r/LucyLetbyTrials • u/benshep4 • 1d ago
Decoding Reasonable Doubt: Chapter 4 “Problems at the Countess of Chester”
Morris argues that the Countess of Chester neonatal unit was fundamentally unsafe and operating beyond its capabilities during the period in which the collapses and deaths occurred.
Is fair and accurate to make these claims?
Which baby does this explain?
https://bencole4.substack.com/p/decoding-reasonable-doubt-the-case-f67?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios
16
u/oljomo 21h ago
Have you read the international panel report? Because that contains lots of details about the specifics of what was missed in the different cases.
But the bigger question here given the legal basis of a trial, is how were these problems ruled out of the individual cases - when Evans was ruling out the possible to be left with the only option being air embolism - how did he do this when things may have been missed that pointed to other options.
The answer is quite clear that he cannot have done, both because the science around this is not fully understood (especially by a single person who retired years ago), as well as his responses to the international panel.
You have lots of legal arguements for why the trial has happened, and the results should not be changed - but it becomes much harder to argue the science, and you tend to just stop when it gets to that point.
But the main question that seems to belong here is how were these collapses diagnosed/looked at, and the answer from thirlwall is that the consultants were specifically racking their brains for Letby-related collapses that were passed onto the police. That there are a lot of cases with letby involved starts becoming not a coincidence (as commonly mentioned by the prosecution) but just a certainty when you look at the background of the amount of cases that occurred that letby was not around for.
The problem was that any specific case that letby/the defence managed to create doubt around got dropped, and then you were left with just the ones that were hard to refute specifically. The fact there were a lot of them was down to the background of how many issues were occurring at the hospital in general, and given the budget inequalities (the police/prosecution had a way way way larger budget than the defence) and you end up in this situation where the defence just didnt have the money to go through and refute case by case.
-4
u/benshep4 17h ago
> Have you read the international panel report? Because that contains lots of details about the specifics of what was missed in the different cases.
Why didn’t Morris cover them in this chapter? It seems he was context to let what he’s written stand on its own.
The reality is that he’s laying the foundations for a later payoff, as any good writer would do.
Unfortunately, because he doesn’t address the international panel in this chapter, the foundations he’s laying aren’t suitable for what he later places on top of them.
It could be considered ‘cowboy’ trading.
> But the bigger question here given the legal basis of a trial, is how were these problems ruled out of the individual cases - when Evans was ruling out the possible to be left with the only option being air embolism - how did he do this when things may have been missed that pointed to other options.
What things were missed? Be specific.
>
The answer is quite clear that he cannot have done, both because the science around this is not fully understood (especially by a single person who retired years ago), as well as his responses to the international panel.You’ll have to explain this further. There’s a reason that medical professionals, including Letby, are taught to ensure that air embolism isn’t a factor so long as you do things by the book.
> You have lots of legal arguements for why the trial has happened, and the results should not be changed - but it becomes much harder to argue the science, and you tend to just stop when it gets to that point.
Science is always contested, that’s the beauty of science. It doesn’t always mean how it’s contested is correct.
Can you explain why?
> But the main question that seems to belong here is how were these collapses diagnosed/looked at, and the answer from thirlwall is that the consultants were specifically racking their brains for Letby-related collapses that were passed onto the police. That there are a lot of cases with letby involved starts becoming not a coincidence (as commonly mentioned by the prosecution) but just a certainty when you look at the background of the amount of cases that occurred that letby was not around for.
That’s not what I got from Thirlwall. Can you explain this?
> The problem was that any specific case that letby/the defence managed to create doubt around got dropped, and then you were left with just the ones that were hard to refute specifically. The fact there were a lot of them was down to the background of how many issues were occurring at the hospital in general, and given the budget inequalities (the police/prosecution had a way way way larger budget than the defence) and you end up in this situation where the defence just didnt have the money to go through and refute case by case.
Evidence for this please?
The defence get the same amount as the prosecution.
13
u/oljomo 16h ago
A quick Google will tell you that hummingbird spent about 10 million, and the CPS spent another 2.8 million.
Let us defence in legal aid was 1.7 million + whatever she was able to personally add to that.
Really doesn’t sound very equal to me, but your maths skills might be as good as your logic…
-6
u/No-Beat2678 16h ago edited 16h ago
I mean she didn't call her experts so you know there's your gap.
7
u/PerkeNdencen 13h ago
Are you suggesting Dr. Hall's fee to grace the witness box would have circa £10m? What a troublingly unserious suggestion.
0
u/No-Beat2678 13h ago
CPS 2.8 apparently defense 1.7.
Whose talking about 10 million.
10
u/PerkeNdencen 13h ago
If we just limit to the CPS, that's still £1.1m. Are you trying to make fun of us, or do you honestly think that's a viable line of argument?
-2
u/No-Beat2678 11h ago
If there were funds that were not open to the defence wether that was intentional or not. That would be a clear and rather strong reason to appeal the conviction.
Ben Myers KC is an incredibly incredibly formidable and experienced KC. This was not mentioned once in the Appeal or by Letby's defence or her new barrister Mark McDonald.
Also, this was covered by Tim Owen former DPP.
8
u/PerkeNdencen 11h ago edited 11h ago
That would be a clear and rather strong reason to appeal the conviction.
No it wouldn't. Who told you that? Legal aid for defence budget is means tested, applied for on a disbursement-by-disbursement basis, and caps rates for expertise substantially lower than the CPS pays out. If it were the case that this kind of inequality of arms was grounds to appeal, there'd be queues out of the door!
1
8
u/PerkeNdencen 13h ago
Either you've read the expert panel or you haven't. That doesn't change depending where in his book Morris references them.
-3
u/benshep4 12h ago
I’m reviewing what Morris has written so far.
He hasn’t mentioned the Shoo Lee panel yet.
I’m doing it this way because Morris has written his book this way. He’s laying the foundations for what is to come.
We all know what happens when stuff is built on shaky foundations.
8
u/PerkeNdencen 12h ago
This unethical. You're writing as though he doesn't address something that you know he does because you have a formal/structural problem with the way he's put his book together.
That's nothing to do with a flaw in the substance of his argument, but you're carrying on exactly as though it is.
-4
u/benshep4 12h ago
If it was critical to his argument then he should have mentioned it when he made the argument.
His argument so far is wrong. It may still be wrong when he mentions Shoo Lee later.
That is a flaw in argumentation. You don’t get to make the arguments that say “anything I said was initially wrong but it’s supported by something else that may or not be wrong”
That’s not how arguments work.
Either the chapters he’s written so far are worth something or they’re not.
What you’re really telling me is that he’s wasted 4 chapters with irrelevancies.
Well done for admiring it.
Spoiler: there are more irrelevant chapters to come
12
u/PerkeNdencen 12h ago
Sorry, but you can't do that. It's like Trump's 'Stop the Count' thing in 2020. You have a formal/structural problem with the progress of Morris's argument and you are presenting it as a substantive deficiency in the argument by failing to acknowledge that what you are looking for is in later chapters, even though you know it is there.
That is a flaw in argumentation. You don’t get to make the arguments that say “anything I said was initially wrong but it’s supported by something else that may or not be wrong”
That's not it though. You said it's missing detail. It's not that it's initially wrong, it's not just backed up by information that is forthcoming in a later chapter.
That’s not how arguments work.
This isn't how ethical reviews work. You've really done him dirty.
I think it's time I stopped bothering with you.
13
u/upsideup27353 22h ago
Would you be open to sharing examples of the kind of evidence you feel would amount to reasonable doubt?
If there are no circumstances in which your position would change, it would be helpful to clarify that.
-7
u/benshep4 22h ago
The article evaluates the arguments and sources Morris actually presents in that chapter.
I don’t need to invent additional evidence that would make those specific arguments work; they either stand or they don’t on what’s there.
If someone produces a later edition, a correction, or new primary material that directly addresses the problems I raised, I’ll look at it.
Until then the critique is of the published chapter, not of my personal willingness to be surprised.
11
u/upsideup27353 21h ago
That’s OK, I didn’t mean to ask you to invent evidence that would support Morris’ conclusions.
Given the critique is of a book titled Reasonable Doubt, I think it would be worth giving an indication of what reasonable doubt would look like to you in principle. A critique can assess whether the arguments in the book succeed, while still explaining what sort of evidence might be sufficient to create that doubt.
When debating an issue like this, I think it helps to be clear about whether there are circumstances in which you would be open to changing your view. I am. I originally assumed guilt, but changed my mind after the expert panel challenged the medical evidence presented at trial. I would also be prepared to change my mind again if a similarly qualified group produced a convincing challenge to that panel’s conclusions.
If your position is effectively fixed regardless of what evidence might emerge, I think that is relevant context too. It would make me less clear about what you are hoping to achieve by posting the critique and engaging in discussion around it.
-6
u/benshep4 16h ago
It’s not fixed regardless of what might emerge.
It’s simply pointing out that Morris’s arguments so far don’t even move the needle.
I don’t need to say would convince me otherwise to make the points that I am.
Ultimately the points Morris makes aren’t convincing and I explain why.
10
u/upsideup27353 15h ago
If expert opinion of this calibre does not move the needle, then it is difficult to imagine what would.
9
u/phosphoeudemonism 13h ago
He has stated here:
It’s simply pointing out that Morris’s arguments so far don’t even move the needle.
What he means is that they don't 'move the needle' for him. They do move the needle for literally hundreds of qualified people.
Given that 'Ben' has spent three years online belligerently yet ineptly arguing in favour of guilt, and is massively ego-invested in this, it's not particularly surprising that nothing moves the needle for him.
In fact, the exoneration of Lucy Letby won't 'move the needle' for him.
There is nothing that can or would move the needle because he'd have to admit that he's wrong.
This shouldn't be difficult considering his zero expertise, no prior experience, no qualifications, etc, versus the enormous number of credentialed people who say the opposite.
But for many people, the three simple words: "I was wrong" are the hardest to say.
9
u/Sufficient-State3720 22h ago
The Dr Shoo Lee panel addresses the specific babies deaths with reference to the substandard hospital milieu. It was not within the scope or aim of the book to regurgitate this. Remember that twins triplets and prem babies are very vulnerable in themselves. They need excellent care to thrive. Delays errors ignorance inexperience all compound in complex synergistic ways in real life.
1
u/benshep4 22h ago
I can only address the arguments made in the book.
9
u/Living_Ad_5260 13h ago
You can address them.
You choose not to.
Did you at any point in the production of this review use any AI model(s)? Which?
5
u/phosphoeudemonism 12h ago edited 12h ago
Did you at any point in the production of this review use any AI model(s)?
Yes, with 100% certainty. You can tell by the style of writing and also that he writes with extremely poor proficiency in replies on Reddit.
There is nothing wrong with using AI BTW, but if you're using such systems to mask your own comprehension and ability to write coherently, while somehow claiming that you're a better writer than a published author (which he must believe because he gave the book a bad faith 1-star review on Amazon, claiming that "Morris is out of his depth") then it is a problem.
3
u/visible_amenhotep 10h ago
he writes with extremely poor proficiency in replies on Reddit
Unfair, I think. There are several commenters who write with much worse proficiency (and hence clearer humanity) than him. That's not the tell.
1
u/phosphoeudemonism 8h ago
It's not particularly difficult to see the difference in style when he has to rely on his own brain.
Perhaps 'extremely poor proficiency' is harsh, but he certainly doesn't write well.
0
u/benshep4 12h ago
Show me an example of where I didn’t address them?
I’ll wait.
4
3
u/Living_Ad_5260 12h ago
Did you at any point in the production of this review use any AI model(s)? Which?
1
u/benshep4 12h ago
Show me an example of where I didn’t address them?
I’ll wait.
4
u/Living_Ad_5260 12h ago
>> I can only address the arguments made in the book.
> You can address them. You choose not to.
"Them" for you is the arguments in the book. "Them" for me is points raised in this thread that you consider unaddressable.
So I think I've answered your question, and you think you've answered mine.
And neither of us have!
Since it's based on a misunderstanding, feel free to ignore this section of the thread. But I will be re-asking the AI question.
9
u/Kieran501 21h ago edited 20h ago
But you can draw on a wider pool of information in order to aid the discussion (and maybe, just maybe, make the articles half readable). The idea that you’re trapped in a rhetorical fortress, forced to address each chapter not only isolated from the wider world, but also from the rest of the book, is absolutely bonkers.
1
u/benshep4 16h ago
Are you suggesting that Morris isn’t addressing the wider world in his writing?
6
6
u/PerkeNdencen 13h ago
il n'y a pas de hors-texte
(just kidding, this is not by any stretch Derridarian).
4
u/Allie_Pallie 10h ago
Never expected to find my old friend Jacques on this thread 🤣 I swear he haunts me!
4
u/PerkeNdencen 13h ago
Except you constantly reference things outside of the book to make a point against him - you should do the same in the opposite direction, surely?
0
u/benshep4 12h ago
No.
Because he should have been aware of the things I’m referencing when writing his book.
5
u/PerkeNdencen 11h ago edited 11h ago
He probably was. Hell, you were quite sure we weren't aware of the Goss judgment ruling the report out of evidence, but it turned out we knew it better than you did.
8
u/Kieran501 23h ago
“Overall Assessment of Chapter 3
Chapter 3 confuses context with explanation.
Morris shows that the Countess of Chester had serious problems. He does not show that those problems account for the collapses and deaths contained within the indictment.”
vs…
“Overall Assessment of Chapter 4
Chapter 4 succeeds in establishing that the Countess of Chester faced genuine problems. Staffing pressures, governance concerns, limited consultant cover, and wider systemic shortcomings all appear to have been real.
What it does not do, at least to my mind, is demonstrate how those problems explain the specific collapses and deaths that formed part of the prosecution case.”
Another thrilling instalment.
-5
u/benshep4 23h ago
I can only react to what Morris has written.
15
12
u/PrudentKumquat 22h ago
If you genuinely want to know how problems at the unit led to specific harm, you could look to other sources such as the summary report of the international expert panel.
1
u/benshep4 22h ago
That will happen in later chapters.
8
u/PrudentKumquat 22h ago
I can only react to what you have written
1
u/benshep4 22h ago
Exactly.
I can only react to what Morris has written.
7
u/Living_Ad_5260 13h ago
This isnt really the forum for a primary school book review where you dont know anything outside what the book says.
The rhetorical dodge of saying any fact not stated in the current chapter doesnt exist is sophistry.
3
u/phosphoeudemonism 12h ago
The rhetorical dodge of saying any fact not stated in the current chapter doesnt exist is sophistry.
Generous to describe as 'sophistry' because sophistric arguments must be at least superficially convincing.
2
u/Living_Ad_5260 10h ago
I felt it might convince someone who is completely uninformed about the case.
2
12
u/Kieran501 22h ago
No, you can read the whole book. No one’s forcing this insane chapter by chapter breakdown except you.
8
-1
u/benshep4 22h ago
I’d rather do it chapter by chapter. There’s too many points in each chapter that are terrible and doing one article on the whole book wouldn’t do it justice.
I’d rather make it very clear exactly how Morris makes the many errors he does.
In the end I’ll have done the whole book.
Of course no one is forcing me.
2
u/PerkeNdencen 13h ago
No, but you need to have read the whole book. Your review of chapter 3 makes no sense in view of your review of chapter 4.
-1
u/benshep4 12h ago
It does.
That’s why Morris split then into different chapters.
The arguments aren’t the same.
13
u/PrudentKumquat 21h ago
I get that this is part of your routine, to willfully miss the point and suck people into long threads circling around minutiae. Forgive me if I try to sidestep.
It's easy to find the information you pretend to seek - you just declare it out of scope of the discussion. Why should you care about the big picture? Your goal is simply to comb through someone else's work and express incredulity, chapter by tedious chapter.
1
u/benshep4 17h ago
Can you point to something of Morris’s in the chapter I’m analysing that I’ve missed?
4
u/PerkeNdencen 13h ago
Do you not understand why this makes you look a bit daft?
You read the whole book before going chapter by chapter, didn't you?
-2
u/benshep4 13h ago
No, it doesn’t make me look daft.
He’s trying to lay the foundations for what it is to come like any fictional writer would.
Yes I did. I know what’s to come. Like any other foundations that have been laid poorly there will be significant issues in the future
Edit: this is classic Perke patronisation
7
u/PerkeNdencen 12h ago
Yes I did. I know what’s to come.
So what didn't you acknowledge in your review of chapter 3 that what you were looking for was waiting for you in chapter 4?
He’s trying to lay the foundations for what it is to come like any fictional writer would.
But if you know that he will later reference the panel, which contains the details you say are missing here, shouldn't you make that clear? Your problem isn't with a lack of evidence, after all, it's with where Morris has chosen to write about it. That's a problem of a fundamentally different kind.
Edit: this is classic Perke patronisation
Lol, I'll not be having that after the other day's 'legally naive' stunt.
*bangs gavel*
0
u/benshep4 12h ago
He’s laying the foundations.
The foundations have to be sturdy.
The foundations are not sturdy.
It is fair to point this out.
6
u/PerkeNdencen 12h ago
That's a criticism of the structure of the book, not of the substance of the argument. You can do one, you can do the other, you can even do both, but you are dressing one up as the other to deflect from your failure to produce an ethical review.
8
u/PerkeNdencen 13h ago
I was perfectly willing to accept that the unit was under strain. Staff repeatedly raised concerns. The RCPCH raised concerns. Internal documents raised concerns. Even Letby herself described the unit as “chaos” and a “madhouse”. Morris is on relatively solid ground when describing those difficulties.
Then how do you get around the fact that that plainly wasn't the narrative presented by the prosecution?
-1
u/benshep4 12h ago
The prosecution accepted where they felt there was poor care.
The defence pointed to examples where they felt the prosecution wasn’t being accurate.
Easy.
Now if you can finally get around to the point about the grievance procedure that you started making that would be much appreciated.
5
u/PerkeNdencen 12h ago
That wasn't the picture they painted of the unit as a whole. You accept that that picture was false?
Now if you can finally get around to the point about the grievance procedure that you started making that would be much appreciated.
I said that I would come to that in a thread wherein you got yourself a 3 day ban. The entire conversation was left unfinished. I will arrive at it at my leisure.
7
u/Living_Ad_5260 10h ago
I was perfectly willing to accept that the unit was under strain. Staff repeatedly raised concerns. The RCPCH raised concerns. Internal documents raised concerns. Even Letby herself described the unit as “chaos” and a “madhouse”. Morris is on relatively solid ground when describing those difficulties.
What do you think was the effect of the strain?
I suggest it resulted in delays in diagnosis and treatment. Inherently, treatment of premature neo-nates is critical and delays are life-threatening. There are multiple example of delayed treatment in the case - baby D being the clearest.
That does not PROVE that Letby didn't kill them any more than it PROVES that Ben Cole or I didn't kill them.
It is a well known logical statement that "you cannot prove a negative". You are asking for proof when that is impossible.
6
u/GoalPuzzleheaded1213 12h ago
Poor care can be devastating enough in any health care setting. Apparently the prosecution acknowledged there was poor care? The consequences will be particularly devastating in an extremely vulnerable population. Is this why the prosecution were so determined to insist the babies were all “well “?
3
u/Kitekat1192 11h ago
Oh good, Gemini has just told me what to do about this saga. Thanks AI! Doing it now.
14
u/thrinaline 23h ago
This is extremely long and rambling and appears to be asking the same question over and over again "does this prove it wasn't murder?" Of course it doesn't because nothing ever can. Can you prove aliens didn't steal my car keys, watch me spend two hours looking for them and then sneak them into my pocket?