Conspiracy theory, conspiracy theorists

The following text was sent to me by one of my many correspondents, wondering what to do with it, and not daring to publicise his or her ideas. I said that I could post it, so that he or she could remain anonymous. I’m not saying that the opinions here are my own opinions. One can certainly call them speculations. There is so much we don’t know, and so much that does not seem to make sense, that I think they are not idle speculations; but still, speculations they are. I will add to this post some further comments of my own, concerning the general social phenomenon that people with strange and unwelcome ideas are put away as nutty crackpots; then, if several others appear to have the same nutty crackpot idea, then they are obviously evil conspirators. The history of science is a history of crackpots: Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, Einstein. At least, they were thought to be crackpots and they were first ignored and later fought by the establishment, the latter happening when a few people started to endorse their ideas. That’s when they became really dangerous.

From here on and till further notice, the words of my anonymous correspondent.

I’ve made several posts recently arguing that Lucy Letby didn’t get a fair trial. Some people have responded by calling me, and other with similar opinions, conspiracy theorists which led me to ask myself whether there was any conspiracy involved in the whole Lucy Letby story. What I have written here is an actual CONSPIRACY THEORY and is not based on any relevant specialist knowledge and is highly speculative so you can disregard it if you like. However, if you’re looking for a ‘possible’ explanation for the very odd police investigation, the hopelessly weak evidence used against her, the bizarre nature of the trial and the other strange observables in this case, it might be worth reading on. This is not necessarily my opinion, but my attempt to make sense of an incomprehensible conviction. It is also largely motivated by ensuring Letby is granted an appeal and a fair retrial.

If this case wasn’t political from the beginning, it certainly is now. I don’t think it was ever about justice, it was always a face-saving exercise, initiated by another failing, underfunded hospital, who knew there was doctor/consultant negligence involved in most of the unexpected deaths and events on the ward, many of which happened when Lucy wasn’t on shift. Babies dying as a result of negligence or understaffing is a bomb waiting to go off, which would have decimated the already dwindling public confidence in our NHS. That would be very damaging for the politicians who rely on public support to stay in power. Because the NHS is funded by the government and ultimately of course, the electorate.

The government, which means the electorate, fund the police too, through grants to each local force. In the last few years, the reputation of the police and public sentiment towards them has justifiably fallen dramatically and must be close to an all-time low. Is it possible that the government and senior officers were desperate to restore some faith in the police force? Cracking the ‘crime’ of the century would go down well with the public! We’ve seen how political and senior police heads roll when they screw up. This investigation was very high profile, very emotive, very long and expensive and, with their reputation in the gutter, it was important for the police to come out triumphant.

The police were called in to investigate unexplained deaths on the ward and to assess if a crime had taken place. EVERYONE who worked on that ward during that period begins the police investigation as a potential suspect. But the police began their investigation, of a potentially unfathomably serious crime scene, by strolling in and meeting with senior doctors and consultants for a briefing. They then proceeded to investigate as instructed by the doctors and consultants. Those doctors and consultants were SUSPECTS! These are the same doctors and consultants who made the accusations. Since when, in any potential murder enquiry, has the person/persons reporting the crime been discounted as a suspect before the police even reach the crime scene? Their potential negligence or the possibility that they may have been the murderer was never investigated. 

And it would look terrible for the NHS if all those doctors/consultants in just one department of just one hospital were found to be negligent by the police and their neonatal ‘expert’ (with no neonatal experience). Oh the damage that would do to the NHS, and of course the government, who pay those negligent consultants’ generous wages, but underfund the hospital so badly. It’s SO much less damaging to their reputations to pin everything on one lone murderer. It certainly takes public attention away from the failures of the more powerful parties, if the public have a single villain to target with their fury and hatred. Not to mention the money it’d probably save the NHS/government in medical negligence compensation lawsuits.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Criminal Justice system (CJS) are also funded by the government. Following a hugely expensive investigation by the CPS and a trial costing the electorate £Millions, can you imagine the implications for our national institutions, if she’s granted an appeal and exonerated? For starters: 1. The CJS isn’t fit for purpose. 2. The CPS isn’t fit for purpose. 3. The police force isn’t fit for purpose. 4. The NHS isn’t fit for purpose and 5. The sheepish police and CPS have to begin a new, highly expensive investigation that might lead to more highly expensive criminal proceedings against negligent doctors. Far cheaper and less damaging to leave one woman sat in a cell for the rest of her life. Plus it pleases the electorate, many of whom think she should be tortured and executed ASAP. All those votes gone if she’s even granted an appeal! Countless more millions votes gone when those services are found to have failed and she’s exonerated!

And then there’s the shame they’d all face when they have to get on their knees and give Letby a grovelling apology and pay her very substantial damages. In summary, her acquittal would be a very bad day for a lot of very powerful people and institutions. It would shatter the electability of the government who have overseen all those institutions for the last 13 years. 

A plausible alternative is that it was no one’s fault, not even the government. Perhaps just a statistical spike that anyone with a basic understanding would realise is not as unusual as it was painted by the prosecution. In fact, a leading independent statistician says a full analysis, including dozens of relevant factors (rather than just an amateur’s edit of a rota) shows that if there was a ‘murderer’ on the ward, an “unnamed nurse” and a doctor, were both more likely culprits than Letby. 

Very weirdly, Ben Myers KC, for Letby, agreed with the prosecution to exclude from the trial, statistical evidence that more or less proved her innocence, because it was confusing? It need be no more confusing than the information in this paragraph. It simply needs an independent expert to do the analysis and present the conclusions to the Jury. Why did you agree to exclude it Mr Myers? And why did you agree not to contest an absurd insulin reading, that forced Letby to say, the insulin must have been administered maliciously when there are multiple other explanations for the reading? I also understand Mr Myers had two paediatric medical experts of his own who reviewed Dr Evans’ reports and listened to his testimony. I understand they were in the courthouse waiting to testify in Lucy’s defence, waiting to challenge Dr. Evans’ testimony. Waiting and waiting in a nearby room, but never called to testify by Mr Myers. Why? And where is Mr. Myers now? There are multiple questions hanging over his defence of Letby, but he remains silent. There’s no reason for his silence…..or is there? Myers needs to explain how and WHY he failed to successfully defend her.

She was locked up for 3 years, put through a 10 month trial, found guilty and handed down the harshest sentence possible – after the Judge let jurors leave for ‘personal reasons’ and accepted majority verdicts. The CJS has a huge incentive to prevent a retrial and her possible exoneration after the way the case has been handled. 

So in summary it was in everyone’s interest that she was found guilty, except hers, and it’s in everyone’s interest that she doesn’t get an appeal, except hers.

And now it is me, Richard Gill, speaking again.

But of course, it seems to many that I also believe in idiotic conspiracy theories, and worse still, am influential enough to spread them around, like a virus. Who would believe that a British court could ever wrongly convict an innocent person! I have been labelled a crackpot and a conspirator and much worse, ending up with a recent ban on editing Wikipedia, where I had been urging editors to take account of the fact that being convicted of a crime is not synonymous with having committed a crime; and that Lucy was appealing against her conviction. Seems that Wikipedia editors in the UK do not realise that in most of the civilised world everyone has a right to an appeal, and that moreover, till the appeal is over, people are not comfortable with stating that their guilt is a fact.

Not only all that, but the Wikipedia article about myself was being vandalised by vile idiots. Fortunately some sensible people noticed this and managed on the whole to rapidly revert the vandalism. But now that I’ve been banned the Wikipedia article about me is being filled up with the most idiotic garbage.

Anyway, that’s enough for this moment, but this post will get extended soon, I am sure.

9 thoughts on “Conspiracy theory, conspiracy theorists”

  1. This is not a conspiracy theory but using correct jargon a proven conspiracy when adding the expert opnion on the theory by experts who have studied the case. Asyou have done. Alas ‘theory’ is ill defined in science. There is no list of say a thousand elementary terms, definitions, and descriptions for use in schools, courts of law, and elementary science. Not having that is one of the root cuases and also thus solutions in this Letby case. It’s on my blog as you know Richard.

    1. Gerhard, please check your spelling. Yes I know you think you have the solution but I do not agree with your “definitions”. I think your project is doomed to failure. Bertrand Russell’s Principia was a similar attempt, though more modest, and with a big difference: he was a genius. Wittgenstein started with the same aim but ended up saying that it was better to be silent.

      My correspondent’s theory is not proven either. There is plenty of support for it but there is also critical missing data. The theory needs to be tested by getting that data. It might refute the theory.
      Jesus was smart enough to say that you only needed two rules. Kant found that just one was enough.

    2. Because I don’t see how i can correct my spelling I’ll repost a corrected version:

      This is not a conspiracy theory. Using the correct jargon it’s a proven conspiracy when adding the expert opinion on the theory by experts who have studied the case. As you have done. Alas, ‘theory’ is ill-defined in science. There is no list of say a thousand elementary terms, definitions, and descriptions for use in schools, courts of law, and elementary science. Not having that is one of the root causes and also thus solutions in this Letby case. It’s on my blog as you know Richard.

  2. “Gerhard, please check your spelling.”
    I’ve done that. Although it’s the fallacy of nitpicking, it’s your blog. And, I see that a new type error has occurred for which I’m truly sorry.

    [five off-topic pages deleted by RDG]

    1. I deleted most of this contribution, it was too long and off topic. Moreover, nitpicking is not a fallacy. Nitpicking is the word which careless people use to justify their carelessness. If you have something serious and important to say you must say it with great care and attention to detail. Moreover you must say it as concisely as possible.

      @Gerhard, if you want to write a whole essay about the case, do it on your own blog, and write a brief comment here, with a link.

      1. I have empathy with the scepticism of the main article but with the experience of several years of major change in public service I have first hand knowledge of the effects that are felt by staff. Where once people were cooperative and intent on delivering good service I noticed a gradual shift to an attitude of every man/woman looking out for number one and “minding one’s own back
        CoCh ( and I daresay other hospitals) was under pressure . Possibly there were few places to which they could transfer very vulnerable children and- my guess – they tried to cope in house when budgets were reducing over a number of years..
        Plumbing/sewage problems led to complaints and may have caused infection There were other complaints made by a conscientious nurse which might have had an unfavourable reception and it is reported that there was a toxic atmosphere in the NICU.
        Tensions probabl;y grew in these circumstances and the “watch out for number1 ” syndrome became established. Statistics were inadequately collated and a nurse was suspected of criminal action against frail babies. CoCH apparently had no immediate intention of alerting the police but someone” jumped the gun” and subsequently an arrest was made followed by a flawed trial and a heinous sentence.
        I see the progress of events as the result of a cauldron of toxic relationships, toxic waste coupled with a fear amongst the staff of being blamed for some or all of the problems in the NICU. Appropriate action at a suitable point might well have averted the consequences.
        The whole situation is now a mess. I hope that in June 2024 ( if not before) a different verdict will be reached regarding the events at CoCH and the release of a dedicated nurse.



  3. I have reached the conclusion that any conspiracy theory was superfluous. Accidents connected to all aspects of the environment were waiting to happen . And it is weeks since I looked into requirements etc., of Expert Witnesses (EW’s). However I discovered that they are in short supply although one presented for the prosecution ( I understand that the EW., for the defence did not feel competent to deal with the particular issues of the case). The trial proceeded; the prosecution’s EW., evidence was heard- despite an intervention from the Defence Team – and the defendant was jailed for life.

    Much now will depend on the situation approximately 7 months forward ( another trial and a possible Grant of Appeal). Meanwhile, , relevant , current scientific research has been produced . I believe that there was no neonatal EW., assisting the 2022/3 trial and that (a) the research used (some/all) was 15 years old; (b) the EW., was not active in the specialty. There was another possible problem of independence. When there is so much at stake for grieving parents, the future of health services and the accused person it does seem to be a necessity to ensure that all evidence offered to the court ( including the jury) meets the best possible standards. It must be less than desirable to use expert witness contributions that are neither expert nor up to date etc., None of us would dine out where the food was past its best and where it would also not be acceptable to the professionals in the Hygiene Inspectorate.

  4. My dentist has displayed a warning notice in the surgery’s waiting room regarding” Sepsis” symptoms in adults and also the very young. I found the source
    I recalled that during the years (approx.,) 2000-2005 there was much concern in hospitals etc.,. about the incidence of MRSA which has close links with SEPSIS. One of my relatives was frequently admitted to hospital at the time and was regularly tested for MRSA. There was particular concern arising from its resistance to antibiotics.
    These linked infections have been with us for some time.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: