New Yorker magazine alert thread

look I’m a physician, not a lawyer, I’m no legal expert. I know bad medical reasoning when I see it and the medical/statistical evidence in this case is (tragically) laughable. I don’t expect anyone here to be able to grasp that.

I’m mostly poking fun at the (from an american POV) biographical evidence against her that some are defending. and wondering whether that speaks to a pathological addiction to tabloid news and fealty to institutions that is characteristically british

there's some later replies that I'm still working out my response to - ufo's "guilty til proven innocent" take on my perspective doesn't seem entirely unfair to me - but I'm going to immediately push back on the idea that misogyny is at the heart of this, when narrative reported here was of predominantly male senior managers protecting her from police investigations in the first instance, trying to deal with it internally instead

also, nearly all of my understanding of this has come from the BBC, the Guardian and the independent, and the newspapers in the local area. No news source is perfect but they're not exactly the same as The Sun and Daily Star. Their coverage has mostly* eschewed the Letby personal gossip, with the story being one of how an institution was so weak and underfunded and poorly managed that this happened - not, as is suggested, that the institution itself was infallible

i don't have an issue with raising the possibility that the article was cherry-picking things but k3vin is absolutely right about that quoted section of boxedboy's post being 'not serious' and felicity's post seemed pretty tangential to that.

i don't think there is much of an issue with the article leaving out things that it did though - it raises serious questions about the medical evidence that backs up the idea that crimes actually occurred, which is the core of the case and without that everything else isn't evidence of anything much at all. the only thing i can think of that may have been worth addressing is the claim she was seen attacking a baby - that was at least a claim of something more substantial than all the circumstantial evidence that doesn't actually do anything to demonstrate any crimes occurred and can be interpreted however one likes.

Beyond that I am amazed at the certainty many of you have of her innocence.

Can't speak for anyone else but I'm not certain about anything. Based on the New Yorker story it sounds like the actual evidence for a crime even having been committed seems a bit thin — and the evidence that this one particular nurse is a serial baby-killer seems even thinner. That doesn't mean she didn't do it, just that I have a hard time seeing a burden of proof having been met.

My gut feeling remains that she probably did it but that doesn't change the fact that all the evidence is circumstantial and now it seems also pretty problematic. I'm guessing the conviction will eventually be overturned, many years down the track.

The New Yorker piece, standing alone, appears to be an extremely damning expose for the prosecution and defense. I defer to k3vin k's impressions as a medical practitioner, a field in which I have no expertise.

From a US legal perspective, it's difficult to wrap my head around the idea that the defense did not call its medical expert, or that the defendant might not get even a first appeal as of right. But mine is a US perspective, and to me why the perspectives of those in the UK who have followed the case over a sustained period of time and are bringing up other facts that were not addressed in the New Yorker article are of interest as well.

I've read that it's very hard to get UK medical experts to testify in these kinds of cases, following a case where an expert witness got struck off for giving misleading evidence. So sometimes defence teams fly in an expert from the US, but obviously you need money to do that

USA: kinda weird you can’t read this article
U.K.: But she did it
USA: no I don’t care about this case I just mean it’s weird you can’t read this article, censorship etc
U.k.: amazed you consider her innocent!

In the US, some of the best experts do not want to offer their expertise at trial because the entire job of the opposing counsel is to tear down the basis of the expert's credibility and for some it is simply not worth the profession hit to their reputation. It's a massive flaw in the adversarial system.

xp why not conflate the posts of as many as ten different people into one, that’ll help

i haven't seen a satisfactory explanation from anyone as to why the defence didn't call the medical witness they did have ready, that's one of the most baffling aspects of the whole case.

USA: kinda weird you can’t read this article
U.K.: But she did it
USA: no I don’t care about this case I just mean it’s weird you can’t read this article, censorship etc
U.k.: amazed you consider her innocent!

― brimstead, Monday, 20 May 2024 9:24 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

lol otm

"i don't think there is much of an issue with the article leaving out things that it did though"

Americans are crying about a miscarriage of justice when they would've executed her by now.

But at least we would've been able to read a moving, highly literary account about this.

Tangentially related: Amanda Knox recently wrote this article about a convicted murderer she campaigned on behalf of, who she now believes is guilty

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/jens-soring-amanda-knox-case-wright-report/678255/

xpost RIP Casey Anthony

I just read that telegraph article from about 100 posts ago and it is a truly *fascinating* document lol

xp - always a lucky one

the new yorker is crazy obsessed with england lately … there was that article about the tories, then the baby article, now one about the british museum…

i just think it's nice the new yorker is bringing us and uk ilxors together in a good old fashioned clusterfuck, it's been too long!

We've had an American talking to Brits about class. That's got to be a first in these clusterfucks!

now one about the british museum…

Knew without looking that this had to be by Rebecca Mead. (She lives in London and frequently writes about British cultural stuff.)

We've had an American talking to Brits about class. That's got to be a first in these clusterfucks!

― xyzzzz__, Tuesday, May 21, 2024 12:37 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

if this is about me, I was “taking the piss” with that post

Thought that was the nurse's job.

"taking the piss" vs "calculating a p-value"

Rebecca Mead wrote that awful piece about how she hates it when her children read children's books, and that's always coloured my perception of her as a bit of a [raspberry noise] even though lots of her work is just fine

I think that's that.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/may/24/lucy-letby-loses-attempt-to-appeal-against-baby-convictions

So, are we allowed to read the article now?

Minus side: this is a miscarriage of juatice!

Plus side: flopson has even less of a point now

The appeal was based on a point of law - something to do with the judge's indtructions to the jury iirc - rather than the evidence. There's still a retrial pending. I would imagine that once the retrial is complete there will be reporting restrictions lifted which will explain more. But this alone isn't the "see America you were wrong" I've already seen it portrayed in some corners as.

She's still going on trial for another murder. I'm wondering if the defence can now bring up some of the problematic stuff mentioned in the NYer article

Plus side: flopson has even less of a point now

― xyzzzz__, Friday, May 24, 2024 6:39 AM (fifty-seven minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

in what sense?

It was a joke on "are we allowed to read the article?" Flopson's trolly point that UK ppl found the blocking to be 'good' was a nuisance given that the wall was easy enough to bypass, for one.

according to a friend living in china it's pretty easy to by-pass the censors there, too

I think that's that.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/may/24/lucy-letby-loses-attempt-to-appeal-against-baby-convictions

― xyzzzz__, Friday, May 24, 2024 6:30 AM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

So, are we allowed to read the article now?

― This is Dance Anthems, have some respect (Camaraderie at Arms Length), Friday, May 24, 2024 6:36 AM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

nope:

Reporting of the appeal is limited as restrictions are in place.

Letby was given 14 whole-life sentences for her crimes and is due to face a retrial on one count of attempted murder at Manchester crown court next month.

another slam dunk for the contempt of court law's reporting restrictions :)

according to a friend living in china it's pretty easy to by-pass the censors there, too

― flopson, Saturday, 25 May 2024 bookmarkflaglink

Not even President Xi can mess with archive ph

"https://archive.ph is 100% blocked in China"

https://en.greatfire.org/https/archive.ph

my friend uses a vpn. according to him the censors can still see what you're doing on your vpn, but they turn a blind eye if it's banal enough. i asked because i noticed that he was still posting on instagram and twitter after moving to shanghai

Good article on the DSM as arbiter of personal identity in a recent issue.