Lucy Letby, Britain’s most prolific child serial killer, given whole-life order (life without parole)

[Kyuuji]

Is it?

I believe these propositions very strongly, with certainty very close to 1:

A: The UK MSM has systematically, maliciously lied about trans people for many years
B: The UK political class is in bed with the media, spreading malicious lies about trans people
C: The malicious lies have directly caused public opinion to swing against trans rights

Now let's look at these propositions:

A': The UK MSM has systematically, maliciously lied about Lucy Letby for many years
B'. The UK political class is in bed with the media, spreading malicious lies about Lucy Letby
C': The malicious lies have directly caused public opinion to swing against Lucy Letby

Do you believe P(A), P(B) and P(C) have no bearing on P(A'), P(B') and P(C')? If not maliciously lying, at least spreading sensational falsehoods to scapegoat an innocent person?

Click to shrink...

The UK media have vilified trans women as threats to cis women and increasingly now young children, typically through the concern and uplift of cis women's voices in matters relating to trans people, so choosing to invoke the way the British media has treated us as some specific parallel to Lucy Letby and a string of child murders is just weird to me.

Your points are effectively: the media lies, the political class has ties to the media, the media influences public opinion. None of these are revelatory or, to me, signal any real parallel between the media's treatment of trans people and the way they treat Lucy Letby beyond that of any other news story by virtue of being published by a large British media outlet.

 

[BreakAtmo]

The UK media have vilified trans women as threats to cis women and increasingly now young children, typically through the concern and uplift of cis women's voices in matters relating to trans people, so choosing to invoke the way the British media has treated us as some specific parallel to Lucy Letby and a string of child murders is just weird to me.

Your points are effectively: the media lies, the political class has ties to the media, the media influences public opinion. None of these are revelatory or, to me, signal any real parallel between the media's treatment of trans people and the way they treat Lucy Letby beyond that of any other news story by virtue of being published by a large British media outlet.

Click to shrink...

I suppose the argument is that the Tories are the ones actually at fault due to their constant underfunding of the NHS, so the right-wing media that's in league with them would want to push the narrative that it was actually just this one evil baby-killer?

 

[thethickofit]

The UK media have vilified trans women as threats to cis women and increasingly now young children, typically through the concern and uplift of cis women's voices in matters relating to trans people, so choosing to invoke the way the British media has treated us as some specific parallel to Lucy Letby and a string of child murders is just weird to me.

Your points are effectively: the media lies, the political class has ties to the media, the media influences public opinion. None of these are revelatory or, to me, signal any real parallel between the media's treatment of trans people and the way they treat Lucy Letby beyond that of any other news story by virtue of being published by a large British media outlet.

Click to shrink...

(I'm transfeminine and TMA.)

Yes, the UK MSM's systematic campaign of malice against trans people, and trans women specifically, calls generally all British MSM reporting into question. Especially when it comes to sensational stories like Letby's. Not drawing that line is falling victim to Gell-Mann amnesia.

edit: By the way, this is what I believe about large chunks of the US media as well. Obviously Fox News and the right-wing ecosystem, but NYT has routinely spread falsehoods about us as well (not as bad as say the Guardian/Observer, but still quite bad). That's caused me to moderately discount anything the NYT says that isn't reported elsewhere.

WaPo has generally been better, and some of the local papers are pretty good.

 

[thethickofit]

I suppose the argument is that the Tories are the ones actually at fault due to their constant underfunding of the NHS, so the right-wing media that's in league with them would want to push the narrative that it was actually just this one evil baby-killer?

Click to shrink...

Yes, the alternative theory has large-scale systemic implications for the NHS. It is so incredibly convenient that they found one person to blame. This happens all the time without the active malice that characterizes British media, people get canned for "performance issues" even though 90% of the time there's a systemic issue not an individual one.

 

[VegiHam]

Yes, the alternative theory has large-scale systemic implications for the NHS. It is so incredibly convenient that they found one person to blame. This happens all the time without the active malice that characterizes British media, people get canned for "performance issues" even though 90% of the time there's a systemic issue not an individual one.

Click to shrink...

But everyone in the country agrees that the NHS is doing shit and has loads of problems?

Fair play, the BBC and newspapers are transphobic, but I really don't see the link from British media transphobia to all British court verdicts must be wrong and also must be part of covering up for the NHS' failings (which again, over here we're all talking about the NHS' problems all the time).

 

[BreakAtmo]

But everyone in the country agrees that the NHS is doing shit and has loads of problems?

Fair play, the BBC and newspapers are transphobic, but I really don't see the link from British media transphobia to all British court verdicts must be wrong and also must be part of covering up for the NHS' failings (which again, over here we're all talking about the NHS' problems all the time).

Click to shrink...

To be fair, there is a difference between people thinking the NHS is doing shit and people realising that the NHS is being deliberately starved of resources by the Tories.

 

[Kyuuji]

(I'm transfeminine and TMA.)

Yes, the UK MSM's systematic campaign of malice against trans people, and trans women specifically, calls generally all British MSM reporting into question. Especially when it comes to sensational stories like Letby's. Not drawing that line is falling victim to Gell-Mann amnesia.

edit: By the way, this is what I believe about large chunks of the US media as well. Obviously Fox News and the right-wing ecosystem, but NYT has routinely spread falsehoods about us as well (not as bad as say the Guardian/Observer, but still quite bad). That's caused me to moderately discount anything the NYT says that isn't reported elsewhere.

WaPo has generally been better, and some of the local papers are pretty good.

Click to shrink...

None of that really changes anything I said, I still find it a bizarre connection to draw. The treatment of trans people by the British media really has no significant parallel to the treatment of a cis, white woman who (allegedly, for your benefit) murdered seven infants beyond the broad skepticism of mainstream media you have.

 

[thethickofit]

By the way, it's not just me. Here's a statistician at UCL calling bullshit on the statistics: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00258024241242549

Specifically, regarding Bayesian reasoning:

At its most elementary level Bayesian thinking would want us to explicitly account for the plausibility of different potential causes.10 This is rarely done, and to the writer's knowledge, there are no established examples in the legal field.

Click to shrink...

This is exactly what I've been saying. Bayes forces you to consider the relative likelihood of alternative theories, and then operate on that information semi-rigorously. This is rarely done. That's because it is counterintuitive. Juries, as a rule, do not have the training required to correctly evaluate the strength of evidence. They often still get it right anyway in the end, but get it wrong a bunch too.

If you asked the median juror — or even the 75th percentile juror — if a test for an illness came back positive and has a 5% false positive rate, what is the likelihood that they have the illness? They're going to say 95%. They would simply be wrong, though. The only correct answers are "insufficient info" or, better, "how common is the disease?"

Base rates being low is a major risk factor for a jury to get it wrong.

edit: 75th percentile is a massive low-ball. In this article just 10 years ago, only 25% of doctors got it right. For the general population I doubt it's going to be more than 10%, basically only trained professionals, who are going to get this right.

This means that juries are basically never going to be able to correctly evaluate evidence.

this brings me nothing but despair.

Doctors flunk quiz on screening-test math

Many doctors, and the news media, don’t understand that because of the statistics of screening tests, a test with 90 percent accuracy can give a wrong diagnosis more than 90 percent of the time.

www.sciencenews.org

 

[thethickofit]

None of that really changes anything I said, I still find it a bizarre connection to draw. The treatment of trans people by the British media really has no significant parallel to the treatment of a cis, white woman who (allegedly, for your benefit) murdered seven infants beyond the broad skepticism of mainstream media you have.

Click to shrink...

This really is just Gell-Mann amnesia. You know the newspapers are lying about and sensationalizing a thing you know about, then turn the page and suddenly believe they're telling the truth and not sensationalizing this other thing.

 

[Kyuuji]

This really is just Gell-Mann amnesia. You know the newspapers are lying about and sensationalizing a thing you know about, then turn the page and suddenly believe they're telling the truth and not sensationalizing this other thing.

Click to shrink...

It really isn't, but ok.

 

[Embiid]

By the way, it's not just me. Here's a statistician at UCL calling bullshit on the statistics: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00258024241242549

Specifically, regarding Bayesian reasoning:



This is exactly what I've been saying. Bayes forces you to consider the relative likelihood of alternative theories, and then operate on that information semi-rigorously. This is rarely done. That's because it is counterintuitive. Juries, as a rule, do not have the training required to correctly evaluate the strength of evidence. They often still get it right anyway in the end, but get it wrong a bunch too.

If you asked the median juror — or even the 75th percentile juror — if a test for an illness came back positive and has a 5% false positive rate, what is the likelihood that they have the illness? They're going to say 95%. They would simply be wrong, though. The only correct answers are "insufficient info" or, better, "how common is the disease?"

Base rates being low is a major risk factor for a jury to get it wrong.

edit: 75th percentile is a massive low-ball. In this article just 10 years ago, only 25% of doctors got it right. For the general population I doubt it's going to be more than 10%, basically only trained professionals, who are going to get this right.

This means that juries are basically never going to be able to correctly evaluate evidence.

this brings me nothing but despair.

Doctors flunk quiz on screening-test math

Many doctors, and the news media, don’t understand that because of the statistics of screening tests, a test with 90 percent accuracy can give a wrong diagnosis more than 90 percent of the time.

www.sciencenews.org

Click to shrink...

I'm curious, you got any kind of rebuttal to Droopy's post a few pages back? He earlier mentioned evidence in the article was already discredited during the trial, then a couple people asked what exactly was discredited. Droopy replied with the following, which is pretty damning and was also completely ignored in the thread:

There were many other incidents whilst she was the only nurse on duty, not just the 16 she was charged with. The next closest nurse had 8 incidents. If there was serious mismanagement of the department you would see a closer correlation between the nurses, but the vast majority happened when it was only Lucy on duty.

She also wasn't just convicted on the probability or statistics. There was plenty of other evidence in the case.

One of the mothers of one of the babies found Lucy standing over it with blood around its mouth with her saying it was normal and was from the feeding tube, the baby died the next day.

She was found by a doctor standing over a baby that was deteriorating and close to death without raising an alarm or doing anything to help the baby. There was no issues with the baby before Lucy started her shift.

The article fails to point out that the ward she was on was a level 2 ward, which is not the most serious, level 3 is the most serious. The vast majority of babies in a level 2 ward are expected to live and to have so many deaths and almost deaths in such a small amount of time is not normal. All of the deaths happened on her shift and none on any other nurses. It is not normal for a baby to die in a level 2 ward. Babies with the most serious conditions are in level 3 wards. There are many wards in the UK that are severely understaffed with untrained doctors and nurses, yet there hasn't been any other incidents like this with so many collapses and deaths. Also all the deaths were ruled out for natural causes, if you look at deaths on the ward previously before Lucy letby worked there and other wards around the uk, the vast majority have a clear medical reason as to why the baby died. This was not the case on all of the deaths that happened when Lucy was on shift.

Two babies that were triplets and had healthy outlooks suddenly died within consecutive days of each other, again Lucy was the only one on shift. Both of these were injected with insulin. Lucy even admitted on stand that the evidence shows this but she couldn't explain who would have done it when she was the only one on shift at the time. She also wasn't supposed to be on shift at that time but had specifically asked to be so she could look after the triplets.

When she was moved from night shift to day shift, the incidents stopped happening at night and started to happen during the day, during her shifts.

She falsified the time of collapse on the medical records to make it look like she wasn't on shift when they collapsed.

She kept medical records of the dead babies under her bed and claimed it was because she had no way to dispose of them confidentially, yet a shredder was found in her house and they should have never left the hospital anyway.

She constantly contradicted herself in interviews and refused to explain a lot of the evidence against her.

The fact is that the article picks and chooses the evidence to argue against, with most being around statistics and probability. But she wasn't convicted on this alone, there was a lot of other evidence in the case the article fails to mention.

Click to shrink...

 

[Corncob]

This really is just Gell-Mann amnesia. You know the newspapers are lying about and sensationalizing a thing you know about, then turn the page and suddenly believe they're telling the truth and not sensationalizing this other thing.

Click to shrink...

This logic doesn't hold up to any scrutiny though. You're suggesting that because British newspapers push an anti-trans agenda (which is clearly true), they are also pushing a pro-NHS agenda to protect the institution at the expense of an innocent nurse. But the current powers that be that have been spreading transphobia have also been trying to discredit and destabilise the NHS for years. If anything, newspapers pushing the agenda of the powerful would want to put the deaths down to the incompetence of the NHS to further that agenda.

This really has nothing to do with trans issues, but I get that this particular issue is personal to you and Britain is transphobic as fuck, so I understand why it sows seeds of doubt in your mind about the British justice system and media in general. But it has no bearing on this case and you're not being objective. You're misusing concepts and stastical analyses that don't apply and you're discrediting evidence because of subjective reasons personal to you.

Britain is transphobic, the justice system is flawed, the media often misreport, Lucy Letby almost certainly murdered those babies and the evidence is compelling. All these things are true.

 

[LastCaress]

If you asked the median juror — or even the 75th percentile juror — if a test for an illness came back positive and has a 5% false positive rate, what is the likelihood that they have the illness? They're going to say 95%. They would simply be wrong, though. The only correct answers are "insufficient info" or, better, "how common is the disease?"

Base rates being low is a major risk factor for a jury to get it wrong.

edit: 75th percentile is a massive low-ball. In this article just 10 years ago, only 25% of doctors got it right. For the general population I doubt it's going to be more than 10%, basically only trained professionals, who are going to get this right.

Click to shrink...

This makes little sense. Yes we know about sensitivity and specificity and how the predictive value of a test is dependent on the prevalence of a disease. But you can't just randomly apply that to a murder trial.

It's like saying that a jury is almost always wrong in convicting someone, as the actual prevalence of murderers in the general population is quite low, so even a jury with high sensitivity and high specificity will be wrong in most convictions. But they're just not picking random dudes off the street to pin the murders on.


EDIT : Here, I'll do the math for you.

For the US, there are about 20000 murders per year. Let's pick 20 years and say that there are 400,000 murderers in the US.
If we pick a really nice jury that has a specificity and sensibility of 90% , that means that the positive predictive value is about 1.049%. This means that there is roughly a 1.049% chance that a convicted murderer is actually guilty.

This is obviously bullshit math.

 

[thethickofit]

I'm curious, you got any kind of rebuttal to Droopy's post a few pages back? He earlier mentioned evidence in the article was already discredited during the trial, then a couple people asked what exactly was discredited. Droopy replied with the following, which is pretty damning and was also completely ignored in the thread:

Click to shrink...

Longer response later, but a short one for now:

There were many other incidents whilst she was the only nurse on duty, not just the 16 she was charged with. The next closest nurse had 8 incidents. If there was serious mismanagement of the department you would see a closer correlation between the nurses, but the vast majority happened when it was only Lucy on duty.

Click to shrink...

Among other things, this does not account for the fact that Letby took extra hours. The paper I linked shows that it is quite explainable through bad luck alone, not even accounting for systemic negligence.

She also wasn't just convicted on the probability or statistics. There was plenty of other evidence in the case.

Click to shrink...

My contention is that the evidence was not evaluated via the correct statistical method, and alternative explanations were not given nearly enough weight. I've written a longer explanation of why I believe that above.

One of the mothers of one of the babies found Lucy standing over it with blood around its mouth with her saying it was normal and was from the feeding tube, the baby died the next day.

Click to shrink...

This is Child E? The doctors successfully persuaded the mom to not do a post-mortem (suspicious!) But if the mom believed at the time that there was something fishy, why did she agree to not doing the post mortem? The alternative explanation was that the mom reinterpreted what she saw after the cops started asking questions. Eyewitness testimony that long after the fact is not particularly reliable — memories get contaminated with questioning. (Another thing that juries get wrong!)

She was found by a doctor standing over a baby that was deteriorating and close to death without raising an alarm or doing anything to help the baby. There was no issues with the baby before Lucy started her shift.

Click to shrink...

Child K? Strength can't be decided without considering the base rate. It's the doctor Jayaram's word against hers. In the alternative explanation, Jayaram would be motivated to see things that way, not even accounting for the possibility that he is just lying.

The article fails to point out that the ward she was on was a level 2 ward, which is not the most serious, level 3 is the most serious. The vast majority of babies in a level 2 ward are expected to live and to have so many deaths and almost deaths in such a small amount of time is not normal.

Click to shrink...

Explainable through a combination of bad luck and systemic issues (e.g. hygiene issues, breakdown of incident management system).

All of the deaths happened on her shift and none on any other nurses. It is not normal for a baby to die in a level 2 ward.

Click to shrink...

Explainable through bad luck and systemic issues.

Babies with the most serious conditions are in level 3 wards. There are many wards in the UK that are severely understaffed with untrained doctors and nurses, yet there hasn't been any other incidents like this with so many collapses and deaths. Also all the deaths were ruled out for natural causes,

Click to shrink...

Explainable through bad luck and systemic issues.

if you look at deaths on the ward previously before Lucy letby worked there and other wards around the uk, the vast majority have a clear medical reason as to why the baby died. This was not the case on all of the deaths that happened when Lucy was on shift.

Click to shrink...

All of this is explainable through bad luck and systemic issues.

Two babies that were triplets and had healthy outlooks suddenly died within consecutive days of each other, again Lucy was the only one on shift. Both of these were injected with insulin.

Click to shrink...

And one baby at the hospital that Letby had nothing to do with died that way as well. The alternative explanation is systemic issues causing, say, the babies to get incorrect medications.

Lucy even admitted on stand that the evidence shows this but she couldn't explain who would have done it when she was the only one on shift at the time. She also wasn't supposed to be on shift at that time but had specifically asked to be so she could look after the triplets.

Click to shrink...

The alternative explanation is a conscientious nurse feeling like she needed to take on extra load. I too have been the consciousness person feeling like I needed to take on extra load.

When she was moved from night shift to day shift, the incidents stopped happening at night and started to happen during the day, during her shifts.

Click to shrink...

Yeah and after she was sacked they went up even more:

x.com

x.com

She falsified the time of collapse on the medical records to make it look like she wasn't on shift when they collapsed.

Click to shrink...

What is the base rate of this?

She kept medical records of the dead babies under her bed and claimed it was because she had no way to dispose of them confidentially, yet a shredder was found in her house and they should have never left the hospital anyway.

Click to shrink...

What is the base rate of this?

She constantly contradicted herself in interviews and refused to explain a lot of the evidence against her.

Click to shrink...

What is the base rate of this?

---

And on top of that, there is:

No known motive
No non-circumstantial evidence
Nothing that conclusively eliminates the alternative hypothesis
A media that is objectively known to lie and sensationalize
A public that is not trained to evaluate evidence correctly

 

[gerg]

No known motive
No non-circumstantial evidence
Nothing that conclusively eliminates the alternative hypothesis
A media that is objectively known to lie and sensationalize
A public that is not trained to evaluate evidence correctly

Click to shrink...

Just chiming in here to say that under English law it is not the prosecution's obligation to establish a motive, and nor is it the defence's obligation to exclude one.

 

[thethickofit]

This makes little sense. Yes we know about sensitivity and specificity and how the predictive value of a test is dependent on the prevalence of a disease. But you can't just randomly apply that to a murder trial.

Click to shrink...

You can, and you should, apply Bayesian reasoning to a murder trial, and also to every area of your life. It is far from some kind of silver bullet, but considering the differential from alternative explanations is a lot better than not doing so.

It's like saying that a jury is almost always wrong in convicting someone, as the actual prevalence of murderers in the general population is quite low, so even a jury with high sensitivity and high specificity will be wrong in most convictions. But they're just not picking random dudes off the street to pin the murders on.

Click to shrink...

I've demonstrated earlier in the thread that conclusive evidence can very rapidly update one's priors. Yes, convicting people purely on circumstantial evidence is a mistake most of the time, because it is hard for circumstantial evidence to overcome base rate and alternative explanation issues. And juries do not have the training required to correctly evaluate evidence against base rate issues. On top of that, it is not a common practice in law per the paper I cited.

 

[thethickofit]

Just chiming in here to say that under English law it is not the prosecution's obligation to establish a motive, and nor is it the defence's obligation to exclude one.

Click to shrink...

Yes but that doesn't change the fact that there's no known motive.

 

[thethickofit]

This logic doesn't hold up to any scrutiny though. You're suggesting that because British newspapers push an anti-trans agenda (which is clearly true), they are also pushing a pro-NHS agenda to protect the institution at the expense of an innocent nurse. But the current powers that be that have been spreading transphobia have also been trying to discredit and destabilise the NHS for years. If anything, newspapers pushing the agenda of the powerful would want to put the deaths down to the incompetence of the NHS to further that agenda.

Click to shrink...

Well, Letby's defense (edit: which I believe was not competent) pushed a pro-NHS agenda.

This really has nothing to do with trans issues, but I get that this particular issue is personal to you and Britain is transphobic as fuck, so I understand why it sows seeds of doubt in your mind about the British justice system and media in general. But it has no bearing on this case and you're not being objective. You're misusing concepts and stastical analyses that don't apply and you're discrediting evidence because of subjective reasons personal to you.

Click to shrink...

To be clear, Bayesian reasoning is not just some random thing you learn in statistics class. It is a fundamental property of something even deeper than the universe. It is core to the very nature of knowledge and belief.

Bayesian reasoning always applies, at all times, in all spaces, in all universes. The speed of light may be different in another universe but Bayes stays the same. A different species might experience time differently but Bayes stays the same.

The fact that priors are difficult to come up with makes it hard to apply in many cases, but that doesn't take away from its fundamental truth.

Britain is transphobic, the justice system is flawed, the media often misreport, Lucy Letby almost certainly murdered those babies and the evidence is compelling. All these things are true.

Click to shrink...

I just don't agree.

 

[Deaf Spacker]

There really is a defence force for everything, including a baby killer.

 

[Doskoi Panda]

One person isn't a defense force
What is it about Era that the defense force meme must be invoked in every thread

 

[SchrodingersDog]

What is the base rate of this?

Click to shrink...

So first of all, I strongly disagree with you but applaud you questioning this anyway. A functioning justice system needs people to be critical of decisions, and (also) support the defense of those accused - even/especially when nobody else is willing to take their side.

Having said that, I don't subscribe to bayesian reasoning here either.

For one, you've said it yourself already: What is the base rate? Nobody knows. You won't have scientific studies establishing some broader population average on the things she has done.

Second, what should your base rate even be? The rate of people accidentally destroying evidence across all of the population everywhere? Or among women in her age bracket in her local geographic area with comparable social connections and.. Etc?

Third, it doesn't sound like even ignoring all that, you'd account for covariance. Maybe it's not impossible someone might destroy evidence. Or be in the room with dying babies disproportionally often. Or write "i did it" notes. And so on. But what's the probability of some unknown joint distribution that a person just somehow hits ALL of those tail events?

Fourth and maybe most importantly, a purely statistical view is one heck of a dangerous slippery slope. Crime statistics by ethnicity are a popular taking point of the far right. Would you be more leaning towards her guilt if she was a person of color, male, and in poor socialeconomic standing? And since I'm sure you don't, what would make you weight statistical factors like those differently?

 

[The Citizen Kane of Games]

Fourth and maybe most importantly, a purely statistical view is one heck of a dangerous slippery slope.

Click to shrink...

This whole case started with a statistical view, namely a chart of nurses and crosses with which had the most deaths next to them. And they worked from there.

She works at a neonatal care ward, where yes, baby death happens. How often do they happen? Could a spike in baby deaths happen naturally or is there a serial killer nurse at work? The causes of death were random, there was no clear modus operandi.

Another nurse called Lucia de Berk was jailed for 6 years based on the same type of statistical analyst on a spike of deaths. That in the end were all deemed natural deaths.

So yes, the statistical view doesn't feel strong enough. What are we left with? The psyche of a nurse who was furloughed after having a string of baby deaths under her care. She wrote a strange note? In hindsight did her behavior seem erratic? I have no doubt the prosecution and the media could construct a compelling argument from it. They did the same for Lucia de Berk.

Bizarely the Lucia de Berk case also hinged on circumstantial evidence like her diary:

De Berk's diary also played a role in her conviction. On the day of death of one of her patients (an elderly lady in a terminal stage of cancer) she wrote that she had 'given in to her compulsion.' She wrote on other occasions that she had a 'very great secret,' and wrote that she was concerned about 'her tendency to give in to her compulsion.' De Berk stated that this referred to her passion for reading tarot cards, whereas the court decided it was evidence that she had euthanized the patients. De Berk explains that she did this in secret, because she did not believe it appropriate to the clinical setting of a hospital. According to the court the reading of cards does not accord with a compulsion nor with perhaps an expression of fatigue as she described it at the time. The daughter of de Berk, Fabiënne, explained in an interview on the television program Pauw & Witteman that some of her mother's notes in the diaries are 'pure fiction', which she wanted to use for a thriller.​

 

[Jeff Albertson]

I think challenging is one thing but The depths at which people will go to back up their own narrative is absurd.

Literally someone in here is that utterly convinced that they are right and the jury is wrong and it's now down to the world to prove it. It's really not, as it stands it's done, it was down to her legal team to provide enough rationale to revisit which they have seemingly failed to do.

I don't know what happened, but I know that the jury was presented with the evidence for the prosecution and the defence and it amounted to more than a true crime like article and some maths on the back of a beermat!

 

[The Citizen Kane of Games]

I think challenging is one thing but The depths at which people will go to back up their own narrative is absurd.

Literally someone in here is that utterly convinced that they are right and the jury is wrong and it's now down to the world to prove it. It's really not, as it stands it's done, it was down to her legal team to provide enough rationale to revisit which they have seemingly failed to do.

I don't know what happened, but I know that the jury was presented with the evidence for the prosecution and the defence and it amounted to more than a true crime like article and some maths on the back of a beermat!

Click to shrink...

How do you adequately defend against bad luck?

2 out of the 12 jurors couldn't even be convinced, it wasn't unanimous.