Andrew Wheeler

Committed Christian and truth seeker; Lucy Letby is innocent

[Andrew Wheeler @AndrewWheeler_1]

Difficult to argue with this. Especially once we add that the international panel insisted they were going to publish regardless of which side their findings favoured

#lucyletby

[The Jالی Contrarian @ContrarianJolly]

This is great. For laypeople such as me, there are three sets of opinions about the Letby collapses:

“On the spot” doctors: the registrars, doctors and pathologists at CoCH who were there when the collapses happened and reacted to them first-hand. (Not called as witnesses for the prosecution, for some reason!)

The Crown Experts: the expert witnesses engaged by the CPS to prosecute Ms. Letby: Drs. Evans, Bohin, Marnerides etc.

International Panel: The experts engaged post trial by the defence for the CCRC application, who contributed their expertise pro-bono.

What @rob_goudie has done here is to compare the diagnoses of these three sets of experts.
In a nutshell, the “On the spot” doctors and the International Panel largely agree (there is about 80% “concordance” between them). The Crown Experts markedly differ from either (there is about 30% “concordance”).

So, which of these groups is most likely to get it right:

“On the spot” doctors:
- Expertise: good: clearly relevant (if not necessarily world-leading) expertise
- Access to information: Of all groups, by far the best opportunity to inspect the infants, the conditions, and make a detailed examination. They were there. Oddly they were NOT called by the prosecution.
- Financial incentives: Acted in ignorance of potential criminal charges. No possible incentive to make any particular finding supporting prosecution or defence.
- Risk of confirmation bias: low: no suggestion of charges at the time of diagnosis.

The Crown Experts:
- Expertise: Surprisingly limited: Main witness Dr. Evans was a long-retired paediatrician with no material neonatology endocrinology or vascular experience.
- Access to information: Limited. Entirely dependent on the medical reports, opinions and x-rays (which they largely rejected!) from the on-the-spot doctors who were not called at trial.
- Financial incentives: Paid by the prosecution, so under a clear conflict of interest, with direct financial incentive in supporting the prosecution case.
- Risk of confirmation bias: brought in with the view to mounting a prosecution, so naturally high.

Defence International panel:
- Expertise: Excellent: arguably world-leading experience of neonatology, radiology, air embolus etc,
- Access to information: As for Crown Experts, dependent on the medical reports, opinions and x-rays from the on-the-spot doctors. No direct examination opportunity
- Financial incentive. Acting pro-bono, so no financial incentive as such. However working for the defence, so advocating in some sense.
- Risk of confirmation bias: Since they were engaged in knowledge of the trial, some risk of confirmation bias, terms of engagement intended specifically to rule it out.

Now if you had to chose which was most prone to cognitive bias here, who would you choose?

[Guy Rowland @guyrowlanduk]

Chester hospital found natural explanations for 10 of the 17 babies’ collapses which would end up on the Lucy Letby indictment.

The police TRASHED all but one.

Post trial, an international panel of experts would later broadly AGREE with the hospital in all but one. 🧵(1/7)

[Andrew Wheeler @AndrewWheeler_1]

@BreakellWe60182 @ContrarianJolly @Bungles71 @winterman1975 Thanks, I appreciate that. I apologise too for suggesting English isn't your first language. I only meant it as an observation, not an accusation, but I no longer think it's true anyway.

[Andrew Wheeler @AndrewWheeler_1]

@BreakellWe60182 @ContrarianJolly @Bungles71 @winterman1975 Go for it, Wendy. If I'm a hypocrite, call it out. Only, you have to demonstrate it, not just allege it. As far as I can see, you haven't.

And Snowden?? 🤣 Why are you dragging him into it now? Reply to me? I never said anything to him that I recall.

Are you using AI, btw?

[Andrew Wheeler @AndrewWheeler_1]

@BreakellWe60182 @ContrarianJolly @Bungles71 @winterman1975 ..insight, few commentators agree.

[Andrew Wheeler @AndrewWheeler_1]

@BreakellWe60182 @ContrarianJolly @Bungles71 @winterman1975 Hang on. 'I only ever reply with what was testified to in court..COA..parents', you say. And then proceed to a lengthy outbreak of religious insults, which definitely don't feature in any of the above sources, not to mention they have zero relevance.

As for Thirlwall adding..

[Andrew Wheeler @AndrewWheeler_1]

@BreakellWe60182 @ContrarianJolly @Bungles71 @winterman1975 You misunderstand me. I have no problem with your first language not being English. I was merely suggesting that you might be based in a different country. I don't know that. But I do know that, when you reply with unfounded allegations, you're missing the point.

[Andrew Wheeler @AndrewWheeler_1]

@ContrarianJolly @BreakellWe60182 @Bungles71 @winterman1975 I'm not sure what Wendy's first language is, but when you read a thread of her posts together like that, it doesn't sound to me like it's English.

[Andrew Wheeler @AndrewWheeler_1]

Building on @guyrowlanduk's excellent work, a little more on those @Thirlwall_Inq statements and how much is being kept hidden (with AI help).

By page count, *at least* 14% of the total statement content is unreleased.

Why?

#lucyletby

[Guy Rowland @guyrowlanduk]

The partially published statements are particularly revealing - in what they don't reveal.

Across the 27 partially published statements, only 92 unique pages have been published.

Only 2 of over 121 pages from Ravi Jayaram - neither of which made it into the final report. (3/7)

[Peter Hitchens @ClarkeMicah]

.@debbiekennett. It remains quite astounding that this was 'redacted' just as it is appalling that the report of Ms Letby's vindication over the insinuations made against her never reached the trial jury.

[Andrew Wheeler @AndrewWheeler_1]

I've said this all along

[The Jالی Contrarian @ContrarianJolly]

That good faith experts cannot agree does not damage a defendant’s case. Domain experts disagreeing in good faith about fundamental aspects of a prosecution case is surely the very definition of “reasonable doubt”.

[Matthew Scott @Barristerblog]

Very good @MattFoot2 article on the Court of Appeal's grudging reluctance to rectify miscarriages of justice. Malkinson, Plummer, Sullivan ..... Will Letby be added to that list? https://t.co/ify9Qax4eg

[GT maximo @GrahamTanner121]

@CPMorris1234 ...but let's go looking for serial killers says Thirlwall..

[Andrew Wheeler @AndrewWheeler_1]

peace with them. If the law allows it, I might disagree with that, but I have to live with it. And all said and done, it is only once a year.'

What's missing in Drumcree? Real Christianity.
5/5

[Andrew Wheeler @AndrewWheeler_1]

Let no one be under any illusion that what we saw at Drumcree over the weekend is Christianity.

Neither side behaved like Christians.

I base that on the New Testament, which says: 'If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone' (Romans 12:18).
1/

[Andrew Wheeler @AndrewWheeler_1]

Or take the residents and their encouragers. Suppose they submitted to this text. Mightn't they say, 'You know what? It says "everyone". That includes Protestant unionists. Once a year, a body of them want to march down our street. I don't like it, but God says I'm to live at
4/

[Carl @GuerrillaCarl]

The headline's about Lucy Letby. The point is everyone else.

Thirlwall was set up around one indictment. The only families it was asked to look at were the ones whose babies were named in it.

So when the report says staffing and conditions didn't explain the deaths, it can only say that about the babies inside its scope.

The families I stand with whose babies were on that unit have been outside every process there's been. The police investigation. The inquiry. The national maternity investigation, which left the Countess off its list entirely.

They're still waiting for someone to look.

My piece in the Telegraph today, alongside Sarah Knapton's report.

https://t.co/bbfh9dNshq

[Debbie Kennett 🧬🌳 @DebbieKennett]

Geoffrey Robertson KC: "The open justice principle is fundamental to all trials... The decision to anonymise some of the witnesses in the Lucy Letby case was wrong, especially the ­professional witnesses who had a duty to explain themselves publicly." https://t.co/HJRTjpo5Nn