systems, the manifestation of this seems
extraordinary.
On 2025-03-16, Dave <david.christopher.astles@gmail.com> wrote:
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
On 05/02/2025 13:35, nick wrote:
In the Horizon scandal one can be sure that everyone who has ever
programmed a computer will have been saying emphatically that one should >>> never trust the output of a computer system, especially a complex one
like this, as these systems are programmed by humans and humans make
mistakes. It is astonishing that none of what must have been dozens or
even hundreds of lawyers in the defence teams made any serious attempt
to access the bug reports of the Horizon system. As soon as they were
revealed, the scandal broke.
At the risk of going off topic, can anybody offer an explanation of why the >> Horizon system ‘picked’ on certain sub postmasters (or some of them
significantly more than others).
You would have thought bugs would affect all branches similarly unless
there was something in the transaction types, names or other attributes
that it was processing.
No, I would not think that. But even if you did, it would hardly seem surprising if it turned out that different post offices had different transaction type ratios.
I’m not suggesting at all that they are guilty, but having designed and
built complex computer systems, the manifestation of this seems
extraordinary.
You've built such systems and you still think as above? The mind boggles. It's the exact opposite opinion that I would expect from anyone with extensive programming experience.
One of the faults, for example, was that when the sub-postmaster scanned
in bags of cash received from HQ, if they clicked 'back' to double-check
the figures then the system would silently record that twice as much had
been received (or three times, if they clicked 'back' again, etc). So a
more cautious or less computer-confident sub-postmaster who was more
likely to double-check things was more likely to be a victim of the bug.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 03:27:49 |
| Calls: | 9,821 |
| Calls today: | 9 |
| Files: | 13,757 |
| Messages: | 6,190,389 |